Re: [Marxism] The absence of real forces [was: The low point]

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sayan writes:

> On 8/4/07, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> At the risk of beating this issue to death, the primary agents of change
>> are
>> almost never found at the lowest level of society - in this case,
>> households
>> where the worker(s) earn an average $16,800.
>
> By "primary agents of change", what kind of change are you referring to?

Social and political change - any shift in property and power relations.
What all of us understand by "change". Obviously, the most profound change
is that which replaces the existing property system with a new one, but
there have been many important reform struggles within the framework of
capitalism.


[MG]>> The wild applause of
>> conservatives like David Brooks and Ron Haskins at the modest increase in
>> the average wage at the poverty level - bought, incidentally, at the
>> expense
>> of Clinton's welfare cuts - only draws attention to how obscenely
>> inadequate
>> it is for a family with children. For the life of me, I can't understand
>> why
>> Sayan persists in joining the celebration.
>
[SB]> I didn't "join in the celebration" -- did I?  I merely provided the
> article, without any editoralising about it. There was a discussion
> happening between Bustelo on one side, and others on another side.
> Joaquin Bustelo was arguing that low-income American workers don't
> become a class-for-themselves because they have a good reason not to:
> their standard of living is, in fact, increasing. Mark Lause, I think,
> contested that...If the data is correct, then it seems to give credence to
> Joaquin's theory.

[MG] No it would not, if that is indeed what Joaquin is arguing - even if
the data you cite is correct. It shows only that the average pay of the
bottom fifth of US households has seen an increase, while standards have
stagnated or declined for the great majority of other US workers. The wage
figures also understate the degree of stagnation or decline in their total
compensation package, including benefits, since soaring health care premiums
paid by employers to insurers are considered part of it.

In any case, it really needs to be said that there is no mathematical
economic formula we can use to gauge the political mood or political
potential of any working class. If the "standard of living is, in fact,
increasing" that does not mean as you (and Bustelo?) suggest that American
workers won't "become a class-for-themselves because they have a good reason
not to". If you look at the Great Depression, the last great upsurge in US
labour history, you'll find the opposite occured; US workers became more
militant and organized as their conditions improved, not in its depths, when
they were disintegrating. It usually takes some shock to economic security
for people to see the necessity for change, and there is simply no way of
predicting whether or when this will happen or how the action for change
will unfold. The fact that today's workers have higher-paying job than their
parents and SUV's and homes in the suburbs is relevant only insofar as we
consider what is likely to happen if they begin to lose them.

[MG]>> Focusing on the ostensible progress of the poorest Americans is
clearly
>> designed to draw attention away from the deteriorating conditions of the
>> mass of the US working class.
>
[SB]> But socialist revolutions are usually made (according to classical
> Marxism, anyway) by the  proletarian workers, not by the relatively
> more well-off workers. No? Relatively more well-off workers are going
> to be less likely to do anything that upsets the status quo, than
> proletarian workers.

[MG] The economies of the major capitalist countries have changed
considerably since the classical Marxists analyzed them. They are now
primarily service rather than industrial economies, and the goods-producing
proletariat and its unions are much diminished in size and importance.

If you do not accept that the bulk of the working class now comprises
white-collar clerical, technical, administrative, and professional
employees - and that these are potentially as capable as previous
generations of workers of acting in accordance with necessity in defence of
their interests in a crisis - then you would have every reason to be
pessimistic about the prospects for social change in advanced capitalist
society.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism