Re: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo (Joaquin Bustelo)

["Matthew Russo" <russo.matthew9@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Joaquin,

Because ideological posturing is more important than comprehending facts,
you've blinded yourself to the simple distinction between the social reality
of mass home ownership, including worker home ownership, and whether or not
it is a winning business proposition in all times and places.  In the latter
case it certainly is not in the majority of cases, just as is the case with
any small business proposition under capitalism.  Hence your several
paragraphs of explanation concerning this case are entirely wasted, as this
is not the case being made, neither by Anthony nor in Dueling Powers and
Capitalist Property.

You've also confused the fact that this must be a (petty) form of capitalist
property like everything else under capitalism, including by the way
capitalist state property, with the fact of the overall social
determinations of the owner of that property, whose concrete social
character is the product of a multiplicity of determinations in which one of
them, if they are a wage worker, is dominant.

But here is a little fact to chew on, in a survey presented by the U.S.
Census Bureau as of 2005:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs05/tab3-15.pdf

Go to page 22.  This counts only owner-occupied housing, so it fits exactly
the case under consideration here.  See how out of 74,931 surveyed units,
24,776 own free and clear, without any mortgage or lien whatsoever.  That is
over 30% of owner-occupied housing, people (of unknown class composition)
who live rent free, paying only taxes, insurance and maintenance.  The
percentage is slightly higher in the South and in rural areas, but is not
substantially lower even in the "inner cities".

Now maybe these are evil government lies, but I doubt it.  There ARE
politically manipulated stats, but these are high profile: the CPI, the GDP,
and the unemployment rate.  I do recall Marx was big on the productions of
the British government in his time though.

But the basic questions here are:

1) Is there a labor aristocracy of privileged workers in the imperialist
countries?

2) If so, what is their TOTAL relationship to the capitalist class?

Yes, it is precisely the point here that capital is a social relation, and
for precisely that reason the wage worker who is privileged to own
capitalist property no matter how petty (successfully of course), stands in
more that purely a wage earning, unpaid surplus value providing relation to
the capitalist class.

-Matt
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu