In the Jan. issue of MR, Bryan Palmer, in an article about Harry Braverman's political development, quotes from "Labor and Monopoly Capital" as follows:
"The apparent acclimitization of the worker to the new modes of production grows out of the destruction of all other ways of living, the striking of wage bargains that permit a certain enlargement of the customary bounds of subsistence for the working class, the weaving of the net of modern capitalist life that finally makes all other modes of living impossible. But beneath this apparent habituation, the hostility of workers to the degenerated forms of work which are forced upon them continues as a subterranean stream that makes its way to the surface when employment conditions permit, or when the capitalist drive for a greater intensity of labor oversteps the bounds of physical and mental capacity. It renews itself in new generations, expresses itself in the unbounded cynicism and revulsion which large numbers of workers feel about their work, and comes to the fore repeatedly as a social issue demanding attention."
Palmer then says, "This is, to be sure, an old set of ideas, a constellation of Marxist thought that some have, in the unparalleled confluence of arrogance and complacency that often masquerades as 'critical theory' in the late 20th century years postdating Braverman's text, constructed as an antiquarian attachment, risible in its sympathies and sensitivity. Scholastic hyperbole notwithstanding, such apparently laughable thought is the premise of a politics of social transformation, and however many new positions we may be justifiably exhorted to embrace, none are achievable if the old positions of the young Harry Frankel (Braverman' party/SWP name) are not defended and deepened."
It seems to me that one way to judge a scholarly work, whether it be Judith Butler's or anyone else's, is to ask, to what extent does it help the hostility workers feel toward their work "rise to the surface," to what extent does it aid a "politics of social transformation." For example, workers are exploited everwhere there is capitalism. Therefore, ths struggles of workers (and indigenous people I might add. If Indians struggle to regain control of land they once inhabited, we must support them. If once they gain control, a minority of them capitalistically exploit the rest, we must support the exploited majority. And if workers are trying to form unions here, we must not say, well unions are by definition reactionary, we must support the workers' efforts and at the same time try to broaden and deepen their political perspectives.) everywhere are legitimate and it is the duty of radicals to support them and push them forward. The sad thing is not so much that workers in poor countries are more heavily exploited but that the US labor movement actively supported this exploitation. We must try, to whatever extent we can, to both end the exploitation of workers in poor countries and to confront the reactionary policies of the AFL-CIO.
Having said this, I know that I am not a saint; I have not done all I could on many occasions, both in my writing and in my actions, and I have looked to my own comfort many times. Understanding this, I try to take people and writings as I find them, allying with the people when I can to push forward the struggle and taking from the writings what is useful in doing so. And, finally, trying to laugh and have fun whenever possible!
Michael Yates