>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 06/22/99 11:02AM >>>
>Chas.: in the sense that important early Marxist parties were social
democratic parties, as in Germany and Russia.
perhaps, if you mean the Gotha programme and the NEP. but I was thinking more recently of postWW2 social democratic programmes, with which there is certainly some continuity.
((((((((((((((
Charles: Well what about this little ditty from the program in _The Manifesto of the COMMUNIST Party_ ?
"Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
(((((((((((((((
>What's your program again ?
I don't have one. should I pretend that a series of demands is commensurate with a programme?
Charles: You are the one who called what I said a "programme" when you said " this is a social democratic programme chaz." So, are you pretending that my series of demands is commensurate with a programme ?
((((((((((((((
Angela: but, in this context, I suggested focusing instead on the relative proportions between surplus and necessary labour, which could be demands for increases in welfare, shorter hours, basic wage increases, universal basic income, amongst other things.
((((((((((((
Charles: Sounds interesting. Marx seems to discuss the shorter hours in his chapters on ABSOLUTE surplus value, rather relative surplus value.
((((((((((((((
>Charles: Not really. It is to remember all the fundamentals of Marxism and
to have a maximum and minimum program, which means that Marxists advocate
reform measures as well revolution,else they become ultra-leftists.
well, remind me where I insisted that it was revolution or nought? claiming that a criticism of claims for 'full employment' are 'ultra-leftist' shows a failure of imagination, or in this instance, reading.
((((((((((((((((
Charles: When you say "this is a social democratic programme, chaz" and then you say it is continuous with the NEP and Gotha programme, your implication is that my "programme" , as you call it, is not "communist" and is reformist and not revolutionary. Isn't that your implication ? Or just what were you trying to say ? ((((((((((((((((((((((
but, let's assume that your notion of maximum and minimum is a correct one. the issue then arises as to what would in fact be minimum. would it be founded as an attempt to return to post-war conditions of working class bargaining strength, which was in fact premised on a 'full employment' that consisted of much lower levels of female workforce participation? is this a minimum programme or in fact nostalgia for a time whose conditions are no longer available?
Charles: Seems to me if we had about a six hour day with no cut in pay, there would be work for all in today's conditions.
(((((((((((((((((
[[>the reserve army is only effective from the perspective of capitalism if
>it is an active reserve army, through either enhancing competition between
>workers or engendering fear amongst workers of poverty. i.e.., it is only
>effective if unemployment equals poverty and marginalisation.]]
>Charles: This doesn't contradict what I said. To deny a significant
correlation between poverty and unemployment seems very strange.
Angela: it does contradict what you say because you have argued that the significant variable in working class livelihoods is whether or not people are employed.
Charles: I didn't argue that "THE" significant variable is whether or not employed. I think I argued that it is A significant variable. The demand is for full employment at a living wage. The demand includes decent pay, another significant variable in working class livelihoods.
(((((((((((((
there is a significant correlation b/n poverty and unemployment, but unemployment is not a cause of poverty. there is a significant section of the workforce, here and I'm sure in the US also, which is worse off working than they would be on unemployment benefits. here it is referred to as the 'poverty trap', made up mostly of single parents (mostly women) and young adults. the latter will undoubtedly increase when employers here manage to introduce their scheme of youth wages as half the amount of adult wages. these are the issues worth fighting around.
Charles: There are working poor. There was just a news story here that the number has gone up. However, some people become poor because they lose their jobs. To deny this is strange.
((((((((((((((
>Charles: No. That's Marx I'm following: 'From each according to ability, to
each according to WORK" is not from the bourgeoisie. but Marx, lui-meme. You
are "conflating" Marx's concepts of the role of useful labor in society in
general and the need for a job in a wage-labor system with the Protestant
ethic or work ethic. It is not work as a "virtue", but labor as the source of
use values in society. See _Capital_ Chapter VII, on the labor process.
we've discussed labour 'per se' before, in relation to marx's critique of the Gotha programme. there is no labour 'as such' for marx, only forms of labour. in any case, how can you claim a definition of 'useful labour' outside capitalism in support of a strategy for workers in capitalism?
Charles: Here some of what Marx says in _Capital_ vol. one, Chapt. VII
"Labour is , in the first place, a process in which both man (sic) and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates and controls the material rea-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Natur as on of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head an dhands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway...The elementary factors of the labour-process are 2. the personal activity of man, i.e. work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3 its instruments....No sooner does labour undergo the least development, than it requires specially prepared instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implements and weapons. In th earliest period of human history dometicated animals, i.e.!
animals which have been bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the cief part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells..."
Here Marx uses the term "labour" not "forms of labour" to refer to labours from different modes of production, as a transhistorical term.
The point is that Marx uses the term "wants" generally to refer to all modes, even though the specific wants may change with different historical periods. The general use of the concept of "useful labour" is Marx's approach at this level of analysis.
((((((((((((((((((
as for the slogan 'to each according to their work', this has been surpassed by history. from a recent post, I wrote: "the connection between particular work and particular workers has been historically, for some workers, overtaken. the collapse of craft labour, as Rakesh notes. the question then would be I guess whether this is really the second phase of communism or an important aspect of late capitalism. I think perhaps the latter, which makes the injunction 'to each according to their work' about as redundant as the craft labour, which it presupposes."
Charles: The rule of thumb for the SECOND phase of communism is "From each according to ability , to each according to NEED" . The above remains a rule of thumb for the first phase , socialism. We haven't even gotten rid of capitalism. In fact , we have slipped back into more capitalism. Rather than historically surpassed, we have fallen back further from it. The first phase of communism, socialism, is specifically recognized by Marx, Engels and Lenin as a combination or transition from capitalism, and thus still has some of its characterisitics, such as being paid according to how much work one does ( I know capitalism lies about that, but people are accustomed to thinking that way and that customary thought is not completely overcome at first in socialism).
(((((((((((((((((((((
>Marx's approach on this , as with bourgeois political rights, does have the
clever side-effect of showing that the bourgeois cannot live up to their own
virtues. If the bourgeois say work is a "virtue", Marx says, well the
working class is doing the work , not the bourgeoisie.
again, you are thinking of lassalle, not marx. the distinction between those who work and those who do not is a moralistic one drawn from guild socialism, and it was never clever. this, in the context of late capitalism is an affront, since it makes the unemployed commensurate with the idle rich. a moralism I should add which was at its core is a claim of 'parasitism', and not one which bears repeating within ostensibly marxist programmes.
Charles: I said a clever side effect, like the critique of bourgeois rights. It is not Marx's main issue, this "virtue/vice". It is pointing out inconsistencies in the bourgeois conception, not adopting the idea of work as a virtue.
Anyway, Marx makes a distinction between those who work and those who don't.Take a look at the program/demands of _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ : "Equal liability of all to labor."
((((((((((((((((((((((
>Charles: The equation exists in fact, thus, there is a causal link in fact.
You seem to be attributing a kind of futuristic consciousness to most people
that they don't actually have now. Yes, most people living now connect
"socially useful activity" with having a job.
thousands of people involved in the j18 actions don't.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Millions of people in Detroit and Michigan do.
((((((((((
since you want to begin from 'the leading sections of the working class and their consciousness' as the formula for drafting demands,
(((((((((((((
Charles: I am not sure why you attribute to me this "leading sections of the working class". I am talking about the vast majority under wage-labor.
(((((((((
the question then would be whether your are in fact beginning from the 'leading sections' or the 'backward layers'. (((((((((((((((
Charles: But I didn't say anything about "leading sections"
((((((((((
leninists still assume a spontaneous social democratic consciousness, thus suspending any attempt to look around and see what forms of consciousness are about or emerging.
((((((((((((
Charles: Leninist assume a spontaneous trade union consciousness. Social democratic consciousness is not spontaneous and is injected by a party . See _What is to be done_, by Lenin.
((((((((((((((((9
here's some news: most people hate work but are terrified of being unemployed, but, under new regimes of work, will increasingly be unemployed for periods of time, given the growing levels of casualisation, temporary work, work intensification, etc.
((((((((((((((((
Charles: Not news to me or Leninists. Marx analyzed alienation long ago. We know most people don't like their jobs but are terrified of being unemployed.
((((((((((((
in this context, the demand for full employment is redundant, and its material likelihood is in things like workfare. demands for a welfare system that deprives the new regime of work of its ability to terrorize people into submission is paramount, as is extending the conditions reserved for full time workers to part-time, casual, and temp workers. capitalism can have its flexible workforce, so long as this is underwritten by an appropriate (for us) system of welfare.
(((((((((((((
Charles: As I told you before, the demand is for jobs or income. There is a specific provision for welfare in the Constitutional Amendment for a right to a job or income I drafted.
((((((((((((((((((((
>That there is no connection between poverty and unemployment is pretty
obviously false. Of course, there are working poor too. Demanding full
employment does not contradict demanding decent wages . Nor does it
contradict demanding jobs or income, as the Constitutional Amendment I showed
you does.
to repeat: there is a connection bn poverty and unemployment, but unemployment is not a cause of poverty. to claim the latter is to ignore the working poor, who are a growing section of the workforce, in most places around the world.
Charles: You repeat an error. Unemployment is a cause of poverty. The fact that there are other causes of poverty such as inadequate wages does not refute or contradict this. The poverty of people who don't have jobs is not caused by low wages, because they don't have any wages.
(((((((((((((((((((
but no, demanding full employment doesn't contradict demanding decent incomes. but why _begin_ with a demand for full employment when you could begin with a demand for decent incomes, whether they be from welfare or employment? this is the problem in a nutshell. you _begin_ by reproducing the injunction to work when you know that work increasingly consists of surplus labour.
Charles: Down to the order of the demands , are we ? That work increasingly consists of surplus labor is not the only factor in consideration. I have discussed other factors earlier on this thread.
(((((((((((
[[>there has been a significant shift, not away from work, but toward forms
>of work which it doesn't take much to see are contraventions of the
conventions
>on forced labour, like prison labour, workfare, and so on.]]
>Charles: Your idea that this is what Marxists mean by full employment is so
out of it it isn't funny.
you didn't notice the first part of the sentence which read "on another point..."? I don't think prison labour is what marxists might mean by full employment, since I don't think marxists would be demanding full employment in the first place.
((((((((((((((((
Charles: Well what about MARX's demand in the Manifesto for "Equal liability of all to labor" ? Was that when Marx wasn't a Marxist ?
Charles Brown