>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 about it? you think that sounds like a good idea? (serious Q.) I don't. you would demand the introduction of this now? and how isn't this forced labour?
on the textual point, i'm taking engel's advice and not regarding the list of demands at the end of _the cm_ with too much seriousness.
>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.
oh, chaz, learn to read: 'relative proportions b/n surplus and necessary labour' does not mean 'relative surplus value'.
>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 ?
it was neither an implication nor what I was trying to say. unlike chris I don't carry on a discussion according to the terms of 'revolutionary' _versus_ 'reformist'. I think your demand for full employment is redundant, nostalgic and lends itself to support for forced labour. all this was explicitly said.
>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.
I haven't disagreed once over the demand for shorter hours with no loss of income. this formula would certainly entail no increase in surplus value, and is therefore an excellent demand. what you have done however is subsume all of this under the slogan of 'full employment', which can indeed contradict the former.
but more importantly, there is no given amount of labour that would be redistributed if hours were cut back. to assume that there is, is to assume that work does not consist of a division between necessary and surplus labour, and a division moreover which tips increasingly into the latter.
>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.
I'll ask again: if you don't venerate wage labour, then why not simply demand a universal basic income, or a living income, or higher welfare, etc? why the demand for full employment?
>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.
and I denied that when?
>Charles: Here some of what Marx says in _Capital_ vol. one, Chapt. VII
ok. this for another post.
>Charles: Millions of people in Detroit and Michigan do... [ connect
>"socially useful activity" with having a job.]
millions of people believe many things, including that wages are the price of labour. the j18 actions are significant, for many reasons, not least of which is that this was an explicitly anti-capitalist action, co-ordinated on a global scale. here was an action that was incredibly diverse because its central demand was so expansive: carnival against capitalism, etc. that the traditional left didn't even notice it happening and wasn't a part of it, should make one stop and think for a moment about what emergent constituencies there are in the world for an anti-capitalist politics, and how you frame your demands.
>Charles: That work increasingly consists of surplus labor is not the only
factor in consideration.
perhaps it should be right up there in any assessment of the character of the working class today, and hence strategies of organisation. don't you begin from the character and state of the class relation (including the division of work time) and go from there? or is it all pre-packaged from the early 1900's?
more later re marx and labour 'as such'.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au