Bernstein v. Luxemberg, eh?
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Justin:
> > Seems inconsistent with that you just said. The
> > problem is not surplus transfer but its conditions
> and
> > effects -- if surplus is transferred coercively,
> under
> > unfair conditions, in ways that diminish human
> life,
> > that's what matters -- not just that surplus
> transfer
> > is going on.
>
>
>
> What I am arguing is that the debate is about
> earnings (i.e. workers making
> less in relative and inflation adjusted terms) -
> where the left is in a weak
> position for the reasons outlined in my missive.
> However these arguments
> have some currency with the public, who can easily
> grasp the concept of
> being paid more.
>
> A theoretically better argument is one that does not
> depend on labor-wage
> exchange, such as one claiming thwarting the
> development of full human
> potential, which I like very much. You can do many
> things with it,
> including internal critique of capitalism for not
> living up to its
> advertised goal of benefit maximizing. The problem,
> however, is that it is
> too theoretical and has zero traction with the
> people to whom the left wants
> to appeal.
>
> Hence the precariousness of the left position. It
> can argue for more
> favorable terms of labor-wage exchange and perhaps
> gaining some traction
> with the sellers of labor, but essentially joining
> ranks with US
> nationalists and alienating international labor.
> Otoh, it can argue against
> consumerism, wasteful consumption and
> commodification of the daily life,
> which may fall on the sympathetic ears with many
> folks overseas, but will be
> dismissed off hand by the US labor that likes their
> SUVs, guns and NASCAR
> races.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com