Joanna
info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
>
> In comments at my blog, I got on a rant about something that had been
> said elsewhere by someone who is, ostensibly, a leftist with a
> generally good critique of capitalism. But the analysis of
> exploitation under capitalism was left by the wayside when the issue
> of sexual slavery in Thailand was raised. To counter, someone pointed
> to the recent case of enslaved migrant workers. The response was to
> say the following:
>
> "My answer would be that with female sexual
> slavery, it's already about the sex. In order
> to combat a problem we have to understand it.
> If we want to work on the problem of migrant
> farm workers, we need to understand that
> situation: the agriculture industry, the
> wage system, the profit margin of the growers,
> supply and demand for fruit, supply and demand
> for labor, the situation of the laborers, the
> illegal immigration issues, the social issues,
> etc., etc. We could say, let's not make this
> about the fruit, let's just focus on the general
> issue of exploitation, but while that sort of
> high-level thinking has its place, it will
> probably not help us develop a nuanced understanding
> of the particular issues in farm migrant labor or
> come up with a specific action plan.
>
>
> Of course, I was irritated and wrote the following. I've been asked to
> publish it in an online zine. How can I improve it?
>
> Here's a little klew. There's nothing high level or abstract about
> exploitation. Here's how it works. Capitalists are in business to pay
> you as lttle as possible so they don't have to work. Their goal is to
> live off the profits of your labor. Their goal, if they're not already
> doing it (and most are) is to not have to lift a finger or burn a
> brain cell working: they want to kick back and earn more than anyone
> can spend in a lifetime, never being forced to labor. And, they are
> motivated to keep on accumulating: more and more and more. They
> believe they are justified and entitled to your labor and you believe
> that too.
>
> You work, say, 1.25 hrs. in a day to reproduce yourself to make the
> wage you need to live. Every single hour you work after that, your
> labor pays the overhead and the rest lines the pockets of capital.
>
> That's your dead body lining that guy's pockets, by the way. Yours and
> 100s, 1000s, maybe miilions more.
>
> That's the body that you could have used to make love, make art, read
> a book, grow a garden, snuggle with your best friend, or write poetry.
> But it's dead now. It is gone forever. One more hour, eight more
> hours, forty more hours, 2000 more hours. Hours of your limited life.
> Vanished.
>
> You'll never get it back because you worked to line the pockets of
> some guy who thinks that, because he risks mere money which he
> risked in the first place to make ever more money and he did not
> risk his life or his body, then you owe it to him to give up that time
> of your life.
>
> So, yes, let's ignore that "abstract" context.
>
> Yessiree jimbob.
>
> All the other horsehit is a suggestion that horror of what goes on in
> the fields is somehow _special_ because of _special_ conditions.
> Because of course whatever goes on to exploit the labor of a cubicle
> worker well, that's normal. that's ok. that's complicated. that's
> high-level.
>
> that's abstract.
>
> my ass.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>