[lbo-talk] Left wing loathing for the working class

[John Thornton]

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>> [WS:]  I agree, to a point.  However, it is important
>> to realize that while both concepts my imply the same
>> empirical reality (measured by the economic value of
>> resources) - they carry different connotations and
>> interpretative frameworks.  
>>
>> "Exploitation" starts with the framework of prosperity
>> being the norm, claims that some people receive
>> resources that fall below that norm, and implies that
>> those "exploited" should be elevated to the norm of
>> prosperity.  
>>
>> "Privilege" otoh starts with the framework of the
>> puritannical notion that prosperity is bad, claims
>> that some people experience that prosperity, which is
>> unjust almost by definition, and implies that those
>> "privileged" be brought down to the puritanical norm
>> of austerity.
>>     
Privilege may mean this to you but I doubt it means this to most USer's.
Privilege mean inequality, not just in income but access to education, 
healthcare, and even some measure of financial security.
The low level marketing employee who gets a 6 month salary as part of 
his severance package appears rather privileged to the retail clerk 
fired with no notice and severance package.
There is nothing inherent in the concept of privilege of bringing one 
down to a level of austerity.
James wants to focus on production rather than consumption because he 
believe we can consume our way to happiness and not be concerned with 
resource limits, CO2 emissions and other such externalities. One does 
not have to don a hair shirt if they oppose such nonsense. There is a 
middle ground but the consume-our-way-to-equality/happiness mindset 
pretends this is an either or proposition.

I think you inflate the austerity ideology of many leftists in the US. 
They are a very small, rather meaningless subset. Most US leftists do 
not imagine giving up autos for bikes etc. American leftists are much 
more of the mindset of James Heartfield, they want to consume their way 
to equality and only curtail the unsustainable lifestyle of the very 
wealthy.


>> I think that a more analytically useful concept is the
>> utilization of the surplus that the labor produces. 
>> Private control of that surplus does not gurantee the
>> most efficient utlization of that surplus.  Au
>> contraire, it pretty much gurantees waste and
>> ineffciency, which is bad for society and esepecially
>> those who control little resources of their own. 
>> Public control of that surplus in a rationally planned
>> economy setting can do much better in distribuing that
>> surplus in a mater that beneficial to the entire
>> society.  The "marginal" effect of that distribution
>> to those who now control little resources of their own
>> will be particularly significant.
>>
>> Therefore, the battle cry of socialims ought to be for
>> the public and planned control and distribution of
>> surplus rather than against exploitation of labor.
>>
>> Wojtek

No argument from me here but I would add that this planning needs to, 
and in all probability would, take into account more than just 
fulfilling the desires of todays rampant consumerism.
I suspect that were the capitalist imperative for growth removed people 
would find their desires, no longer manipulated by advertising imploring 
them to consume, were not as great as one currently believes they are. 
Certainly it is a bad plan to expect to severely curtail standards of 
living but I suspect under socialist planning the term living standards 
would have a different meaning than it currently does under capitalism, 
a concept James seems to have a hard time grasping. He simply projects 
todays capitalist driven consumption ideology into the future imagining 
it as some sort of natural human desire. Something it most assuredly is 
not.

John Thornton