--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> What the ruling class really fear is that the poor will
> refuse to work, for low wages, will refuse to consume, will
> refuse to obey orders. What terrifies the ruling class is
> that this disobedience spreads to the entire working class,
> as it has threatened to a few times. That the working class
> will then go from refusing to work to orders from their
> employers, to thinking that perhaps they might run the
> workplace themselves. Will set a very bad example by simply
> taking what they want.
[WS:] I am afraid you grossly overestimate that role. First of all, it is the middle and working class not the poor that do most of the consumption. You should visit places like Baltimore where until recently very little consumption took place - there was dearth of virtually any retail establishments because the poor who comprised the majority of city's simply could afford much consumption. And the capital not only did just fine, but also resisted any attempts to lure retailers to the city.
Secondly, the very purpose of Keynesian economy is for government to act counter-cyclical to business downturns. That means that if the middle working class is unable or unwilling to fulfill its 'patriotic duty' as consumers, the government will step in and consume for them. The Governor of California decision to buy grapes to counteract consumer grape boycott in the 1960s is a classical example, not to mention the recent initiative of the Obama administration to give handouts to those willing to exchange their old cars for new ones.
I understand that there is this romantic / messianistic vision of the poor / working class / third world suffering for the functioning of the global capitalism or sinful humanity in general. It creates a sense of purpose or sacrifice in that suffering akin to the x-tian idea of "messiah" suffering for the human kind to redeem it. In a similar way many families of those who died or were wounded in Iraq nonetheless supported Bush's vision of 'war on terror' - because that vision gave them an illusion that the death or suffering of their loved ones was for something, some 'greater good' enjoyed by the nation as a whole.
The sad truth is that all that suffering is for nothing - it is marginalized, unnecessary, and pointless. Nobody benefits from it, it is not redeemed at some higher level by the creation of value, even if that value is appropriated by someone else. It is like rubbish - thrown away, purpose-less, and forgotten. It has no value to anyone, even capitalists, imperialists and kindred 'enemies of the people.'
That is probably the most tragic aspect of it - but then most other forms of suffering is unnecessary and pointless as well. It is only the warped, perverted, fucked up x-tian ideology that falsely elevated suffering to the level of virtue, at least in the Western culture of messianistic masochism.
Wojtek