On 2012-01-26, at 12:35 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "There is also considerable peasant unrest in the villages, with
> farmers resisting or demanding greater compensation for land
> expropriated for private and public development."
>
> [WS:] There is a difference between discontent and unrest, and a
> revolution. The turn of the century Europe saw a few revolutions,
> Russia, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Spain (although most of them
> defeated) not to mention three Internationals and massive strikes. By
> these standards, Asian labor seems rather docile, no?
Everyone on this list understands the difference between unrest and social revolution. However, you're right to assert that by the standards of turn of 20th century Europe, the 21st century Asian working class does seem politically docile. In no small measure, this is due to the historic decline of the international socialist movement which rose in tandem with the European and unions, but it does beg the question of why this movement did not reconstitute itself, even in a new form, in similar conditions of rapid industrialization and trade union growth in Asia. I don't think that disappointment with the historic experiments in the USSR and China can be the whole answer.
> As to the class debate - let me reiterate that I do not dismiss the
> importance of socio-economic classes, I just think that a simplistic
> concept of class as a mere relation the means of production is not
> very useful.
It's only simplistic if you have a simplistic understanding of it. Your income decisively affects your material well-being and corresponding quality of life, and how you earn your income centrally depends on your relationship to the means of production.
If you're a small or large owner of a private enterprise, you're mainly dependent on profit and dividends. If you're a landowner, you rely on rents. If you do not own the means of production, which is the case for the vast majority, you depend on a wage or salary for your income. These have been the historic classes in capitalist society: the big bourgeoisie of financiers and manufacturers, the petty bourgeoisie of urban small shopkeepers and farmers, the highly stratified and occupationally diverse working class, and, to a greatly diminished extent, the owners of large landed estates.
Your understanding of your class interest will, or should, dictate your political choices. If you are a profit-seeking large entrepreneur, for example, your interests will typically lead you to political parties which guarantee property rights, limit government spending which crowds out private borrowing and requires higher levels of taxation, provide loans, grants, and subsidies to the private sector and favourable tax treatment of profits and dividends, limit trade union rights and minimum employment standards, limit costly regulation of industry, the environment, and education, health, and other public services, etc. Conversely, if you're a propertyless worker, your interest would dictate otherwise: that you support government spending on social programs which supplement your income, legislation which protects your right to form a union, government regulation of the workplace and the community, access to cheap credit, progressive taxation, etc. - in other words, a system which places public services and people before profit.
As we know, a class-in-itself is not necessarily a class-for-itself. The bourgeoisie is today more class-conscious than the working class, although the economic crisis is altering the equation. Classes are not monolithic in pursuit of their interests; the liberal and conservative factions of the bourgeoisie are perennially divided over the proper mix of public spending and taxation necessary to promote economic growth and social peace. The working class is divided by occupation, status and income, working conditions, race, gender, and other factors.
Of course, I've oversimplified to illustrate. I'll save the nuances for further discussion. Meanwhile, I'd be interested in learning from you what better explains past and present political behaviour than an individual's relationship to the means of production.