Across the political landscape, the Left is involved in mind deadening discussions about the effectiveness of various organizations and political parties in changing the hierarchies of power. On the liberal discussion boards, the call for reformative actions and solutions continues to grow (and become more shrill) as liberals become more cynical and disappointed in Democratic policy makers. Leftists, who challenge that approach, soon find themselves adrift in conversations about morals, labels and American Exceptionalism.

It's time to return to basics when engaged in these arguments. Both the actions needed and the solutions required can only come from growing the Labor Movement. Unions and other labor organizations have the greatest potential to be transformed into centers of working class power. They have institutional memories that contain both the historic advance and retreat along a revolutionary path.

From the start many of the attacks can be anticipated: 1) The US Trade Union Movement has sold out its rank and file, is corrupt and joined at the hip to the Democratic Party. 2) Elevating the Labor Movement to the highest priority minimizes the importance of other Peace and Justice issues 3) Not everyone interested in working on Peace and Justice issues can belong to a union

These objections (among others) should be acknowledged, but they are not serious obstacles. Compared to self-interest, undemocratic tendencies, and the class interests of other political organizations, US Trade Unions look virtuous. Labor issues are not limited to the workplace. Unions, have at times (in the not so distant past) led Peace, Environmental, and Human Rights campaigns and, in many case strongly supported Racial and Gender Equality Issues. Currently, many are at the front of the Immigrant Rights struggle. Because, workers live in our communities, everything is a potential working class issue, and community campaigns have become a central part of organizing and contract negotiating strategies. Similarly, many locals have a history of being strong coalition partners on non-workplace struggles.

Radical change comes from class struggle. At a time when the unionization of workers in the private sector wallows at about 8%, we need an analysis of the barriers to organizing, and find ways that people can participate in tearing them down. Here's a start:

While there are many obstacles, fear may be the most immediate. Beyond the almost universal desire to keep the bosses happy when the economy is in crisis, the lack of enforcement of National Labor Relations protections regarding concerted action and intimidation, poses a very real threat of job loss for workers even considering organizing. Normally, when such violations occur Labor's reaction is to file Unfair Labor Practices complaints, and once in a while rally support in the community for the fired worker. Years later, the NLRB may make the right decision, but the message is clear to all employees. Many times they refuse to testify at the NLRB hearing for fear of reprisal.

A more pro-active role for activists who "want to do something", could be to make it clear that their state, town or neighborhood wants nothing to do with manufacturers and merchants who deny their brothers and sisters the right to organize. The major gains included in EFCA were the strengthening of NLRB right to organize provisions. If the policy makers aren't interested in them, maybe working people and their allies could make it their business to do so.

ramblings...

It's gonna take unions+. Industrial unions don't have near as much clout as they used to simply because there is not near as much industry. I gather that government unions like AFSCME pretty compromised, too bad, nothing gets attention like a sanitation strike. Can we imagine
militant cube rats? Service workers got the numbers but organizing them can be tough.

Here's a question, does the surplus value that a worker produces relate to the effectiveness of the workers union. In other words does an industrial union have inherently more clout than a service workers union?

And then there is 'right to work' states, a very tough row to hoe. When I talk to workers getting fucked around by the man and I suggest organizing the most common response is ::). At the BMW plant here applicants must sign a statement saying that organizing is grounds for dismissal. Local union history weighs heavy on these people.

Providing services to the community could prove very important. I'm thinking of the Black Panthers and Hezbollah, medical clinic, food bank, mebbe provide employment, provide relief while disassociating the people from the dominant culture.

Actually, some AFSCME locals are among the most militant. The question of the current short comings of Organized Labor has to be considered in light of the current shortcomings of all political organizations. The potential for an about face in the Unions has to be much greater than one in the Democratic Party for example.

The relative effectiveness of unions by industrial types is, I think a huge question. To amass increasing amounts of capital, things vary historically. At one time the industrial giants were the most efficient, now it seems energy and finance are. One important factor is that workers were concentrated in large job sites both at work and in the communities (as an aside I live in a 1950s subdivision that was almost entirely built for GE workers), making actions at both more effective. Now, workers are scattered throughout small units of retail and restaurant giants. The genius of globalization is that even if the mega-corporations have large plants or refineries, they are in different industries, in different countries. You can't shut the bastards down.

If the BMW story is accurate, it's completely illegal. The right to organize is a federal guarantee, under the NLRB. Just like you can't sign away your EEOC rights to non-discrimination, you can't sign away your rights to organize, minimum wage and overtime under the NLRB. As far as the barriers to unionization, never said it would be easy. Just possible and necessary.

Yes, the UFW was a prime example of unions providing social and legal services both during organizing drives and on an ongoing basis. Until, the past few decades Unions played important roles in every aspect of its members' lives: educational, cultural, health and living coops, etc. No reason it couldn't again.

Curt, I am going to post this elsewhere if that is OK. Very powerful.

Anytime

Here's a question, does the surplus value that a worker produces relate to the effectiveness of the workers union. In other words does an industrial union have inherently more clout than a service workers union?


Not directly... There are too many other factors.

The "cultural level" of workers is the single most important factor in the productiveness of labor once it is abstracted away from the organic composition of capital. That doesn't equate to "high wages" necessarily, however. Chinese labor is an example of labor with a very high cultural level but low wages - singlehandedly the driving force of globalization.

It is an irony that the productiveness of labor can be driven by social policy as well as by "high wages", but it takes socialism to do it. It remains to be seen whether this continues in China.

Here's a question, does the surplus value that a worker produces relate to the effectiveness of the workers union. In other words does an industrial union have inherently more clout than a service workers union?


Not directly... There are too many other factors.

The "cultural level" of workers is the single most important factor in the productiveness of labor once it is abstracted away from the organic composition of capital. That doesn't equate to "high wages" necessarily, however. Chinese labor is an example of labor with a very high cultural level but low wages - singlehandedly the driving force of globalization.

It is an irony that the productiveness of labor can be driven by social policy as well as by "high wages", but it takes socialism to do it. It remains to be seen whether this continues in China.




Is that the case? To me it has seemed like China is being used mainly as an assembly plant. Somebody -- maybe it was you? -- posted an article that of the $200 ipod, China only added a few dollars of that amount. And I think most things follow suit from the stats I've seen.

Here's a question, does the surplus value that a worker produces relate to the effectiveness of the workers union. In other words does an industrial union have inherently more clout than a service workers union?


Not directly... There are too many other factors.

The "cultural level" of workers is the single most important factor in the productiveness of labor once it is abstracted away from the organic composition of capital. That doesn't equate to "high wages" necessarily, however. Chinese labor is an example of labor with a very high cultural level but low wages - singlehandedly the driving force of globalization.

It is an irony that the productiveness of labor can be driven by social policy as well as by "high wages", but it takes socialism to do it. It remains to be seen whether this continues in China.




Is that the case? To me it has seemed like China is being used mainly as an assembly plant. Somebody -- maybe it was you? -- posted an article that of the $200 ipod, China only added a few dollars of that amount. And I think most things follow suit from the stats I've seen.


Kid,
The point is that it's not wages that drives productivity in China. A socialist economy separates wages from profit, leaving productivity as a common cultural goal. The irony is that globalization has resulted in reliance on a working class desire to be productive (as socialists) without the benefit of higher wages. If this continues in China, it's because of an ideological commitment rather than any concrete benefits for workers.

I was asking about quantifying the productivity of Chinese labor because when Anax says "abstracted away from the organic composition of capital" I don't even know how we could begin to do that in this case.

I was asking about quantifying the productivity of Chinese labor because when Anax says "abstracted away from the organic composition of capital" I don't even know how we could begin to do that in this case.


It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree. When I talked about "cultural level", I was talking about education, health, skill level, integration into social activities, recreation, etc. Any sort of work or craft pride only enhances that. The cultural level of workers from the old U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe is very high - similar and even higher than that of the U.S., and China is only slightly lower. Wages, OTOH, are lower. The old socialist system made that cultural level a part of the social infrastructure rather than a "private" cost of reproduction of the laborer. You get low paid workers who are, on average, the equal of anybody produced in Pittsburg or Stuttgart. In China,you get them in very large numbers, too (India is a fraud in comparison).

They do expect free Universities, subsidized food prices, and cheap sporting events, though...


As far as "adding a few cents" goes, it depends on the individual products, which run the entire gamut. Something like two thirds of foreign investment in Chinese manufacture is for reexport, but domestic investment is the inverse and then some.

I was asking about quantifying the productivity of Chinese labor because when Anax says "abstracted away from the organic composition of capital" I don't even know how we could begin to do that in this case.


It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree. When I talked about "cultural level", I was talking about education, health, skill level, integration into social activities, recreation, etc. Any sort of work or craft pride only enhances that. The cultural level of workers from the old U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe is very high - similar and even higher than that of the U.S., and China is only slightly lower. Wages, OTOH, are lower. The old socialist system made that cultural level a part of the social infrastructure rather than a "private" cost of reproduction of the laborer. You get low paid workers who are, on average, the equal of anybody produced in Pittsburg or Stuttgart. In China,you get them in very large numbers, too (India is a fraud in comparison).

They do expect free Universities, subsidized food prices, and cheap sporting events, though...


As far as "adding a few cents" goes, it depends on the individual products, which run the entire gamut. Something like two thirds of foreign investment in Chinese manufacture is for reexport, but domestic investment is the inverse and then some.




Is China not getting slack in social investment or is that an overblown meme? If that is the case are we seeing some sort of generational lag as the fruits of past social investment are exploited by the current capitalist economy? Or mebbe a rural/urban divide? (the old story as peasants are 'driven' from the land, newly minted proles?)

I think, maybe, that the point is (and of course, I could be wrong), that a socialist society has a productive advantage over a capitalist society in the following way: the socialist society bears the cost of education, health, housing, food, and entertainment and, therefore, wages can be quite low, yet the workers still have a very high "standard of living" - possess a relatively high culture. For capitalist society the wage of the worker must pay for all of these "social benefits". It is cheaper for the society as a whole to pay for these things than it is for the individual wage to pay for them, but the capitalist sees that as coming from his profit and so it won't happen. So you get this asymmetric look.
As far as the rural peasantry goes, that is another story, I think...

I think, maybe, that the point is (and of course, I could be wrong), that a socialist society has a productive advantage over a capitalist society in the following way: the socialist society bears the cost of education, health, housing, food, and entertainment and, therefore, wages can be quite low, yet the workers still have a very high "standard of living" - possess a relatively high culture. For capitalist society the wage of the worker must pay for all of these "social benefits". It is cheaper for the society as a whole to pay for these things than it is for the individual wage to pay for them, but the capitalist sees that as coming from his profit and so it won't happen. So you get this asymmetric look.
As far as the rural peasantry goes, that is another story, I think...


Extremely well said... "Culture", in this case, translates to "standard of living" minus pet rocks.

Is China not getting slack in social investment or is that an overblown meme? If that is the case are we seeing some sort of generational lag as the fruits of past social investment are exploited by the current capitalist economy? Or mebbe a rural/urban divide? (the old story as peasants are 'driven' from the land, newly minted proles?)


I don't know the answer for China. Some of the Eastern European countries have certainly gone slack. Eventually, it goes backwards, but I suspect you are right about a generational lag.

I was asking about quantifying the productivity of Chinese labor because when Anax says "abstracted away from the organic composition of capital" I don't even know how we could begin to do that in this case.


It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree. When I talked about "cultural level", I was talking about education, health, skill level, integration into social activities, recreation, etc. Any sort of work or craft pride only enhances that. The cultural level of workers from the old U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe is very high - similar and even higher than that of the U.S., and China is only slightly lower. Wages, OTOH, are lower. The old socialist system made that cultural level a part of the social infrastructure rather than a "private" cost of reproduction of the laborer. You get low paid workers who are, on average, the equal of anybody produced in Pittsburg or Stuttgart. In China,you get them in very large numbers, too (India is a fraud in comparison).

They do expect free Universities, subsidized food prices, and cheap sporting events, though...


As far as "adding a few cents" goes, it depends on the individual products, which run the entire gamut. Something like two thirds of foreign investment in Chinese manufacture is for reexport, but domestic investment is the inverse and then some.




Is China not getting slack in social investment or is that an overblown meme? If that is the case are we seeing some sort of generational lag as the fruits of past social investment are exploited by the current capitalist economy? Or mebbe a rural/urban divide? (the old story as peasants are 'driven' from the land, newly minted proles?)


To me (just MO) this is what the Cultural Revolution was, in part, designed to address. Mao recognized a "stratification" taking place within the "Proletariat". And sought to correct this. It backfired (or was murdered in its sleep - but that's another thread) and I think that at least to some extent this "lagging" or "slacking" is due to the unchecked broadening of social stratification - what Mao saw as threat to socialism. Now, I will admit that I may be putting too much on this (won't be the first time...).

Would it be fair to say that in the cases of both China and the USSR that the dictatorship of the proletariat has failed? China, internally, the USSR due to external forces?

What lessons might be taken?

I was asking about quantifying the productivity of Chinese labor because when Anax says "abstracted away from the organic composition of capital" I don't even know how we could begin to do that in this case.


It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree. When I talked about "cultural level", I was talking about education, health, skill level, integration into social activities, recreation, etc. Any sort of work or craft pride only enhances that. The cultural level of workers from the old U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe is very high - similar and even higher than that of the U.S., and China is only slightly lower. Wages, OTOH, are lower. The old socialist system made that cultural level a part of the social infrastructure rather than a "private" cost of reproduction of the laborer. You get low paid workers who are, on average, the equal of anybody produced in Pittsburg or Stuttgart. In China,you get them in very large numbers, too (India is a fraud in comparison).

They do expect free Universities, subsidized food prices, and cheap sporting events, though...


As far as "adding a few cents" goes, it depends on the individual products, which run the entire gamut. Something like two thirds of foreign investment in Chinese manufacture is for reexport, but domestic investment is the inverse and then some.




Is China not getting slack in social investment or is that an overblown meme? If that is the case are we seeing some sort of generational lag as the fruits of past social investment are exploited by the current capitalist economy? Or mebbe a rural/urban divide? (the old story as peasants are 'driven' from the land, newly minted proles?)


To me (just MO) this is what the Cultural Revolution was, in part, designed to address. Mao recognized a "stratification" taking place within the "Proletariat". And sought to correct this. It backfired (or was murdered in its sleep - but that's another thread) and I think that at least to some extent this "lagging" or "slacking" is due to the unchecked broadening of social stratification - what Mao saw as threat to socialism. Now, I will admit that I may be putting too much on this (won't be the first time...).


I've wondered about the same thing, but just don't have the background to have any special insight into it. The claim is typically that it was Mao trying to purge his political rivals and reinstall himself on some kind of pedestal. And certainly there were some misbegotten aspects of the "GPCR" but I have no idea how we might put our finger on the hows and whys.

There is quite a bit of literature on it, but it tends to be universally agenda-driven, and laden with vitriol (no matter in which direction it is aimed) and bogged down by ideologies that are either indecipherable or incoherent.

It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree.

If/how does this differ from the leve of exploitation? Primarily because of worker skill level and morale?

It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree.

If/how does this differ from the leve of exploitation? Primarily because of worker skill level and morale?


As you know, the level of exploitation is the rate of surplus value / wages. That is determined in large measure by the amount and productiveness of the fixed capital employed. But there is no contradiction in saying that the rate of exploitation is typically higher in the more advanced industries with typically higher wages and a "higher cultural level". It is the relative differences in this wage level (primarily, national), alongside the portability of capital (and labor availability, and national infrastructure, yadda, yadda) which drives globalization.

It's easy to do. They call it "scientific management" and it descends from Taylor. They measure the average intensity of labor to the nth degree.

If/how does this differ from the leve of exploitation? Primarily because of worker skill level and morale?


As you know, the level of exploitation is the rate of surplus value / wages. That is determined in large measure by the amount and productiveness of the fixed capital employed. But there is no contradiction in saying that the rate of exploitation is typically higher in the more advanced industries with typically higher wages and a "higher cultural level". It is the relative differences in this wage level (primarily, national), alongside the portability of capital (and labor availability, and national infrastructure, yadda, yadda) which drives globalization.



Oh, I see what you're saying now. You and Dhal are saying that part of what is driving "globalization" now it the presence of socialist economies. Interesting. Raises some hypotheticals about how things would look without those states in the mix.

Would it be fair to say that in the cases of both China and the USSR that the dictatorship of the proletariat has failed? China, internally, the USSR due to external forces?

What lessons might be taken?


Can't say about China. For all I know, it is one gigantic NEP. OR, China was so backward that the only way to achieving a capitalist revolution was to drive right through communism.

We lost in the U.S.S.R.

Just a small setback... and a plunging of the world into an epoch of darkness and universal reaction which has been so common in the last 2000 years.

At least we learned who the enemy was. Everyone who cheered and and looked up hopefully at the stars on the fall of the Berlin Wall... that was the enemy. This includes Democrats, SDUSA, various "activists" and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Would it be fair to say that in the cases of both China and the USSR that the dictatorship of the proletariat has failed? China, internally, the USSR due to external forces?

What lessons might be taken?


Can't say about China. For all I know, it is one gigantic NEP. OR, China was so backward that the only way to achieving a capitalist revolution was to drive right through communism.

We lost in the U.S.S.R.

Just a small setback... and a plunging of the world into an epoch of darkness and universal reaction which has been so common in the last 2000 years.

At least we learned who the enemy was. Everyone who cheered and and looked up hopefully at the stars on the fall of the Berlin Wall... that was the enemy. This includes Democrats, SDUSA, various "activists" and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.



Absolutely right. We lost in the U.S.S.R., but it did not fail of its own accord. It was beaten down by the US dominated West. It was beaten on relentlessly for its entire life - and it still held out for 70 goddamned years. Sure, it would have been great for things to have gone differently, but it was forced into an armed camp and never allowed out. Sorry, I just had this very argument over lunch with an "academic". He said I had become more "Red" over the years; I said, nah, I was just through making nice...

this thread is fantastic, thanks, compelled to chime in...

Oh, I see what you're saying now. You and Dhal are saying that part of what is driving "globalization" now it the presence of socialist economies. Interesting. Raises some hypotheticals about how things would look without those states in the mix.


The 1970s is a good picture of how things looked without those countries "in the mix": stagflation + no prospects + Reagan/Thatcher. 2008 brings us back there again... now with them most definitely included in the mix and nowhere else to go.

That brings us back to 1905 or thereabouts.

Wanna build some Dreadnaughts?

1905? That was one loaded year for Russia.


http://www.pitt.edu/~slavic/courses/russ1771/posters/potem.jpg

http://1001moviez.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/photo-115.jpg

and it was an ill-conceived war which got the ball rolling...

Maybe it's 1870... who knows? But, very little has changed.

http://www.lindahines.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/gravelotte.JPG

Maybe it's 1870... who knows? But, very little has changed.

http://www.lindahines.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/gravelotte.JPG





One thing it ain't is 1934! These crazy-ass Democrats today don't know shit from shinola - they ain't even shadows of their great grand-daddies. But then they prolly ain't blood related in any event...