Can Labor Get Out of This Mess? (Part Two)by David Bacon

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/4709/can_labor_get_out_of_this_mess_part_two/

"One of the most important reasons why change is so hard for U.S. unions is the continuing legacy of the cold war.

Discussion in labor is difficult because the cold war taught unionists that political differences beyond a limited range would result in marginalization at best, expulsion at worst. You can’t talk freely if you’re afraid for your career or your job.

That cold war straight-jacket strengthened a hierarchical structure and culture, very different from the egalitarianism in COSATU or Salvadoran unions. We have forgotten the Wobblies’ idea that we’re all leaders, equals among equals.

At the same time, unions have accumulated property, treasuries, and political debts, and have an interest in defending them, making institutional needs paramount. We don’t challenge the government out in the streets beyond a certain point because we don’t want to risk not being at the table when the deals affecting our future are made.

Radical ideas and the language to describe them continue to be illegitimate because their suppression has been unacknowledged. After 1995, the prevailing attitude in national leadership was, “We don’t need to rehash the past. Let’s concentrate on where we’re going now.”

more at link

His Iron Law of Wages is very striking. Its not what it is commonly assumed to mean(that workers will be driven into poverty due to constant downward pressure on wages)

Most "Marxists" miss the subtlety but oddly it is even highlighted on Wikipedia (which I thought unlikely):

Notwithstanding the tendency of wages to conform to their natural rate, their market rate may, in an improving society, for an indefinite period, be constantly above it; for no sooner may the impulse, which an increased capital gives to a new demand for labor, be obeyed, than another increase of capital may produce the same effect; and thus, if the increase of capital be gradual and constant, the demand for labor may give a continued stimulus to an increase of people..."

"It is not to be understood that the natural price of labor, estimated even in food and necessaries, is absolutely fixed and constant. It varies at different times in the same country, and very materially differs in different countries. It essentially depends on the habits and customs of the people. An English laborer would consider his wages under their natural rate, and too scanty to support a family, if they enabled him to purchase no other food than potatoes, and to live in no better habitation than a mud cabin; yet these moderate demands of nature are often deemed sufficient in countries where 'man's life is cheap', and his wants easily satisfied. Many of the conveniences now enjoyed in an English cottage, would have been thought luxuries in an earlier period of our history."

The above does not square with what Lasalle/Malthus said or thought in the least

It has such an enormous explanatory power..between the two quotes you have a outline for an explanation of America from '45-mid 70s say and the other quote explains not only the stagflation since then but also explains the disparity between the "Developed World" and the "Third World"..in a way that is not some kind of drummed up fantasy about "stealing resouces" to maintain "our" wealth or whatever. The above omits the influence of the Soviet Union (which just came up the other day), but it is still pretty good. And while I get Anax's riff on the middle class and what it owes to the USSR (they really were the shock troops of the world proletariat), I'm not sure how the time table fits. Maybe "peaceful coexistence" was the real turning point? I wish I knew more about what really went down in Poland..I have a general understanding, but there is probably more to it.

This stuff that I want to introduce is technically "Anti-Lenin" as well, although in a vastly different sense than is the guy in the article you've posted.

If you hang with me for a minute I will work this back around to the aristocracy of Labor too. I think Bacon is right about the legacy of the Cold War (by which he really means McCarthyism). But I think the "conclusions" drawn are suspect. Pretty sure we can work through it though. In particular there are a few points I think you can set me straight on as we go.

Kid,
I'm going to be all over the place here.

No, I've never read Ricardo. In fact my main exposure to Marxist-Leninist theory was in a collective that I was a member of in a predominantly working class city from 1971-1976. It formed around an a group of ex-SDSers and ex-PLPers, that were disgusted by the role of PLP in the Weather/RYM (II) split. Who along with many left the student movement to enter the labor movement. There was some national networking, but it never constituted a Party or formal organization. We did have some amazingly large study groups.

From the beginning I was always more interested in the role of materialism in explaining history and current events as instances of class struggle, than questions about vanguards and political leadership. I think as some point, those questions need to be addressed, and am fairly sure there will be serious people with competing views. Hopefully, I'll still know some of the smart ones.

Since then, I've looked at the civil rights and black nationalist movements, immigrant movements and US labor history with an eye on how transformation from reform to radical movements take place.

As to the Ricardo quotes: In the second quote, is he talking about the tension between wages as needed for the sustainance/reproduction of labor, and wages as a demand for a higher standard of living by laborers? Also, the fantasy you refer to means that the disparity between "Third World" and "Developed World" is actually based in class relationships (in both cases) rather than nationalism. Yes?

Do you know Bacon's work? I've read his articles some on Immigration Reform (highly critical of any of the McCain/Kennedy horse shit) and some on the importance of the mass immigrant rights movement to the labor and the anti-imperialist movements. I think his latest book is a photo essay on immigrants and immigration. I'm guessing you see his anti-Leninism here (?):

"People act autonomously based on their ideas, and workers with greater understanding and consciousness are able to lead themselves and each other, rather than acting solely on directives from above."

I'm out of the loop on Marxist critiques of social movements in the Global South, but its seems that the notions of "autonomous", "self-leadership" and "directives from above", cause big problems. Too much to get into here in a proactive way. Hope we can talk about it concretely later.

or maybe not technically HIS theory since he mixed in a little populationism as well (ie eventually there are more people than demand for labor) but its basically this:

the wage you make really needs to be indexed against how much of the stuff produced it will command for you. Everytime there is a "productivity increase" your wages just went down by this defintion.

Further, Ricardo says subsistence level is really a product of the given locale and its material level of development. This means that the connection is not so simple as US worker $10/hr, Chinese worker $2/day (or whatever) and therefore that is parasitism.

Capitalism moves in and deals with whatever the circumstances are in that place at that time. If you look at the numbers, the developed countries aren't really "geting rich" at the expense of the Third World. Capitalism is also always about to what degree it can exploit a given set of resources and exploit its wage labor. That is always the operative question, and it is particularly sharp in China today. Consider all of the rural land they could be tapping but then consider the massive unrest it would entail (500 million peasants give or take?) and also the investment required to make it lucrative enough to put the wheels in motion. Gotta insure that profitability first and foremost.

Parasitism is the thing I was disputing. Sure, the rules favor the dominant capital powers, but their existence is not predicated on "looting" the Third World. In fact, if you look at it from the workers perspective, it is exactly that expansion of capital to the other third of the world (barred to them until '89 basically) that is fueling the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions here in the US and also in Europe (look at the erosion of the social safety net all across western and southern europe). That is basically what Ricardo foresaw and in hindsight only the Soviets were really impeding that process before the frantic onset of "globalization"

The Anti-Leninism I was referring to from Bacon was his own self-proclaimed brand of it. His idea of collectivist is pretty dodgy when it comes to practical implementation..particularly when the only conceivable way it comes about is as part of a hostile takeover from the capitalists.

But yeah, you're right that its a class issue. And the biggest issue is that workers in China are us and we are them. I think it is just another sermon to claim that we're robbing them of their natural resources to feed the moloch of our own consumerism. I understand how that line helps advance the national struggle, but that has to be appraised in the broader context of the class struggle..which is international in nature and can't be otherwise

One of the reasons I think this matters is that it leads some to advance the proposition that part of the solution is to lower US living standards. Now, there are different angles to that approach, but in the end you are still asking workers here to organize on the basis of getting less. Thats just not gonna fly, and is totally beside the point.

"Parasitism is the thing I was disputing. Sure, the rules favor the dominant capital powers, but their existence is not predicated on "looting" the Third World. In fact, if you look at it from the workers perspective, it is exactly that expansion of capital to the other third of the world (barred to them until '89 basically) that is fueling the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions here in the US and also in Europe (look at the erosion of the social safety net all across western and southern europe). That is basically what Ricardo foresaw and in hindsight only the Soviets were really impeding that process before the frantic onset of "globalization".

I think I got this and agreed with it. Or if didn't I do now.

"The Anti-Leninism I was referring to from Bacon was his own self-proclaimed brand of it. His idea of collectivist is pretty dodgy when it comes to practical implementation. Particularly when the only conceivable way it comes about is as part of a hostile takeover from the capitalists."

Sorry, you've got to help me here. Is Bacon's argument a nationalist one? His radical analysis of an immigrant rights social movement, makes a lot of sense to me. What is "His idea of collectivist ".

Oh, BTW I misspoke when I said my exposure to M-L theory was back in the 70's. It's actually now (and for the past few years) and is the reason I hang around here.

and asks excellent questions.

[div class="excerpt"]Understanding that NAFTA hurt workers on both sides of the border is a crucial step in answering these questions, providing the raw material workers need to understand globalization. But raw material is just that. Workers and unions need an education process, and educators, who can help turn that raw material into consciousness and action. In more radical times, left-wing socialist and communist parties played that role of educator. Since this kind of organized left presence in labor is much smaller today, it is unclear what can take its place.[/quote]

This is what made me question why US labor (and the left in general) turned its back on the 2006 immigration marches. The largest mobilization of people in the streets in my lifetime, yet labor/left had very little to say.

The joke is that there are people who are consumed by that kind of doctrinaire wrangling in the abstract. It seemed odd that Bacon would bring the subject up because it is mostly the demesne of of campus based Marxists who are not likely to be found in any kind of Union setting. I was kind of throwing it back in his face to show him how silly it is.

The actual issue that he is so concerned about -- collectivist control at every level to keep out bureaucracy and hierarchy and stratification, some sort of super-democracy where everybody has a say at all levels ranging from local to national (and maybe beyond if the ball gets rolling) is silliness and, in the case of most Trots, hostility to any kind of real socialism that could emerge. Their track record is more than clear on that..they bitch about the Soviets more than some Republicans who are still living in the Cold War (and I don't mean Jim Bunning either ;))

Look at where the forces of reaction are truly marshalled -- what they ALL agree on is that everything has to be privatized, nationalization of even the tamest sort is "bad" almost by definition (nationalization?!), government programs should be gutted becaues government is "bad" and would stop private industry from "competing", etc. They also agree that jobs are not on the table except in the most unsatisfactory and meaningless form. Marie Antoinette of today says "Let them flip burgers"

So to postulate a Revolution of uncertain character and form that does not address the opposition where it truly stands, followed by the implemenetation of "real" democracy..I just don't get that.

But its a side issue for now..I am going back through the archives and reading some of Bacon's work. We should probably post some more of his pieces here.

The issue may be a side issue, we can accept good analysis of where we are now and how to move forward in the short run, regardless of someone's vision for the long term organization of society. But, I still think it's worth discussing.

I don't know Bacon's political affiliation(s), and doubt that he's going to show up here to tell us. I do know he's been an organizer for UE and UFW. As you know, people who gravitate toward the World Social Forums use this sort of language pretty consistently. What's at stake here is what happens when movements become strong enough to really challenge state power.

Since the financial collapse of 2001, the social movements in Argentina often use "Horizontalidad" and "Autogestion" (from Anarchist traditions) to describe a mix of solidarity, disdain for the electoral process and desire to develop autonomous economic and social institutions. At the street level they practice the kind of "super-democracy" you've described, but have implemented a representative structure for issues that go beyond the workplace or neighborhood. I think we would agree that some sort of hierarchy is necessary, but the relative power of the constituted bodies should be open for debate. Another interesting aspect is being open to the possibility for issues to go up and down the hierarchy before being settled.

but it is hard to stay abreast of them from afar and also remotely in the sense that I am not "connected" to what is really happening on the ground.

Where I think the practical issue comes in -- and you're right part of it is simply the stock language that people of this bent speak in -- is that we need to be pushing for ANYTHING that solidifies and concentrates control in national hands.

Healt care? Nationalize that shit for everybody and no backpedaling on what's already in place (ie Medicare and Social Security). Banks? Shit, we've payed for em 5 times over or something..lets take whats already ours. Jobs? Well, add up the trillions being spent on peripheral things that are guaranteed to do nothing. Lets allocate that to create much needed public service jobs. The Fed can create trillions out of thin air? Good, lets how fast the presses can run and use that money to best effect. Everyone knows the best "stimulus" is jobs with decent pay and benefits.

Stock market? Hell, everybody knows there has to be regulation so lets put that under real nationalized control as well. I've said this before but Keynes called for the euthanasia of the rahn-tee-ay. Euthanasia means mercy killing. I say lets exempt the "mercy part" :)

Public schools? Same deal..if we can give Arne Duncan a billion dollars to dispense as he pleases to political cronies we can sure as fuck give ourselves a billion dollars..and that kinda moolah can solve alot of problems. Want to fund your posh private schools, whitey? Do it on your own dime. Like someone said, they're not really schools in the first place, they're country clubs. Most of them probably issue members jackets.

And if you think about, anyone advancing that program can't help but be a socialist..because the above prescriptions take you way beyond anything the booge could or would ever tolerate. And thats the whole fight right there.

Another important point is to press the issue of political prisoners. Wanna talk about North Korea and Iran and Cuba holding "political" prisoners? Fine, get the log out of your own eye first. The US prison pop is like 3 million (an outrageous 1% of the population) and that is not counting "paperwork" (parolees, probation) which more than DOUBLES that number..time to follow California's lead and let 'em out. Why? Simple, we can't afford it..throw their own shit right back at 'em. Turns out the sentiment for getting tough on crime (ie black people smoking dope and crack rock) isn't so popular when the world is burning around you.

Good, the practical issue puts this discussion on firm ground. A couple of comments:

"Yeah, I've studied some of the international movements but it is hard to stay abreast of them from afar and also remotely in the sense that I am not "connected" to what is really happening on the ground."

I've always been struck how the narrative of the development of LA social movements rarely includes the role of existing Communist Parties. They usually are just missing in action in the stories.

"Where I think the practical issue comes in -- and you're right part of it is simply the stock language that people of this bent speak in -- is that we need to be pushing for ANYTHING that solidifies and concentrates control in national hands."

When people push hard for the development of alternative institutions, it's rarely a strategic choice. Frequently, its viewing decentralization as a value rather than as part of a strategy. When chlamor calls for boycotts, they could be coupled with alternatives sources for services or commodities. At the same time, those alternatives need to be seen as useful only in the context of struggle, not as models for economic organization.

Similarly, the Expropriated Factory Movement in LA has two sides. Sometimes it results in the nationalization of the plant, other times it results in co-operative ownership. In the latter case, some co-ops include a strong political component, some don't. The error is in viewing all of these expropriated workplaces the same: as examples of movements toward democracy.

of ideas like boycotts and factory occupations/takeovers is that I think the bigger issue than Profits is that the capitalists have to preserve the institutions and relations that protect and maintain private property and that therefore allow capital to BE capital. Even if it has to be done at a loss.

The beauty of what Chlamor posts is not that such a boycott is going to happen but that if enough people come to support such an action then they are on the single track path to resisting in a real and effective way. That is because they are a long way toward reaching the conclusion that capitalism itself is untenable when it comes to meeting their needs and goals.

Factory takeovers tend to stall out because you have to run the factory as a capitalist business or you can't "compete". Once again, it can be an important expression of proletarian sentiment and power, but its not an end unto itself. I think you captured this idea very well in your post.

The other important thing Chlamor is always pounding on is anti-imperialism. Gotta be anti-war because that is how cpaitalism is "exported" (power springs from the barrel of the gun). Ain't no room for nobody to move when your home bourgeoisie are blowing them the fuck up with billions and billions of dollars (bottomless) of weaponry, bombs, deployment and equipment at their disposal. So even an exclusively anti-war platform is great, because it begs the question of how wars can be "prevented". It doesn't take very long to see that the answer is that they can't while private property is the dominant paradigm. This is why Anax likes hippies (I think): they rejected the whole enchilada albeit not on the most solid of grounds. The only problem is that the caricature of hippies today doesn't really relate back to the people he calls "hippies" -- he calls himself a hippie even -- but you get the idea.

Anax once told me that he exclusively hung out with anarchists, anti-imperialists, and crazy fuckers of all types. Makes sense when you think about it.

PS I told Tinoire the same thing about anarchists/anti-imperialists/crazyass motherfuckers and put Two Americas and Chlamor in the third category. She objected and took it as an insult, but its not. In the world today, its a compliment of the highest order.

The other component is that all of those people are ready to proactively RESIST. That alone is rare amongst "activists"