An interesting proposition from a poster whom I respect:


βραχύβια 🌙 ‏@la_tanquista 34m34 minutes ago
More
@ainiladra indeed after Reagan & deindustrialization, it's the levers of commerce that hold most power imo, workers who control trade routes

It must be pointed out that deindustrialization is relative but one trip to the Big Box says where the money is.

Wresting the East Coast Longshoremen from the mafia could be a hair-raising affair.....

Whadda ya think about that?

An interesting proposition from a poster whom I respect:



It must be pointed out that deindustrialization is relative but one trip to the Big Box says where the money is.

Wresting the East Coast Longshoremen from the mafia could be a hair-raising affair.....

Whadda ya think about that?

I think it is an interesting idea, but I can't get my head all the way around it. Hasn't trade always "superseded" manufacture, since the only reason for the latter is the former? Now, if this tweeter is saying that the leverage point for worker action has become transportation rather than striking factories, that sounds like a likely transition.

Do the west coast longshoremen have a problem with the mob? They appear to be pretty highly organized and class-active. The Teamsters and the rail unions ought to be fertile grounds - but, again, got to deal with the mob...

--You know there was a movie not long ago (of course I can't remember the title) where the mob killed a communist organizer. It just so happened that the commie had family in the mob and they took revenge for their commie brother. Christopher Walken was in it and at the end the mobster ho killed the commie said, "He was nothing but an anarchist!" And just before Walken killed the mobster he said, "No, he wasn't no anarchist, he was a Communist." I really liked that.--

Edit to add: The movie is called "The Funeral". It is a very gritty film set in the 1930s, with no redemption - so it is kind of life-like

I think it is an interesting idea, but I can't get my head all the way around it. Hasn't trade always "superseded" manufacture, since the only reason for the latter is the former? Now, if this tweeter is saying that the leverage point for worker action has become transportation rather than striking factories, that sounds like a likely transition.

Do the west coast longshoremen have a problem with the mob? They appear to be pretty highly organized and class-active. The Teamsters and the rail unions ought to be fertile grounds - but, again, got to deal with the mob...

--You know there was a movie not long ago (of course I can't remember the title) where the mob killed a communist organizer. It just so happened that the commie had family in the mob and they took revenge for their commie brother. Christopher Walken was in it and at the end the mobster ho killed the commie said, "He was nothing but an anarchist!" And just before Walken killed the mobster he said, "No, he wasn't no anarchist, he was a Communist." I really liked that.--

Edit to add: The movie is called "The Funeral". It is a very gritty film set in the 1930s, with no redemption - so it is kind of life-like

From what I can tell the WC longshoremen are about as good as it gets on the US union scene, which doesn't mean there's not a lot of room for improvement.

I think that's what she's saying, at least my take. Gotta attack their profits.

Fuckin' Teamsters, good people been trying but the crooks are sunk in deep and as long as they 'deliver' to some degree people are reluctant to switch horses. Course that's within the bounds of post-war unionism, and while the immediate moment may not be fertile grounds for radical unionism who knows what tomorrow brings?

I do wonder about 'numbers' though. Old capitalist industry organized great numbers of people, which left them open for others sorts of organizing. So much of how the capitalists structure their business in these last 30 years directly mitigates against this. I notice that this in not the case overseas where giant plants seem to still be in style. In any case numbers matter very much and a handful of dock workers 'ruining Christmas for everyone' might have all the beneficial effect of pissing on a crucifix, gonna need some serious base support to pull that off. Perhaps a tactic reserved for a more developed tactical situation.

From what I can tell the WC longshoremen are about as good as it gets on the US union scene, which doesn't mean there's not a lot of room for improvement.

I think that's what she's saying, at least my take. Gotta attack their profits.

Fuckin' Teamsters, good people been trying but the crooks are sunk in deep and as long as they 'deliver' to some degree people are reluctant to switch horses. Course that's within the bounds of post-war unionism, and while the immediate moment may not be fertile grounds for radical unionism who knows what tomorrow brings?

I do wonder about 'numbers' though. Old capitalist industry organized great numbers of people, which left them open for others sorts of organizing. So much of how the capitalists structure their business in these last 30 years directly mitigates against this. I notice that this in not the case overseas where giant plants seem to still be in style. In any case numbers matter very much and a handful of dock workers 'ruining Christmas for everyone' might have all the beneficial effect of pissing on a crucifix, gonna need some serious base support to pull that off. Perhaps a tactic reserved for a more developed tactical situation.

Good point about numbers. Not only do modern corporate management keep numbers as low as possible, but also spread out as much as possible. Added to fact that many workers are temps - easily got rid of and awfully hard to organize - and even the workers who ain't temps have such a tenuous hold on employment that "job-scared" just ain't a taunt and a smear anymore, it is real. All this works against solidarity and organizing. Also read something somewhere that the reserve army of labor is currently so big, the bosses can afford to do what Gould said he'd do over a hundred years ago - hire half the working class to murder the other half. I guess times are hard all over.
I have been reading about Marx and his early life about his having to move all around, being expelled from one country after another. But almost everywhere he landed, he would begin at once to write for the local radical newspaper. We don't have those anymore - anywhere. That is another obstacle to coming together with a single purpose.

Not whining, just making a list, I guess.

Relevant tweet thread:

[quote]Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 16h16 hours ago

That union numbers are low & worker's Parties struggle in the core is not a sign of "the wrong ideas" but of a dwindling proletariat,....

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 16h16 hours ago

And still, in all circumstances, the Marxists & the class conscious workers are the only one's with anything like a practical answer.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 2h2 hours ago

at least part of the initial answer to "what is to be done?", it seems to me, is rebuilding class consciousness

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 2h2 hours ago

the proportion of wc in core which has an understanding of its own class condition has been drastically diminished

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 2h2 hours ago

Yes, but an "understanding" is only a reflection of a class condition. The ruling class has physically depleted the proletariat.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 1h1 hour ago

yes. Is it correct to say in your understanding that "austerity" is another stage of depletion?

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 1h1 hour ago

If anything this is having an adverse effect on the downwardly 'middle classes' whom the booj rely on for support.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 31m31 minutes ago

a lot of the bourgeois media people working the "left" space are now evangelical about the liberating potential of automation

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 31m31 minutes ago

they speak about automation as if it was some kind of new development, and not an integral feature of industrial capitalism

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 30m30 minutes ago

automation, they herald, will make work unnecessary, and give "us" infinite time for leisure and creativity

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 29m29 minutes ago

for them, however, work is already unnecessary, and they already have lots of time for those things

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 24m24 minutes ago

meanwhile, automation is disaster for those who must work to keep themselves alive, bc they are allowed to just die off

George Bell‏@gbelljnr

paul mason's "postcapitalism" is bourgeois fantasy in which bourgeoisie has expunged proletariat and replaced with machines


Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 19m19 minutes ago

@gbelljnr I think really this is also embedded in explicitly imperialist booj ideals & praxis. The wholesale repression of the existence...

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 18m18 minutes ago

..of the vast majority of the international proletariat producing everything they 'automatically' gorge on.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 12m12 minutes ago

yes, these raving tracts about how "apps" and free email make work unnecessary by supposed thinkers tapping on their macbooks

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 8m8 minutes ago

Thinkers of the old world imagine they're the preachers of the new, unaware their 'technique' is ancient.Phil Greaves added,

'Technical education, bound to industrial labour, must form the basis of the new type of intellectual.'

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 19m19 minutes ago

& can enjoy endless hours of leisure forwarding each other messages on gmail untroubled by guilt or the threat of revolution

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 41m41 minutes ago

meanwhile, automation is disaster for those who must work to keep themselves alive, bc they are allowed to just die off

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 32m32 minutes ago

I think really automation is a total myth, the key industries haven't been replaced by robots but by enslaved foreign labour.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 30m30 minutes ago

yes. for as long as dirt cheap exploited labour is a near infinite resource that will not change

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 23m23 minutes ago

automation seems to undercut and proletarianize (and then replace) traditionally partially petit bourgeois trades

Phil Greaves ‏@PhilGreaves01 17m17 minutes ago

Yes, from personal experience i know dozens of tradesmen now working in services mainly.

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 12m12 minutes ago

there is also a lot of talk about how marxism is out of date, and addresses a different iteration of capitalism

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 11m11 minutes ago

however it seems to me that this is a self-aggrandizing distortion of bourgeois "marxist" academics

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 8m8 minutes ago

the marxist already has all of the conceptual resources to understand the present iteration of capitalism.


George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 7m7 minutes ago

they suppose that it is some kind of new recognition that capitalism innovates its mechanisms of exploitation

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 5m5 minutes ago

whereas providing a way of understanding how and why these forces drive history and change is central to marxism

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 3m3 minutes ago

otherwise why marx's history of capitalism from late feudal society, through the different stages of industrialization?

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 3m3 minutes ago

it really is an extreme erasure of marxist thought to pretend that it needs to be "updated"

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 2m2 minutes ago

rather than merely *applied* with a minimum of intellectual honesty to contemporary capitalism

George Bell‏@gbelljnr

perhaps all of this is obvious, but i've been dispelling harmful "expertise" about this stuff for years. unlearning "marxism"

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 30m30 minutes ago

automation, they herald, will make work unnecessary, and give "us" infinite time for leisure and creativity

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 29m29 minutes ago

for them, however, work is already unnecessary, and they already have lots of time for those things

George Bell ‏@gbelljnr 24m24 minutes ago

meanwhile, automation is disaster for those who must work to keep themselves alive, bc they are allowed to just die off

George Bell‏@gbelljnr

paul mason's "postcapitalism" is bourgeois fantasy in which bourgeoisie has expunged proletariat and replaced with machines

We've heard this 'totally automated factories will make human work obsolete' thing before. I have had discussions in real life with people who wistfully talk about "no one having to work" once the factories are fully robotized. I remember the look on one guy's face when I asked how would people eat and have homes and things if they didn't earn money to live on. He was blank for a moment and said something like, "Everyone would just get all they needed for free." I asked who would own the factories and if it were the same folks who own them now, why would they make anything if they didn't make a profit.

The idea appears to be that capitalists fund the manufacture of commodities because its fun or because for them it is a calling or because it is just what capitalists do. These "fully automated factory" folks seem particularly dim-witted.

Robots, with any degree of saturation (robot assembly-line to full robot factory), or any kind of automation, are simply tools used by humans to create "things". Now, what robotics and automation does is reduce the need for human labor. Or put another way, robotics greatly enhance human labor efficiency. It cannot do away with human labor, just reduce the need for human labor. This will force a redistribution of labor across society and reorganize the performance of human labor. There can be little doubt that it will also reduce the need for reserve labor force numbers. The number of worker bellies will be reduced. I am afraid George, here, is right, workers must be "allowed to just die off".

I think Phil is on to something with the idea of the diminishing numbers of proletarians. The differentiation of "proletariat" as a strata of the working class is slowly disappearing, if one defines "proletariat" in a narrow way. I recall that Anax once said something about proletarians being highly developed labor that through its development could be transferred from one task or manufacture to another with a minimum of training and "down-time". That was why US labor was considered so advanced, because so large a percentage of US labor fell into that category of highly developed labor. (It was something like that). If "proletarian" does not, necessarily, denote the type of employed labor (factory work, large-scale industrial labor), but actually denotes the quality of labor development, does that change any of this discussion?

I think Phil is on to something with the idea of the diminishing numbers of proletarians. The differentiation of "proletariat" as a strata of the working class is slowly disappearing, if one defines "proletariat" in a narrow way. I recall that Anax once said something about proletarians being highly developed labor that through its development could be transferred from one task or manufacture to another with a minimum of training and "down-time". That was why US labor was considered so advanced, because so large a percentage of US labor fell into that category of highly developed labor. (It was something like that). If "proletarian" does not, necessarily, denote the type of employed labor (factory work, large-scale industrial labor), but actually denotes the quality of labor development, does that change any of this discussion?

Same old shit since the Luddites, and it's accelerating. It seems that that 'development' is being superseded as every sort of job is being de-skilled by machines which allow wet-behind-the-ears highschool grads do work that used to require someone with 20 years experience, automotive repair for instance. And they make the damn things so that ya can't do it no other way. Most of that sort of work that still exists is off shore now and simply cannot 'come back' regardless of President Trump's pronouncements unless he can get people here to work for a couple bucks an hour or there's a revolution. Does this imply that effective revolution must come from those places with the big factories? Sure hope not, we gotta adapt.

The lines between 'employed', unemployed' and 'lumpen' are become very mushy, permeable. Even when I was young my old man, fully employed, resorted to various hustles, mostly illegal, to have a few extra dollars in his pocket cause his wages were bare sustenance. And you know where I sit today and can assure you that sort of thing is much more prevalent today.

Seems like they still need the masses as consumers, or do they? I recall reading that one of the big boys was gonna sell hair shampoo in single use package in the South, all people can afford.

The question boils down to whether capitalism's vulnerability lies in circulation or production. Certainly, capitalist crises start in circulation (proximate cause). But does that supersede production FOR PROFIT itself as the driving catalyst for revolutionaries? The answer is a definitive NO. Otherwise, rather than overthrowing capitalist production (= the capitalist system) our goal would be to salve the valleys of the trade cycle and enhance/extend the peaks. In other words, the interests of the workers would lie WITHIN the capitalist system.

This is another example of "Here is what we DON'T believe.." serving as a guide post for a positive platform and program.

Are global trade routes now the "commanding heights"? Gotta be careful about that and think about what socialist production practically entails. if you do go down that road (and I'm not taking a firm stance whether you should) you are basically arguing a vast reconstitution of capitalist power from nation states to global value chains. First thing is to make sure you're not trend hopping.

The question boils down to whether capitalism's vulnerability lies in circulation or production. Certainly, capitalist crises start in circulation (proximate cause). But does that supersede production FOR PROFIT itself as the driving catalyst for revolutionaries? The answer is a definitive NO. Otherwise, rather than overthrowing capitalist production (= the capitalist system) our goal would be to salve the valleys of the trade cycle and enhance/extend the peaks. In other words, the interests of the workers would lie WITHIN the capitalist system.

This is another example of "Here is what we DON'T believe.." serving as a guide post for a positive platform and program.

Are global trade routes now the "commanding heights"? Gotta be careful about that and think about what socialist production practically entails. if you do go down that road (and I'm not taking a firm stance whether you should) you are basically arguing a vast reconstitution of capitalist power from nation states to global value chains. First thing is to make sure you're not trend hopping.

The idea seems to stem from what is being called "core imperial states" no longer being centers of manufacture. Lefties appear to be at loose-ends as to how to proceed without large scale capital production taking place in the "home" countries. It appears that the idea is to find out where the capitalist are vulnerable in the "home" states and view that as the point of attack. This is as much as I can glean from the twitter fest. Maybe that old chestnut, "Think globally, act locally" is useful, here?

The idea seems to stem from what is being called "core imperial states" no longer being centers of manufacture. Lefties appear to be at loose-ends as to how to proceed without large scale capital production taking place in the "home" countries. It appears that the idea is to find out where the capitalist are vulnerable in the "home" states and view that as the point of attack. This is as much as I can glean from the twitter fest. Maybe that old chestnut, "Think globally, act locally" is useful, here?


There are contravening factors to the "deindustrialization" argument that leftists typically either ignore or fail to account for. The first is that core country manufacturing output is at an all time (adjusted) high while employment is at an all time low (and it gets even worse when you adjust for population). Meanwhile, most trade remains INTER-IMPERIALIST as has always been the case. To complicate matters even more, "re-shoring" has become something of a thing in the past few years.

None of the above actually supports the typical case advanced by leftists, even though it doesn't directly contradict it either (but it comes close).

Beyond that it is important to recognize that the GVCs are controlled almost exclusively by the core countries (with China existing as a big wildcard). It is far too easy to mistake physical possession for "social ownership" (and China exemplifies in a different way thru the manner in which they control their SOE [state owned enterprises])

There are contravening factors to the "deindustrialization" argument that leftists typically either ignore or fail to account for. The first is that core country manufacturing output is at an all time (adjusted) high while employment is at an all time low (and it gets even worse when you adjust for population). Meanwhile, most trade remains INTER-IMPERIALIST as has always been the case. To complicate matters even more, "re-shoring" has become something of a thing in the past few years.

None of the above actually supports the typical case advanced by leftists, even though it doesn't directly contradict it either (but it comes close).

Beyond that it is important to recognize that the GVCs are controlled almost exclusively by the core countries (with China existing as a big wildcard). It is far too easy to mistake physical possession for "social ownership" (and China exemplifies in a different way thru the manner in which they control their SOE [state owned enterprises])

So manufacturing is still a 'pressure point', though perhaps not quite as predominant. But the numbers of workers in that sector is still an issue. Who else, here in the core? 'Clerks', as they say, I don't think are to be relied upon. Workers providing immediate necessities can get sticky, sanitation engineer strikes can't go too long before near everyone turns against them and I remember a beer truck driver's strike, things got testy. In any case most of the numbers are in service and will continue to be easily replaceable until some discipline at the picket line can be established and that requires popular support.

It's so bad around here, most people consider $15/hr minimum wage an obscene concession to low-lifes when that's what a BMW worker makes. Convincing people they're being shit on is tough when that's all they've known and they're proud.

Some relevant data:


Union Members Summary
For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Thursday, January 26, 2017 USDL-17-0107

Technical information: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


UNION MEMBERS -- 2016


The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of
unions--was 10.7 percent in 2016, down 0.4 percentage point from 2015, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to
unions, at 14.6 million in 2016, declined by 240,000 from 2015. In 1983, the first
year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was
20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS),
a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households that obtains information on
employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian noninstitutional population ages
16 and over. For more information, see the Technical Note in this news release.

Highlights from the 2016 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (34.4 percent) more than five
times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.4 percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations and in protective service
occupations had the highest unionization rates (34.6 percent and 34.5 percent,
respectively). (See table 3.)

--Men continued to have a slightly higher union membership rate (11.2 percent) than
women (10.2 percent). (See table 1.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were White, Asian, or
Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Median weekly earnings of nonunion workers ($802) were 80 percent of earnings for
workers who were union members ($1,004). (The comparisons of earnings in this
release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be
important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.)

--Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate
(23.6 percent), while South Carolina continued to have the lowest (1.6 percent).
(See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2016, 7.1 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with
7.4 million workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public-sector
workers (34.4 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers
(6.4 percent). Within the public sector, the union membership rate was highest for local
government (40.3 percent), which includes employees in heavily unionized occupations,
such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. In the private sector, industries
with high unionization rates included utilities (21.5 percent), transportation and
warehousing (18.4 percent), telecommunications (14.6 percent), construction (13.9
percent), and educational services (12.3 percent). Low unionization rates occurred in
finance (1.2 percent), agriculture and related industries (1.3 percent), food services
and drinking places (1.6 percent), and professional and technical services (1.6 percent).
(See table 3.)

Among occupational groups, the highest unionization rates in 2016 were in education,
training, and library occupations (34.6 percent) and in protective service occupations
(34.5 percent). The lowest unionization rates were in farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations (2.2 percent); sales and related occupations (3.1 percent); computer and
mathematical occupations (3.9 percent); and food preparation and serving related
occupations (3.9 percent).

Selected Characteristics of Union Members

In 2016, the union membership rate continued to be slightly higher for men (11.2 percent)
than for women (10.2 percent). (See table 1.) The gap between their rates has narrowed
considerably since 1983 (the earliest year for which comparable data are available), when
rates for men and women were 24.7 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively.

Among major race and ethnicity groups, Black workers continued to have a higher union
membership rate in 2016 (13.0 percent) than workers who were White (10.5 percent), Asian
(9.0 percent), or Hispanic (8.8 percent).

By age, union membership rates continued to be highest among workers ages 45 to 64. In
2016, 13.3 percent of workers ages 45 to 54 and ages 55 to 64 were union members.

The union membership rate was 11.8 percent for full-time workers, more than twice the
rate for part-time workers at 5.7 percent.

Union Representation

In 2016, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union. This group
includes both union members (14.6 million) and workers who report no union affiliation
but whose jobs are covered by a union contract (1.7 million). (See table 1.)

Earnings

Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings
of $1,004 in 2016, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings
of $802. In addition to coverage by a collective bargaining agreement, this earnings
difference reflects a variety of influences, including variations in the distributions
of union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, age, firm size, or
geographic region. (See tables 2 and 4.)

Union Membership by State

In 2016, 27 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below that of
the U.S. average, 10.7 percent, while 23 states had rates above it. All states in the
West South Central division had union membership rates below the national average, and
all states in both the Middle Atlantic and the Pacific divisions had rates above it.
Union membership rates decreased over the year in 31 states and the District of Columbia,
increased in 16 states, and were unchanged in 3 states. (See table 5.)

Nine states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2016, with South Carolina
having the lowest rate (1.6 percent). The next lowest rates were in North Carolina (3.0
percent), Arkansas (3.9 percent), and Georgia (3.9 percent). New York was the only state
with a union membership rate over 20.0 percent in 2016 at 23.6 percent.

State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.6 million)
and New York (1.9 million). Over half of the 14.6 million union members in the U.S.
lived in just 7 states (California, 2.6 million; New York, 1.9 million; Illinois,
0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio, 0.6 million
each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and salary
employment nationally.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm