From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 08:45:06 EDT
Re: (OPE-L) Re: the _struggle_ over the length of theRe Rakesh's message dated Wednesday (Was: the _struggle_
over the length of the working day):
> Jerry, are you saying that Marx did conceive of wage struggles as,
> if not defensive, then as responses to the previous action and
> enroachment of capital?
On Marx:
a) the relation that Marx asserted was *justified empirically*: i.e. in
99 out of 100 cases. The significance of this becomes clearer below
when I go on to describe how most wage struggles have changed in
form since Marx's day.
b) If one views class struggle as a *strategic* process, then it is of
course true -- *tautologically* -- that every strategic move is a
response to previous actions as well as a move which has the
offensive goal in sight. From this perspective, the belief that wage
struggles are defensive responses is simply a recognition that those
struggles have to be comprehended historically in context. I.e. these
struggles do not "fall from the sky" but instead are the outcome of a
historical process in which both the "encroachments of capital" and
the perceived needs of workers have to be comprehended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the issue itself (namely, whether wage struggles are
primarily "defensive" struggles against the "encroachments
of capital"):
There *are* some wage struggles which seek to maintain the real
wage of workers against the "encroachments of capital." Some
instances that come to mind include:
-- struggles by workers in inflationary periods for cost-of-living
agreements that automatically increase wages following an
increase in inflation.
-- struggles to preserve existing wage (and benefit) levels against
demands by capitalists for "givebacks" (as we saw in the US in
the 1980's fight against the "concessions movement").
What has to be comprehended, though, to answer the question
in the subject line is that wage struggles are overwhelmingly *union
struggles*. Placed within the context of collective bargaining,
on what does the success of a wage struggle depend?
Put simply, the success of wage struggles depends on the
solidarity and militancy of workers. Because capital can attempt
to divide workers by threatening e.g. to bring in scabs, to replace
workers with robots, to relocate the production process to another
region or nation, etc. this means, though, that the success of
many wage struggles depends not *only* on the solidarity and
militancy of workers employed by an individual capitalist firm but
on the solidarity and militancy of workers employed in different
crafts and industries, by different employers, and in different
regions and nations. The lack of a strong, solid, and militant
international solidarity movement (not surprising given the
support for "labor-management cooperation" by most trade
union "leaders" internationally) constitutes a barrier to the
expansion of wage gains.
Placed within the context of *union* members fighting wage
struggles, one must comprehend *why* workers want increased
wages. Yes, of course, workers *need* wage gains in order to
protect their standard of living, but they also *want* actual wage
gains where there are increases in real wages.
Why? The want a higher standard of living. They want, even
though there are limits to how far this goal can be achieved
under capitalism, the "good life." They, influenced by corporate
advertising, want more -- and better (and often this means more
expensive) -- commodities. They might want a better place to
live. Those workers with families often fight tenaciously in wage
struggles "por los ninos." I.e. they fight today in the hope that
their children will have better lives.
None of this can be comprehended if we focus *only* on the
wants and needs of capital. Once we recognize that workers
also have wants and needs, we can comprehend why workers'
struggles for increased wages (and other goals) are not primarily
or only "defensive" struggles.
The proposition that "99 out of 100" struggles for higher wages
are struggles against the "encroachments of capital" can not
be sustained empirically or historically. Indeed, as unionization
has spread to a great extent since Marx's time, the extent to
which workers struggle *for increased real wages* has greatly
expanded. (NB: I do not mean to prioritize wage struggles
above. Struggles by workers for many other objectives have
become increasingly important. I am _only_ focusing on wage
struggles here because I am responding to your comments and
questions about this particular form of class struggle.)
The last part of your post is interesting and worthy of response,
but I am tiring and the above is enough for now (with the exception
of the PS).
In solidarity, Jerry
PS:
> Of course the autonomist school and its offshoots try to turn the
> picture upside down by conceiving of the movement of capital as a
> defensive response to previous action and encroachments of an
> autonomous working class on the ruling class. In some ways, it
> seems to be a radicalization of the wage squeeze theories of crisis in
> the 1970s.
* I'll let John or Alberto reply, if they wish, to the above.
> I think John H refers to this as a Copernican breakthrough-- <snip, JL>
* What is the exact reference that John made to a "Copernican
breakthrough"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT