>It goes without saying (or does it?) that socialists should support international working-class solidarity and oppose imperialist wars, but what are the specific causal mechanisms which specially change wages during wartime? This seems to be a very complex question. Because imperialist wars these days have many faces. Do the ongoing air strikes against agricultural villages in Iraq constitute an 'act of war' although, of course, no war has been officially declared (if so, do they throw up causal mechanisms changing wages in Britain)? Is genocide by deprivation warfare? If it is, how does the sanctions campaign against Iraq affect wages in the countries who administer the embargo? Does the sale of military equipment or financial support to a country in a conflict region constitute an act of war? Are there implications for wages in the country supplying that equipment and/or aid. Does anyone have any ideas about *when* an imperialist country is at war (or ceases to be)? Perhaps one might adopt a more limited definition of the term 'act of war' and confine it to the uses of technology against selected targets with specific tactical or strategic objectives (in which case no modern war can last more than a few hours, or days at most). In this limited sense, many American's might justifiably consider themselves at war beginning when the first plane hit the WTC - because an act of aggression has been committed against them (on their soil at the cost of American lives) presumably to achieve a tactical objective. But if 'act of war' is used instead to describe an incident embedded in a broad socio-political-economic context, it can be argued with some justification that the USA has been at war for decades (mostly unreported, mostly on other people's soil, mostly at the cost of non-American lives). Ramifications for international solidarity? Not if CNN and Rupert Murdoch have the final say in defining what is an 'act of war' - and therefore newsworthy. [ps. did anyone watch footage of the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon. In Australia it appeared very briefly on SBS - the 'ethnic channel' right at the end of the 6.30 'world news']. Comradely, Nicky At 08:51 15/09/01 -0400, you wrote: > It goes without saying (or does it?) that socialists should support >international working-class solidarity change wages during wartime? At >least two mechanisms seem to be at work: (voluntarily or >involuntarily) become part of the armed forces and as the remaining >workers are employed, especially producing additional military goods. This > prolonged period of 'full Indeed, the meaning of what 'full >employment' is can change during war-time if members of working-class >families who weren't traditionally part of the waged working-class in the >US during WW2 when large numbers of women became part of the of the >has often manifested itself in a condition of 'excess demand' for >commodities which enter into the reproduction of labor-power (as >customarily understood): i.e. there tend to be 'shortages' of commodities >that workers can exchange The response, is for capitalists to >increase the prices of those commodities. The result is the frequently >observed phenomenon of 'war-time inflation' (of course, other forms of >'war profiteering' also tend to A consequence of this inflation is for >the living standards of workers to be decreased during Expressing this >with more familiar Marxist below the value of labor-power during >war-time. Some might think that 'wage and price controls' might be used >to mitigate this affect. Yet, the experience -- at least on the several >occasions when 'controls' have been adopted in the US -- has been that the >state has rigidly enforced wage controls (e.g. a 'wage freeze' -- plus >no-strike pledges -- during WWII) but has simultaneously granted enough >'exemptions' to the price controls such that the prices of commodities sold > to the working-class (and to the capitalist class for luxury consumption) >tends to increase. The above is a relatively non-controversial >analysis -- although I'm sure there are those who could Indeed, it might > 2) As a capitalist nation prepares for and enters war, the state uses >institutions -- such as the and religious institutions -- to drum-up >support for a war. bourgeois political parties tend to unite behind this >call for war and 'labor leaders' (sic) of trade unions support the calls >for war (indeed, much of the 'Left' in the 20th Century and very >strong (conservative) beliefs among the working-class. I don't think it >would be unfair to say that more workers internationally identify >themselves as citizens of a particular nation than as workers. This has >meant, in practice, that workers have voluntarily agreed to war-time >sacrifices 'for The consequence of this nationalism is a depression of >wages below This is a powerful stimulus to the economic growth of >individual capitalist nations. Examples of strikes during 'popular' >wars are very rare (e.g. the Montgomery Ward strike and the threatened >coal miners strike during WWII in the US). This reinforces If, however, >popular support for an imperialist war weakens (as happened in some >nations during WWI), then there is a heightened potential for increased >wages. Of course, international working-class solidarity and mass >opposition to war would tend to mitigate against this trend and could lead >to (among many other things) increased wages and bargaining power for >workers. Yet, promoting international working-class unity has proven in >practice to be more easily suggested than done. Indeed, sad to say, >workers are often the most ardent supporters of war -- even though they >are also the most frequent victims. Many leftists will nonetheless >(hopefully) attempt to build anti-war movements but such efforts are often > (as internal opposition to war is often criminalized) and tends to take a >protracted period of struggle to change the consensus about the war. Thus, >eventually, there was mass opposition to the Vietnam War in the US, but it >took many years and sacrifices before the anti-war movement gained have >ended before there is time for mass opposition movements to grow. (*NB*: >in the case of 'short wars', the first mechanism described above is >unlikely to happen. Indeed, it is doubtful whether there is sufficient >time for the second mechanism to manifest itself as a generalized >depression of wages either). *Question*: Does a depression of wages >below the VLP during one period (conjuncture) imply that there are others >periods (conjunctures) in which wages rise above the Or, should we >conceive of the latter possibility as an increase in the VLP In >solidarity, Jerry %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Nicola Mostyn (Taylor) Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 00:00:04 EDT