6339 >Rakesh, Are you sure you mean what you write below. It seems to deny >Marx's grounds from revolutionary activity of the working class in >circumstances in which productive forces develops (production of relative >surplus value) and wages rise (e.g., through unionization). But Paul Z trade union activity is not revolutionary activity. In defending trade union activity Marx was trying to clarify not only the basis of their struggle (closing the gap between the value of their power and the labor which they expend)but also to turn that struggle into a self conscious training ground for future revolutionary action which he knew presupposed an objective disintegrationof the capitalist system. so yes, Paul Z, I meant what I said because Marxian theory does not attempt to explain why certain individuals and exceptional intellectuals become revolutionaries but the conditions under which workers will have to become revolutionaries, i.e., more than trade unionists, to protect their gains and achieve their own emancipation. Those conditions reduce to an objectively disintegrating capitalism. > Both can >occur, ALONG WITH a rising rate of exploitation. Therefore, rising >exploitation would NOT be a basis of revolutionary activity. I mean a rising rate of exploitation that is not only not compensated by real wage gains but erodes those gains of the past while also subjecting workers to greater uncertainty and fear in the stability of their employment. RB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST