From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 09:29:16 EST
Re Paul C's [8359]: Let me begin on a point of agreement: I agree with 3. in [8359]. Putting aside that source of agreement for now, I want to take issue with a couple of points you made: > 1. For a group to have a potentially progressive role, they have to > see their activity as persisting and being better rewarded in the > future society. (snip) Groups of workers can't even be _potentially_ progressive unless they view themselves as being better off in a future (socialist) society??? Let us recall here that we're talking about the productive/unproductive labor distinction and that the ratio of productive to unproductive workers has been steadily declining over the long term (as the empirical work by Anwar, Fred and others demonstrates). For you to then say that large segments of workers who are unproductive of surplus value can't even be _potentially_ progressive is tantamount to saying that large amounts of workers -- perhaps even including a majority -- will not be supportive of socialism. Oops ... there goes the revolution. > 4. Reciept of surplus value as an income source puts banking workers > objectively opposed to the working class and this is reflected in > politics - see how they vote. State employees receive wages that are paid out of revenues, i.e. they are in receipt of surplus value as an income source, and hence are unproductive of surplus value. Does this then also mean that they are "objectively opposed to the working class"??? I offer a counter-hypothesis: *the distinction between productive and unproductive labor can not be used as a criteria to determine who is a member of the working class*, i.e. the working class is composed of _both_ productive and unproductive laborers. There is a very real political danger of identifying the criteria for determining whether groups are productive of surplus value with the criteria for determining which groups are members of the working class. Indeed, if we simply identify productive labor with the working class, i.e. treat the two expressions as synonymous, then we give up on the possibility of real working class unity and solidarity and with it the possibility of socialism. We also have to remember that what is analyzed in _Capital_ is which workers are "productive" or "unproductive" from the *standpoint of capital*. In _recognizing_ this distinction, we can not take it over wholesale since the *working-class perspective* on who is "productive" is not the same as the capitalist perspective. From a working-class perspective, workers need to comprehend how they are *united* regardless of their diversity even while coming to terms with that diversity. This *unity-in-diversity* by the working class presupposes that alliances will be developed among all workers including those who political economy defines as being unproductive. (NB: this does not, though, necessarily mean that managers are productive of surplus-value. In addition to your point 3. in [8359], we should note that although they receive wages, they are not necessarily wage *workers*. Even capitalists themselves, after all, can pay themselves wages: this accounting maneuver does not miraculously transform them into wage-workers.) Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 00:00:00 EST