From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:39:09 EST
The use of the term 'oppressed state' by me here can be restated in more 'modern' parlance ( and 'modernisation' is all the rage isn't it?), as one which regularly suffers 'regime change' by consistently wealthier and more powerful states, centres of capital accumulation and control. This by force ( a list of UK, US, French intervantions is easy to find on many a web site) or enormous pressures of various types. One in which as a consequence, the 'western' 'democracy' is absent, periodically suppressed, or weak . Thus destruction of unions, human rights organisations etc. ( eg most Latin American States during the last half century) One in which raw materials and agricultural products are removed for use elsewhere, for almost no return (or none, eg Camaroon's forests), and where as a consequence the mass of people live in misery ... try one or two dollars a day....and which of course means accelerated population movements fleeing the subsequent disasters ( eg Ecuador). This any help? PS I'm sure those such as Wedgewood Benn have argued that the UK is 'oppressed' by the US, but I don't buy that one! Interimperialist rilvary is another question. Paul B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Holloway" <johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:36 PM Subject: Re: Labour aristocracy > Paul B. says: > > >IT IS TRUE THAT EVEN THE POOR IN THE US HAVE TENDED TO LIVE BETTER THAN THE MOST MISERABLE IN THE OPPRESSED STATES > > What on earth is an "oppressed state", as opposed to an "unoppressed > state"??? > > Greetings to all, > > John > ---------- > >From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK> > >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Labour aristocracy > >Date: Mon, Jan 5, 2004, 5:18 PM > > > > >SIMON, > > > >WHAT IS 'ACTUALLY UNCLEAR' IS THE POINT YOU WISH TO MAKE. THE OVERALL > >AVERAGE WAGE OF US WORKERS SAYS LITTLE ABOUT THE LABOUR ARISTOCRACY UNLESS > >YOU WISH TO IDENTIFIY ALL U.S. WORKERS WITH SUCH A SECTION, WHICH I DO NOT. > >IT IS TRUE THAT EVEN THE POOR IN THE US HAVE TENDED TO LIVE BETTER THAN THE > >MOST MISERABLE IN THE OPPRESSED STATES, BUT THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CLASS > >THE US POOR AS LABOUR ARISTICRATS! YOUR '18 CENTS' WORTH IS THEREFORE NOT OF > >ANY MERIT IN THIS DISCUSSION UNLESS YOU ARE POINTING TO THE STATISTICAL FACT > >THAT AS SOME GET RICHER, OTHERS GET POORER, AND SO YOURSELF LEAVE THE > >QUESTION OPEN. > > > >WHENYOU MOVE TO NON PRODUCTION WORKERS YOU ABANDON SKILLED, HIGHER PAID, > >PRODUCTION WORKERS, AND INCLUDE LOW PAID SERVICE WORKERS . WHY? > > > >THE AIM OF 'PROGRESSIVE' ( SUBJECTIVELY) CAPITALISTS, IS TO MAKE THE WORKERS > >BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO ANTAGONISM BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL , AND AS > >MANY HAVE POINTED OUT THEY ARE PREPARED TO SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY > >( EG 'by giving office employees and skilled workers a share of the > >profits'... KRUPSKAYA ) IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR AIM. > > > >Paul Bullock > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Simon Mohun" <s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK> > >To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:14 PM > >Subject: Labour aristocracy > > > > > >> >Paul B wrote: > >> >What is actually clear is that relatively few producers/corporations in > >the > >> >world, lets say 300, headquartered in very few states lets say 10, but > >> >mostly in the US, have a monopoly ( in the sensible sense of over 25% of > >the > >> >market ( UK Competition regs)), and that this 'monopoly' allows huge > >profits > >> >which are in part are used to provide payments to sections of the work > >force > >> >to ensure loyalty and stability to the system. > >> > >> I don't think this is actually clear. What sections of the work force are > >> being referred to? My computations for the US, using BLS statistics for > >> hourly wage rates of production workers in all sectors of the economy (83 > >> per cent of employed workers), making very rough adjustments for direct > >> taxes, social security contributions and receipt of state cash benefits, > >> and deflating by the NDP deflator, seem to show that > >> > >> in 1978, real hourly product wages were 11.79 and by 2000 had risen to > >11.97. > >> > >> A total of 18 cents of a 1996 dollar over 22 years doesn't seem like an > >> increase which would ensure loyalty and stability to the system. > >> > >> For nonproduction workers (17 per cent of the workforce), real hourly > >> product wages were 20.88 in 1978 and 34.89 in 2000. Is it these workers > >> (with supervisory responsibilities) to which the labour aristocracy > >> hypothesis refers? > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Simon Mohun > >> Centre for Business Management, > >> Queen Mary, University of London, > >> Mile End Road, > >> London E1 4NS, > >> UK > >> > >> Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-5089 (direct); +44-(0)20-7882-3167 (Dept. Office); > >Fax: > >> +44-(0)20-7882-3615 > >> Webpage: www.qmul.ac.uk/~ugte154/ > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2004 - 00:00:01 EST