From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 16:05:23 EST
John, further to my previous response.. the use of 'oppressed state' is unusual... you are used to 'client state', 'occupied state', ' comprador state'.. and any other number of terms . 'Oppresed' is the traditional and correct term for 'oppressed peoples' or 'nations' , but modern states often contain many 'nations' eg Iraq. ... what term do we use for such a state .... or do you think it wrong to consider states ever falling under imperialist tutelage, of having some inate independence? Paul Bullock ----- 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 : Sat Jan 10 2004 - 00:00:01 EST