From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 14:36:22 EST
Paul,
I'm not sure what would be a suitable term to distinguish these states
from imperialist states. Perhaps "subsidiary states". I don't know, but
certainly not a term that suggests that there is some sort of structural
conflict between these states and the dominant states. If you look at the
world, it seems (increasingly) clear that the primary conflicts are not
between states but between all states and the people. As your friend Chávez
said yesterday, the presidents go from summit to summit, while the people go
from abyss to abyss.
You ask >What are the imperialist states able to
>do politically that stops the local states economies developing in the
>interests of the vast majority of the local population?
The imperialist states don't need to do anything. The existence of
capital means that the economy does not develop in the interests of the
vast majority of the local population. Or does the notion of imperialism
mean that we forget about capital?
John
----------
>From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK>
>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Labour aristocracy and 'oppressed states'
>Date: Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 4:46 PM
>
>John,
>
>In order to get the issue raised I used the 'unusual' expression 'oppressed
>states'...but your response so far this doesn't help me solve the problem
>that if we can talk of imperialist states, they must be being 'imperialist'
>over something. Other 'economies' don't / can't exist without an organising
>body of some sort, the 'local' state... so what is the relation between this
>'state' and the imperialist states. What are the imperialist states able to
>do politically that stops the local states economies developing in the
>interests of the vast majority of the local population? What do we call
>this condition at the receiving end.. ?? Is 'client' state sufficient ?
>
>Paul Bullock
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Holloway" <johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX>
>To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
>Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Labour aristocracy and 'oppressed states'
>
>
>> Paul and all,
>>
>> Thanks for your explanations, but I still find the term 'oppressed
>> state' incomprehensible. If the state is a capitalist form of social
>> relations we can say that it is oppressive, but I don't think we can ever
>> say it is oppressed. It is a bit like talking of oppressed capitals. Of
>> course many individual capitals can be said to be 'oppressed' by the big
>> capitals, but surely it is a bit nonsensical to talk of oppressed
>capitals?
>>
>> You seem to be identifying states with peoples or countries, but that
>is
>> to overlook completely that the state is a specific form of social
>> organisation (and a form antagonistic to the people it claims to
>represent).
>> I don't imagine you feel identified with the British state. If you lived
>in
>> Mexico, I don't imagine you would feel identified with the Mexican state,
>or
>> wherever.
>>
>> But even if we talk of 'oppressed peoples or countries', that doesn't
>> make any sense to me either. Surely the inhabitants of the US are
>oppressed
>> too? Isn't oppression a global phenomenon?
>>
>> I don't see how talk of 'oppressed states' or even 'oppressed peoples'
>> helps us to address the class antagonism, which is surely our common
>> starting point.
>>
>> I am sure this has something to do with the issue of Venezuela.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK>
>> >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>> >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Labour aristocracy
>> >Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2004, 3:05 PM
>> >
>>
>> >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 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 00:00:01 EST