From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2007 - 11:34:13 EST
> it is possible to argue that the alliance you suggest was not directed against finance capital but against the (revolutionary) socialist movement worldwide, at a time when the USSR had defeated nazism and the communists in the countries occupied by the Nazi army had been among the main forces that fought the invadors. Communism all over the world and the Communist parties in many Western European countries increased very significantly their political influence. Thus, it was highly necessary for the capitalist class to coopt their workers. < Claus: 1. Which Communist Parties could be considered to be revolutionary socialist after WW2? > higher living standards (above the value of labour power) can only be temporary and localized and do not eliminate exploitation, and in fact relative surplus value must have increased strongly in the 'glorious' 25 year period, thanks to the rapid development of the productive forces that you mention. < 2. The VLP can itself change over time and hence an increase in living standards can be something more than just temporary and localized. > From a Marxist point of view the workers should not fight to become less exploited slaves, they should fight to free themselves from slavery. < 3. With all due respect, I think this is a sectarian formulation. Of course, we should oppose the wages system. However, we should also support and participate in struggles for increased wages (and benefits, etc.) by workers. The "fight to free themselves from slavery" does not fall from the sky or result from proclamations which say "Socialist Revolution Now!". Before workers can develop revolutionary consciousness they have to learn for themselves through their own struggles the meaning of the current system. If we say to workers "don't fight to become less exploited" when they fight for higher wages, then we cut ourselves from many workers' struggles today and thus become spectators from afar and 'above' in the arena of class conflict. > full employment can only strengthen the position of labour against capital in market terms, i.e., of the workers as sellers of labour power, but it weakens the position of socialism against capitalism. If there is employment for all, and higher standards of living, why fight capitalism? < 4. So, if there is full employment and rising living standards then the prospects for socialism are nil? Are you implicitly making some assumption about the increasing 'decadence' of the capitalist system? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST