From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 19:02:01 EST
The discussion concerning what is called th 'informal sector' here or the 'marginalisation' of both workers and expelled poor peasants and landless labourers was conducted for a long time in LA, especially Brazil in the 70's. So, much has been written. The degree of experience such workers have of larger or organised production, or the extent to which small workshops have been their occasional experience , or whether they act as appendages to the recycling industry, or rely on period farm work in migrations, does not obscure the fact that they have to work in some way to avoid starvation. I sometimes wonder quite what is meant by those talking of the working class !!!! ( the 'full time', trade unionised or not, industrial, etc employee of the imperial heartlands??? ) Why are these workers not seen as part of the 'working class'?? They don't live on thin air and arn't members of the property owning classes.. .. what exactly is the suggestion here??? Paul Bullock. ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Chavez and Trotsky > At 08:32 09/12/2004, Jerry wrote: > > >The 'informal sector' and its relation to the working class, capital, > >and the state have to be analyzed more concretely since the relations > >between these classes and institutions vary in different social > >formations. E.g. in some nations the state tolerates that sector, > >despite its semi-legal status, because it is a group which can oftentimes > >be more readily controlled (e.g. by threat of eviction from squatter > >encampments). Thus, in some of those nations informal sector members > >have been observed to be relatively politically passive or even > >conservative. In other nations, the situation is different. This > >issue has to be looked at more concretely on the micro (individual national, > >regional, urban) level since broad generalizations about the politics of > >informal sector members do not seem to hold. > > My point in raising the question of the informal sector is that--- > given its weight around the world, this is precisely something that Marxist > economists should be talking about and analysing. Talking about the > 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in the concrete circumstances in much of > the world seems to me to require analysis of the objective situation first. > This wasn't/isn't meant as a criticism--- just a proposal for discussion, etc. > > in solidarity, > michael > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > > Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at > Residencias Anauco Suites > Departamento 601 > Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 > Caracas, Venezuela > (58-212) 573-4111 > fax: (58-212) 573-7724 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 00:00:00 EST