Some comments:
There are so many issues that have been raised in this exchange in which,
curiously, we have 'national-capitalists' on one side and liberals on the other
hastening to wrap themselves in quotes from Marx. This is not so bad.
To try to be brief, "Zwarich" has made the assertion that the influx of
migrants has undermined wages (esp at the lower end):
"...massive immigration is now causing great hardship among the lowest
classes of domestic workers of all races."
to which Friend L Sandra Hankey counters that
"The loss of jobs and pay scale of US workers is primarily due to
globalization..."
The problems caused by 'immigration' (the movement of workers from one
political authority to another) are indeeed
problems we, as communists, must have answers for. There are two
questions, it seems, that must be answered: 1.) are immigrants
and/or outsourcing (in truth, two different expressions of the same problem)
to blame for the decline in th evalue of the wage of United States workers ;
and, 2.) what is our solution to the problems caused by this increase in our
ranks as workers?
This first assertion was analogously examined in a magazine article. From
the article's abstract:
"The real wage of the average American worker more than doubled between the end
of World War II and 1973. Since then, however, those wages have risen only 6
percent. Furthermore, only highly educated workers have seen their compensation
rise; the real earnings of blue-collar workers have fallen in most years since
1973.
Why have wages stagnated? A consensus among business and political leaders
attributes the problem in large part to the failure of the U.S. to compete
effectively in an increasingly integrated world economy. This conventional
wisdom holds that foreign competition has eroded the U.S. manufacturing base,
washing out the high-paying jobs that a strong manufacturing sector provides.
More broadly, the argument goes, the nation's real income has lagged as a
result of the inability of many U.S. firms to sell in world markets. And
because imports increasingly come from Third World countries with their huge
reserves of unskilled labor, the heaviest burden of this foreign competition
has ostensibly fallen on less educated American workers."
Trade, Jobs and Wages; April 1994; by Krugman, Lawrence; 6 page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=A9362308-C3A8-4DC4-AC9C-8DE25B1A481&ARTICLEID_CHAR=1169AEDE-56F6-4FB9-ACFA-611E668F862&sc=I100322
The article concluded that it was not problems from the 'outside' but
structural problems of American capitalism that led to declining living
standards. Thus long before the "immigration" and the "outsourcing"
problems there were factors at play, factors analyzable through reference to
Marx's analysis of the growth of constant capital (machinery, et al) relative
to the growth in the amount of 'variable capital' (living labor) employed. The
fact is that only 'living' labor adds additional value and that it (living
labor) is decreasing in terms of its relative contribution to product value
means that while a larger and larger amount of goods are coming to market these
are generating a lesser and lesser amount of wages and profits. This, on the
one hand leading to decline in the value of the wage; on the other, a decline
in the rate of capitalistic profit which leads to a lessening of the desire to
engage and employ factors of production (i.e. leading to shuttering of
factories and laying off of workers). This is a downward spiral, the likes of
which, had culminated in the Great Depression and only was overcome with the
initiation of WWII and the consequent destruction of capital and labor so that
it became profitable once again to engage in production.
Keynes had analyzed this in a different (although when looked at beneath its
surface in a wholly consonant) manner. Keynes explained this lack of
willingness to engage the forces of production as due to the fact that savings,
in highly industrialized nations, were outgrowing investment. Simplified, a
larger and larger amount of that which was produced went unsold because the
'effective demand' (not the 'social demand' or need) had been sated. And given
the lack of 'effective demand' a lessening of the possibility of profit leads
to an economy that is stagnant. Present-day Japan is often cited as the
archetype of this.
There are additional sources of the decline in worker's wages. One, the effect
of competition from abroad (i.e. foreign industrial
capacity competing on an equal or near-equal basis in American markets, was
charted quite nicely in Robert Brenner's "The Boom and
the Bubble". Brenner writes:
“Beginning in the mid-1960’s, manufacturers based in …Japan but also in
(Europe)…were thus able to combine relatively advanced techniques and
relatively low wages…to produce the same goods…the overall outcome was
that…Japan and (Europe)…succeeded in maintaining their profit rates, US
manufacturers were unable to avoid reduced rates of return. A declining
aggregate (italics in source) rate of profit in the international manufacturing
sector.
Still another factor in the decline of the value of wages is the fact that an
inordinate amount of labor is employed (and today, under capitalism, must be
employed) in what Marxist economist Fred Mosely termed non-value production:
“According to Marx’s labor theory of value, not all labour employed within
capitalist enterprises produce value and surplus-value. Some labour within
capitalist enterprises perform functions which by themselves, according to
Marx’s theory, do not result in the production of additional value and
surplus-value. These unproductive functions are entirely necessary within
capitalist economies, but nonetheless, according to Marx’s theory, do result in
additional value or surplus-value…” Fred Moseley. “The Decline in the Rate of
Profit in the Postwar US Economy: A Comment on Brenner”.
www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/HM.html
The growth of the security guard, private guard, prison guard, policing
agencies and military industries all have the effect of producing wages without
producing 'values' and thus have the effect of raising the prices of the
'values' that are produced and thus lowering the value of the workers' wage.
Fundamental to all of these is the fact that human re-production constantly
outstrips its own cost of production. This fact ought issue out from the
productive process as an ever increasing increase in the living standards of
workers; the fact that it does not rests upon the fact that, under capitalism,
production is undertaken strictly with an eye towards making a profit. The
Achilles heel of this system is that the rate of exchange-value production
(wages and profits) continually lags the rate of use-value (goods and services)
such that the goods produced today are, as a result, cheaper (and therefore
containing less wages and priofits) than the goods [produced yesterday. It is
the soft vulnerable underbelly of this beast of a system.
As to the second question, "Zwarich" is correct when he says that
"One of the most basic fundamental strategies used by ruling classes, (the
few), to 'divide and conquer' the lower classes, (the many)"
But that doesn't mean that we buy on off into it. The right of a person to
travel wherever, whenever to 'shop' hirself for whatever means by which to
support hir's family is the fundamental human right. On this there can be no
equivocation. This makes it immensely more difficult for communists to
illustrate the problems inherent in the nature of capitalist production.
National-capitalists like "Zwarich", Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs only make the
job more difficult by 'championing' (sic) the American working class. We want
nothing of their assistance. We need not their aid. We must, while maintaing
the demand of "Open Borders" simultaneously assert that the problems of the
United States working classes, those of the Mexican working classes, that of
all working classes can only be resolved by the replacement of a system
predicated upon the production of profit be replaced by a system predicated
upon the satisfaction of human needs, wants and desires.
"...capitalist production meets in the development of its productive forces
a barrier which has nothing to do with the production of wealth as such;
and this peculiar barrier testifies to the limitations and to the merely
historical, transitory character of the capitalist mode of production;
testifies that for the production of wealth, it is not an absolute mode,
moreover, that at a certain stage it rather conflicts with its further
development." Marx. Capital. Vol. 3. Chapter 15.
www.marxists.org\archive\marx\works\1894-c3\ch15.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL
PROTECTED] ; [email protected] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: [LAAMN] Re: [actionla] Earl Hutchinson invites Joe Turner at the
L.A. Urban Policy Ro...
1) There is no doubt that Joe Turner is a thug. (Actually he is much worse
than a thug). For example:
a) I heard him on television say that the state is being turned into a
third world swamp. This is fascist, gutter racist language.
b) Even the minutemen of all people, have said SOS is not welcome at
their vigilante line at the border because of their open racism, and because
Turner has publicly advocated violence. This is a just a tactical or power
squabble
among right-wing nativists, but it's revealing.
c) Turner openly advocates intimidation of day laborers, and is trying to
shut down public art.
2) "arm" talks about divide and conquer strategies of the ruling classes over
time. Well, exactly. Anti-immigrant groups pit groups of workers against each
other---citizen vs immigrant, legal vs "illegal." Now SOS is even seeking to
provoke and capitalize off of pitting the two most exploited groups of
workers
and poor against each other: African-Americans and undocumented immigrants.
Meanwhile, this takes the pressure off the elites laughing all the way to the
bank. (Note: there's a reason some SOS statements may seem to fit in with a
class analysis-- remember nazi stands for national SOCIALIST).
3)"Anyone who has read Marx" knows that Marx said "Working people have no
country" and "Workers of the world unite". From a class point of view there's
no
such thing as an illegal worker, there are just workers everywhere whose very
survival is threatened by the depradations of global capitalism. The loss of
jobs and pay scale of US workers is primarily due to globalization ;
scapegoating immigrant workers forced out of their countries by NAFTA etc. is
not going
to turn that around, but prevent the kind of unity that is needed to build an
effective class struggle. At first Cesar Chavez and the trade unions didn't
get this, but eventually he and the trade union movement came around, and
unions are now organizing the unorganized instead of attacking them.
There's lots more to be said on these issues of course, but I think I've said
enough for one email!
Leone
In a message dated 7/15/2005 1:07:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any chance at all that actual Reason can be brought to bear in
considering this volatile issue of 'immigration'?
Even the most rudimentary class analysis should make us aware that
immigration causes great hardship among the lowest classes of domestic
citizens in any
economy. One of the most basic fundamental strategies used by ruling classes,
(the few), to 'divide and conquer' the lower classes, (the many), is to set
different groups among the lowest classes against each other in direct
economic
competition. Importing massive numbers of low paid foreign workers into the
domestic economy has been a principle tactic of this basic strategy that has
been
used by ruling classes since the ancient times of Rome, and even far earlier,
in ancient Egypt, the civilizations of Mesopotamia, and the other
civilizations of antiquity. Anyone who has read Marx knows that illuminating
this 'oldest
trick in the book' of the ruling class was one of his most basic themes.
Why can we not recognize that massive immigration is now causing great
hardship among the lowest classes of domestic workers of all races?
My own background is in the construction trades (I am a carpenter). It is
currently estimated that immigrant workers have taken over fully 25% of
construction jobs in the United States. That is millions upon millions of
good paying
jobs that used to support millions of American families. Immigrants initially
took over the roofing trade, which is the lowest on the 'totem-pole' of the
hierarchy of trades. Roofing is among the hardest, most unpleasant work among
all
the trades. It is now difficult to find a roofer that speaks English in most
cities across the nation. But the myth that is being perpetrated by
pro-immigrant groups, that immigrants only take jobs that domestic workers
don't want, i
s simply NOT TRUE! The hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jobs nailing
down shingles in the hot sun were previously filled by willing Americans only
a
few short years ago. Even this lowest tier trade paid 'good wages', ranging
from $12-$15 per hour for non-union work, up to $26 for union roofers. These
American workers were able to provide a decent and dignified life for their
families. Many or most of these American roofers can no longer find work in
their
trade, and now work in much lower paying, often minimum wage, jobs as
janitors,
fast food workers, etc. Immigrant workers are now working their way up the
trades, into framing, drywall, siding, etc. Perhaps the most salient point we
need to grasp is that few immigrant workers are making $12-$15 per hour in
the
roofing trade, or in any of the other trades that used to pay American
workers
even higher wages. When immigrant workers take these jobs, these wages are
commonly divided among workers. One worker who is 'legal', (who has a social
security number), is issued the paycheck, and he (or she) pays one or several
other
workers in cash out of that check. I could relate in detail many of my own
direct experiences, acquaintances, etc, that document this general practice.
I am not a Marxist per se, but I think that Marx was one of History's great
thinkers, a genius who belongs in the same pantheon with Darwin, Freud,
Einstein, etc. These are the great thinkers that brought humankind a vision
of the
forest, where we had previously been blinded by the trees. I am just barely
this
side of being a Socialist (a discussion for another time). I am NOT a
'racist'. But I have been accused, on this very ActionLA discussion group, of
being a
'racist' simply because I have applied a rudimentary Marxist class analysis
to understand the effects that massive immigration has on the lowest classes
of
American workers. Cesar Chavez was VEHEMENTLY opposed to immigration. Was he
a racist too?
The degree of blind and unreasoned emotionalism that is being applied to this
issue by certain factions on the Left is just incredible. It is doing great
disservice to our Cause.
This issue of immigration is a very complex issue. All progressive people are
deeply concerned with the rights and plight of immigrant peoples, just as we
are concerned with the conditions of poverty and want that caused these
people
to leave their homes and families in desperation to seek survival, and a
better life for themselves and those they love. But clear headed, clear
thinking
progressive people should not be blind to the devastating effects that this
recent massive wave of immigration is having in the lives of the families of
the
lowest classes of American citizens.
I know very little about SOS or the Minutemen. I have no doubt that many
people who are overt racists, (racism is perhaps the most basic of the
age-old
tools used by the ruling class to divide the lower classes), have gravitated
to
these groups. But reading their websites, reading their reasoned arguments,
most of which would fit quite well in a basic Marxist class analysis, one
finds
no traces of racism there. Quite the opposite. There are very emphatic
disclaimers disavowing any alliance with anyone who projects racism, or 'hate
speech'
of any kind.
I don't know who Joe Turner is. I don't know anything about him. This post
from 'activism' (the one I am responding to here), contains a very reasoned
and
sound analysis, to wit:
"The anti-racist movement does need to respond to this, but I would recommend
that we emphasize making sure that pro-Latino, pro-immigrant people are
represented on the roundtable, rather than boycotting the event or demanding
that
SOS be "disinvited".
An articulate and well-informed voice on this roundtable, ……………………………,
will accomplish more for our cause than any attempt at censorship would."
Was it really necessary to include this language: "which can expose Joe
Turner for the ignorant, smirking thug that he is", in the space indicated
above?
Is this not emotionalized unreasoned language that itself contradicts the
"articulate and well informed voice" that 'activism' argues in favor of? When
Truth
is on our side, we do not need to stoop to emotionalism. Reason, derived from
that Truth, and reprersented by that "articulate and well informed voice",
will serve us best.
But sadly, what we are seeing, from the Left as well as from the Right, is
that those who abandon Truth in their arguments, will always immediately
stoop
to emotionalism, (like this kind of name calling), or even blatant racist
hate
speech.
Joe Turner may very well in fact BE a 'thug', or he may not, I simply don't
know. What I can clearly observe is that in the material I have actually seen
with my own eyes, SOS is speaking in reasoned terms, in a reasoned voice,
while
those opposing them are using inflamed and emotionalized tactics like this
name calling.
C'mon folks. We gotta do better than this. Let's use our heads to think our
way through this complex issue of immigration. Let's develop our reasoned
arguments to show how these immigrant workers, AND American workers, are BOTH
being
victimized by the ruling class. Immigrants are struggling heroically to win a
better life for their families. American workers want to take care of their
own families. These groups are being pitted against one another by a cruel
and
heartless ruling class. The ruling class has been doing this same thing,
dividing the working class into rival groups, (often based on racism), and
pitting
them against one another, since the dawn of civilization.
"The value of Labor is defined by the value of reproduction (replacement) of
that Labor". It has been over thirty years since I read Marx's 'Manifesto',
but if memory serves, that is very nearly a direct quote.
Why should Capital pay Labor $10 an hour, (Capital says to itself), when it
can reproduce (replace) that labor at $5? What American workers are now
confronting (and suffering under) as part and parcel of 'globalization',
which is
defined by the easy mobility of Capital, is the exportation of good paying
jobs
to people that will reproduce those jobs for less money, who will work for a
lower wage. (Many of these people are in Mexico of course). To provide the
excess labor force willing to work for lower wages, to do those jobs that
cannot
be exported, (service sector jobs, construction jobs, etc), workers are being
imported en masse.
This massive wave of immigration is causing great hardship and suffering
among American workers and their families, and most of the hardship falls (of
course) on the lowest classes of workers, which are (of course) well
represented
among minority groups like blacks and Latinos. Why do you think Cesar Chavez
was so passionately AGAINST immigration? When he set out to organize farm
workers, he worked first to get immigration laws enforced. He realized that a
union
among mostly Hispanic itinerant farm workers would have no chance as long as
growers (Capital) could easily replace those workers by importing more
desperate workers from Mexico.
C'mon guys. How did we get this confused? We have Truth on our side. Let's
use Reason to illuminate it. Is name calling, and other forms of
emotionalized
'hate speech', really going to serve our Cause well?
If Joe Turner is indeed a 'thug', wouldn't it be better to relate a history
of his behavior that illustrates his thuggery, than to strike out with the
blind unreasoned lash of name calling, or any other form of 'hate speech'?
C'mon guys…….. We can do better than this.
Zwarich
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "laamn" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
