This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_916980578_boundary
So true, so elegantly put, so human.
Dead On.
Jim
In a message dated 1/21/99 6:37:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Subj: [PEN-L:2451] quote from Monthly Review article
Date: 1/21/99 6:37:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Yates)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Friends,
In the Jan. issue of MR, Bryan Palmer, in an article about Harry
Braverman's political development, quotes from "Labor and Monopoly
Capital" as follows:
"The apparent acclimitization of the worker to the new modes of
production grows out of the destruction of all other ways of living, the
striking of wage bargains that permit a certain enlargement of the
customary bounds of subsistence for the working class, the weaving of
the net of modern capitalist life that finally makes all other modes of
living impossible. But beneath this apparent habituation, the hostility
of workers to the degenerated forms of work which are forced upon them
continues as a subterranean stream that makes its way to the surface
when employment conditions permit, or when the capitalist drive for a
greater intensity of labor oversteps the bounds of physical and mental
capacity. It renews itself in new generations, expresses itself in the
unbounded cynicism and revulsion which large numbers of workers feel
about their work, and comes to the fore repeatedly as a social issue
demanding attention."
Palmer then says, "This is, to be sure, an old set of ideas, a
constellation of Marxist thought that some have, in the unparalleled
confluence of arrogance and complacency that often masquerades as
'critical theory' in the late 20th century years postdating Braverman's
text, constructed as an antiquarian attachment, risible in its
sympathies and sensitivity. Scholastic hyperbole notwithstanding, such
apparently laughable thought is the premise of a politics of social
transformation, and however many new positions we may be justifiably
exhorted to embrace, none are achievable if the old positions of the
young Harry Frankel (Braverman' party/SWP name) are not defended and
deepened."
It seems to me that one way to judge a scholarly work, whether it be
Judith Butler's or anyone else's, is to ask, to what extent does it help
the hostility workers feel toward their work "rise to the surface," to
what extent does it aid a "politics of social transformation." For
example, workers are exploited everwhere there is capitalism.
Therefore, ths struggles of workers (and indigenous people I might add.
If Indians struggle to regain control of land they once inhabited, we
must support them. If once they gain control, a minority of them
capitalistically exploit the rest, we must support the exploited
majority. And if workers are trying to form unions here, we must not
say, well unions are by definition reactionary, we must support the
workers' efforts and at the same time try to broaden and deepen their
political perspectives.) everywhere are legitimate and it is the duty of
radicals to support them and push them forward. The sad thing is not so
much that workers in poor countries are more heavily exploited but that
the US labor movement actively supported this exploitation. We must
try, to whatever extent we can, to both end the exploitation of workers
in poor countries and to confront the reactionary policies of the
AFL-CIO.
Having said this, I know that I am not a saint; I have not done all I
could on many occasions, both in my writing and in my actions, and I
have looked to my own comfort many times. Understanding this, I try to
take people and writings as I find them, allying with the people when I
can to push forward the struggle and taking from the writings what is
useful in doing so. And, finally, trying to laugh and have fun whenever
possible!
Michael Yates >>
--part0_916980578_boundary
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:37:19 -0500 (EST)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:37:20 -0800 (PST)
[136.142.185.11])
(8.8.8/8.8.8/cispo-7.2.2.2)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:32:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:35:38 -0500
From: Michael Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Pitt-Johnstown
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:2451] quote from Monthly Review article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friends,
In the Jan. issue of MR, Bryan Palmer, in an article about Harry
Braverman's political development, quotes from "Labor and Monopoly
Capital" as follows:
"The apparent acclimitization of the worker to the new modes of
production grows out of the destruction of all other ways of living, the
striking of wage bargains that permit a certain enlargement of the
customary bounds of subsistence for the working class, the weaving of
the net of modern capitalist life that finally makes all other modes of
living impossible. But beneath this apparent habituation, the hostility
of workers to the degenerated forms of work which are forced upon them
continues as a subterranean stream that makes its way to the surface
when employment conditions permit, or when the capitalist drive for a
greater intensity of labor oversteps the bounds of physical and mental
capacity. It renews itself in new generations, expresses itself in the
unbounded cynicism and revulsion which large numbers of workers feel
about their work, and comes to the fore repeatedly as a social issue
demanding attention."
Palmer then says, "This is, to be sure, an old set of ideas, a
constellation of Marxist thought that some have, in the unparalleled
confluence of arrogance and complacency that often masquerades as
'critical theory' in the late 20th century years postdating Braverman's
text, constructed as an antiquarian attachment, risible in its
sympathies and sensitivity. Scholastic hyperbole notwithstanding, such
apparently laughable thought is the premise of a politics of social
transformation, and however many new positions we may be justifiably
exhorted to embrace, none are achievable if the old positions of the
young Harry Frankel (Braverman' party/SWP name) are not defended and
deepened."
It seems to me that one way to judge a scholarly work, whether it be
Judith Butler's or anyone else's, is to ask, to what extent does it help
the hostility workers feel toward their work "rise to the surface," to
what extent does it aid a "politics of social transformation." For
example, workers are exploited everwhere there is capitalism.
Therefore, ths struggles of workers (and indigenous people I might add.
If Indians struggle to regain control of land they once inhabited, we
must support them. If once they gain control, a minority of them
capitalistically exploit the rest, we must support the exploited
majority. And if workers are trying to form unions here, we must not
say, well unions are by definition reactionary, we must support the
workers' efforts and at the same time try to broaden and deepen their
political perspectives.) everywhere are legitimate and it is the duty of
radicals to support them and push them forward. The sad thing is not so
much that workers in poor countries are more heavily exploited but that
the US labor movement actively supported this exploitation. We must
try, to whatever extent we can, to both end the exploitation of workers
in poor countries and to confront the reactionary policies of the
AFL-CIO.
Having said this, I know that I am not a saint; I have not done all I
could on many occasions, both in my writing and in my actions, and I
have looked to my own comfort many times. Understanding this, I try to
take people and writings as I find them, allying with the people when I
can to push forward the struggle and taking from the writings what is
useful in doing so. And, finally, trying to laugh and have fun whenever
possible!
Michael Yates
--part0_916980578_boundary--
