Marty wrote:
>> Michael, this seems like a strange perspective. Why dont you try imagining
>> that you are a worker and thinking about the kind of economic transformation
>> that you would want and how you would want to achieve it--what kind of
>> policies would be helpful and why--what is the government proposing and why,
>> etc.
>> You talk about China as a classless entity rather than a country with a
>> class system. I am sure that US capital would like to restart the growth
>> engines in the US while maintaining labor discipline as well. At the same
>> time, they would probably choose maintaining labor discipline over growth if
>> it came down to it. Look at how little change in economic structure we have
>> seen in the wake of the great recession and with a possible double dip on
>> the horizon.
>> And the same is true in China. The regime doesnt like to see worker
>> activism--but that doesnt mean that they are supportive of meaningful
>> changes in the strategy. Look at their stimulus program--very little
>> redistributive in the public spending, for example.<<
I totally agree (except, of course, the missed apostrophes).
Michael responds:
> Marty, the strange perspective that you were talking about was that I was
> imagining what the Chinese leadership was trying to do in order to develop a
> capitalist country -- certainly not a classless one. In the short run, this
> strategy might have some benefits for workers -- especially in the sense of
> shortening the working day.
> Within this context, the interests of the workers and the leadership may have
> something in common, which I find interesting.<
What we see here is the conflict that Marx portrayed in CAPITAL, vol.
1, ch. 10 (as David Harvey and I interpret it). Members of the ruling
class wants to stretch out the working day (or keep it stretched out)
to accumulate as much surplus-value as possible (absolute
surplus-value extraction). The workers resist, fighting for a shorter
working day and for their own survival as human beings.
A key problem that Michael refers to above is that there's a conflict
between what's good for individual capitalists (sweating labor for
immediate gain) and what's good for the capitalist class as a whole
(avoiding the destruction of the labor-power needed to produce
surplus-value in the long run). With some allies, the workers might be
able to win limits on the working-day. This not only limits the damage
to them, but serves the long-term interests of the capitalist class as
a whole, despite what individual members of that class want. (As
Harvey points out, this kind of thing is the basis for
social-democratic compromises.)
If this is an accurate analysis (and I think it is), then we should
support the workers, not the capitalists (here organized by the CP of
China). If our concern is the "development" of the country as a whole,
then we should remember that the capitalists need to be forced to take
their medicine. Coddling them won't help. Relying on the invisible
hand of the market or the visible hand of the state to benevolently
allow benefits to automatically "trickle down" won't work. People have
to fight for it.
Anthony writes:
> I would like to see how or for that matter which country/economy expanded
> without generating absolute surplus value. While I would not like to live in
> China, I think the Chinese economic transformation is remarkable. Long hours
> is necessary for surplus generation. There is no short cut to it. ... The
> only question is who puts in the long hours and who reaps the benefits? <
It's true that most if not all countries that "developed" (including
Stalin's Russia) sweated labor, generating absolute surplus-labor. The
problem is who runs the show, who has the power. The way that China is
"expanding" accumulates wealth and power for its ruling class. It is
the latter that decides "who puts in the long hours and who reaps the
benefits." The only way this can change is via popular struggle from
below.
--
Jim Devine
"Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
