Jim caught my meaning, exactly. One minor observation, about supporting the workers, not the capitalists. I doubt that either the workers or the capitalists were waiting to see whether we would support them or not. My point was that, as Jim noted, both of them may have their interests partially and temporarily aligned.
I do appreciate all the information I am getting from the list on the subject. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:39:45AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
