|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by comrade Oz
Some sections of the industrial workers in the old imperialist countries are not being exploited at all.
What passes for manufacturing in the imperialist countries is often assembly line work, putting together assembling or packaging into the finished product, the cheap labour produced parts from the Third World. The bribe is still going to the imperialist country workers today, many of who have been shifted out of industrial production but to the services distribution end of the profit making process. That is the economic reality of imperialism today.
This includes large sections of the Australian working class. Australia too is being converted to a service-based economy.
The Trots say they are still waiting for these well-fed "exploited" imperialist country workers to stop watching "Australian Idol," or "American Idol" on TV and rise up and build the word revolution, their permanent revolution nirvana. They continually assure us it will not be long now, as these workers will soon wake up as they are being exploited and should be getting double their wages. If the Trotskyites and revisionists can not grasp this reality, that large sections of the working class including even the industrial workers in the imperialist heartlands are a labour aristocracy, because it does not fit in with their idea of Marxist economics, their religious idea of only looking at the parts of the economic system dogmatically, their belief that each and every worker is and must be exploited and deserves a huge pay rise because they think Marx told them so, that is a problem with their theory not a problem of reality or real Marxism..
Do they really believe that the value of the labour of the imperialist country workers including all those service flunkeys is worth 10 or 20 or even 50 times the labour of a Third World worker doing similar work, and if they were not being exploited should be getting double what they get now?
What does that have in common with Marxism in the real world; Marxists believe that the value of labouring the marketplace is socially necessary labour time. Have a look at value in the real "globalised" world markets.
The value of commodities including those produced in the Third World can be seen in the prices in any retail store and that includes the profits of the retailer.
The fact that they are sold in our stores shows they are part of our social labour market, our economy, even if our economy is somewhat distorted by protectionist subsidies benefit tis provided by the state and the like measures. These retail values, the exchange value of these commodities, represent the value of the raw materials, the cost of production and the labour used in their production and the profits made from that purchased labour-power. The prices include the value the capitalists extract over and above the cost of the wages paid--the capitalist's profits. The profits in those final retail prices all stem from the surplus-value extracted from the workers especially in the manufacturing stage.
Assuming a similar investment in the means of production, and the raw materials used, any labour-power purchased for wages that cannot produce commodities with the same prices in the same marketplace is overvalued. The cheap wages they work for in the Third World are enforced by imperialism often supporting military backed regimes that keep the wages cheap.
The high wages of the imperialist country workers can also be enforced internally by bribes and running tariff wall protected economies. Locking out competitive lower cost labour and its products, thereby allows minimum wage systems.
The imperialist system enforces unfair low "cheap" labour prices on the Third World workers, not just by its own military enforcement by wars but also by its military backed agents and puppets, including by unequal exchange of values in the trade between agricultural countries and industrialised countries, the dollar hegemony and the imposition of "aid" to create dependency and export orientated industries and therefore cheap raw materials for their industries, the imperialist monopoly controlled oil prices that affect the Third World people most severely, suck out billions of dollars of value created by their working peoples and the creation of an export sector for the cheap parts going into the things created on imperialist country assembly lines, by locking out immigration of poor country workers in the name of protecting freedom and in a hundred and one other ways.
That is why the rich countries like Britain America and increasingly Australia have economies that are now service-based economies.
There are different types of "service workers" in a services "based" economy.
Some provide their services and skills to working people for their day to day needs, medical, teaching, food workers, waste removing and the like workers who gain their livings from payments mainly out of the wages of the working people, as part of the working peoples necessary everyday costs of living and of reproducing the next generation of workers.
Transportation of people, and the transportation of goods to markets and for industry, the distribution measuring and packaging of goods into more easily accessible and consumable items some shop assistants and even shelf stackers, jobs like these can be considered as doing productive and necessary work; they can add value in the production processes of making and distributing commodities. Sometimes these kinds of productive workers are also described by capitalists as service workers.
Then there are the flunkeys and lickspittles of capitalism the servants and dependents on the capitalist class. These include the servants of their state the politicians and bureaucrats the military and the police they gain payment for their services not from capital but from the revenues of the state. (These revenues are derived from taxes etc.)
Commenting on service workers Marx said in the "Grundrisse":
In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue -- including labour for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. -- belongs under this rubric, within this category. All menial servants etc. By means of their services -- often coerced -- all these workers, from the least to the highest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalist's revenue. But it does not occur to anyone to think that by means of the exchange of his revenue for such services, i.e. through private consumption, the capitalist posits himself as capitalist. Rather, he thereby spends the fruits of his capital.
Modern society has added a lot more workers of this flunky type for the well off, like personal mind and body trainers, phycoligists and religious motivators and consultants in a thousand varieties.
Britain excels in making a buck from services. A great deal of money is being made from these services. But we have to ask what is the real source of the physical value of this money, the things that that these profits are exchanged for.
Apart from the investments imperialist British imperialism has invested around the world and especially in the Third World that are huge source of profit, Britain extracts a lot its surplus-value its profits from the exploited workers of the world by providing parasite services to imperialist capital, and its Third World puppets and despots in banking, international stockbroking, insurance and the like services such as educating the rich kids from the Third World, and by international tourism by the world's labour aristocracies and the rich.
Only a small percentage of the British workforce now creates physical value from manufacturing or other productive labour and these are most often the immigrants and exploited foreign workers or tourists from the poorer old Eastern Europe countries on temporary work visas.
In general, what are called service workers in capitalism do not create much real value from their own labour. Their work in imperialist countries in distribution, marketing, sales etc is mostly to realise the profits already extracted from exploited Third World workers. To help their bosses to make a buck from that. That is the principal task of the labour aristocracy in countries like Australia.
Of course the capitalist, does not pay them for nothing, but uses those highly paid workers in the imperialists country to help him in the real task of realizing the surplus-value from the exploited counties workers. So he will put them to work in marketing and advertising in retail even as workers singing commercials or as security guards to guard his goods and for insurance to protect his profits on the way to the bank.
Some of these workers may even knock up a sweat and get paid a good bonus.
For the capitalists, the rich country workers' high wages including many service workers are just one of the necessary costs in completing the whole cycle to achieve his profit.
Naturally it would be best for the capitalist if he can pay them out of the value of their own labour. But, it may not be necessary for them to actually deliver surplus-value, if they help him in this task of realising profits from his exploited country workers, especially to achieve quick multi-turnovers and bigger profits. They may not add much value but they can help him realise more profits from the labour of his exploited mostly Third World workers, the real or biggest source of his profits.
They may even earn for the capitalist thereby the value of their wages paid, if they achieve this turnover so, our capitalist will save on the actual cost of his labour aristocracy by paying out of his increased profits.
Now if he sells more of his commodities by turnover of his capital many times, he realizes more of the surplus-value created by the exploited workers, praises and pays his labour aristocracy workers well for "adding value "and is still left with a fat profit.
This service sector in Australia is increasingly based on the retail sector. That is now mostly the marketing, retail sales, installation and the after sale servicing of foreign commodities. From television sets, to cars or air conditioners. Or in the marketing of such services as Indian labour in international call centres. Call centres that may be set up for such functions as handling the monthly payments, the insurance, or warranty complaints about those foreign commodities purchased in Australia.
Marx drew a distinction between the productive sphere and the non-productive sphere, which merely consumes the products created in the sphere of production.
From the viewpoint of capitalism, all the Australian workers in these service industries are productive labourers because they help capital to realize or obtain surplus-value. They help to capital expand by the profits that are realised in the sale and servicing of these commodities and they thereby reproduce the conditions for re-investment and the continuation of the capitalist system.
But from the viewpoint of the workers in the Third World, where the surplus-value from which these profits are often sourced and is seized gratis after their "cheap" wage labour is paid, these Australian workers are part of a parasitic system who earn their livings mainly from gaining their own cut in that surplus-value when selling these commodities at their value.
The value of these imported goodies, at their low values, or low prices are based on exploiting say "cheap" Chinese labour-power priced at U$ 2 or 3 dollars a day.
This can make the prices of these commodities, like a new TV appear real cheap indeed. But, really enormous super profits are being made in a massive turnover of trade in the retail and distribution system
These cheap prices also have the effect of making a highly overpaid Australian imperialist country worker believe his own labour is very, very valuable.
They are overpaid because they are paid over the values they actually create. The extra is coming from the surplus-value created by Third World workers.
There is only one reality, but different classes may adopt different understandings, of that reality.
But it is wrong just to see that surplus-value in the capitalist system has to express itself only in a material product a physical commodity. From the viewpoint of capital an actor may be a productive worker, not because of any cultural values or artistic pleasure the actors work may provide for people, but merely and only for the profit that the actors work may deliver to an entrepreneur.
Even capitalists have culture; it may be a twisted culture that reflects the selfish and even racist values of their lives, and their control over other nations. But, they must have that culture to give the life of their class meaning and sense. People even pay to see an Australian nationalist story play movies, musical love stories or ballet based on children's fairy tales for example and such other drivel, that their class may produce on stage.
Profits can be made. These are profits made outside of the productive sector for physical commodities.
There are many Marxists in the past who like this writer have gained a superficial knowledge of Marxist economics. And like Trotskyites mechanically applied that superficial knowledge. One size fits all. For example we read a little Marx and learn about surplus-value.
We learn that the only way those capitalists can make a profit is by exploiting workers for surplus-value. The only reason capitalists invest money is to make a profit. Conclusion 2+2: all workers must be exploited for surplus-value and in this great passion play of life all workers must be delivering surplus-value to their employer. To imagine, in this great workers Passion play that the capitalist class as a whole derives its profits from the exploitation of each and every worker or group of workers or even whole industries is to deny the reality of the total system described by Marx. This mechanical view only sees the capitalist system by focusing on some of its individual parts.
While it is true that the whole system rests on realizing surplus-value from exploiting workers labour-power, capitalism as a total system is a lot more complicated than that. Not only do the profits have to be realized they have to be divided into a share for the aliquot parts the various capitals invested. There are rents, profits and interests to be paid so that each within the competition is able to gain the average profit. The manufacturing capitalist, the banker, the wholesaler, the retailer and so on.
Individual capitals may in the competition gain above or below that average profit. In the second case they will in the end drop out of the competition bankrupt. Each of course fights to maximise and gain above average profit. Monopolies are of value for this.
In some cases a worker may be employed on wages and driven to produce as much value as possible yet not actually produce surplus-value over and above the cost of his labour-power or even the value of the wages actually paid.
His wages and benefits may be subsidised out of the surplus-value produced by other workers, not only within the individual enterprise in which he works but also even by workers outside of that enterprise, including workers in another country in the case of a multinational company. This subsidy may be paid by the individual capitalist enterprise or by the system as a whole, including benefits from the state in various forms.
The capitalist class has an interest in preserving its system in the interest of the class as a whole.
It establishes a state to manage the affairs for its class interests, primarily the state, is armed bodies of men established by the ruling class for their security in owning property, the most important property being the means of production of wealth and so therefore, the states main role is to protect the rule, the fundamental laws and a state of equality and freedom for their class. A slave owner's state for example protects the slave owner's class as a whole. For that class it may be a democratic state but towards the slaves it is a dictatorial state. A capitalist state serves the capitalists and it may create the illusion that it is democratic for all peoples, and that democracy may appear to be real with a formal vote and so on. Real benefits may possibly be gained from time to time from those voting rights> Generally the ruling class control over "public opinion," the use of the capitalist-owned media and the class interest of its supporters, are sufficient to ensure favourable voting results. The changes allowed and the benefits or concessions that may be gained are never allowed to interfere with the fundamental property interests of the ruling class and the maintenance of the profit system.
That's when the army gets called out from its barracks. We have seen this occur hundreds of times in various countries throughout the world. So we should not entertain illusions about this democracy business.
Often the basic security laws of the ruling class, the main rules of the game, are formalised in constitutions. But the state also manages the administration of day-to-day affairs of its class as a whole with lessor laws enforced by its bureaucrats and civil servants that are also backed by its military and its police.
The purpose of those administrative bureaucracies in its day-to-day governmental tasks is to manage the smooth functioning of the system overall. It finances construction of infrastructure too expensive for individual groups of capitalists and the economy generally. Sufficiently educating the workers so they are fit to work and so on. These administrators may handle the affairs of the working people too --pensions healthcare driving licences, whatever is needed for the smooth functioning of the system. Above all, this means to manage the laws rules and customs norms and rights of its ruling class individually and collectively for the smooth maintenance of conditions for gaining average profit for their capitals within the system.
Good government for them and these amounts to the same thing consists in preventing corruption or unfair advantages so that the profits of their class as a whole are average and fair. That is the equality, freedom and democracy of their class. Therefore as a class they have a tendency to get hot under the collar about such matters as corruption, they all want a free equal fair crack at the surplus-value pie, as their "human right" and they seek to impose this worldwide as the "rule of law." By this they mean capitalist law.
They have an ideological view, that this is best achieved by free trade, creating fair and equal opportunities for all capitals. But in practise each capitalist group seeks to gain the advantage against other groups by monopoly in some form or other. Those who are strong and gaining cry "free trade" those who are losing seek protectionism from the state in some form or other.
So there is a continual state of tension between these groups this is mediated by their state, which is endlessly producing laws to regulate or tinker with this or that aspect of the struggles within the ruling class internally and between the imperialist blocs externally. Generally speaking in order to avoid war, those who are strong and gaining impose free trade on the weak by legal means. If these agreements fail it is back to war, economic or military or both.
The strong especially those that are monopolies assure the weak that free trade is good for them will help in development of their own economies.
The poorer people of the Third World can never trade themselves into prosperity when imperialism has stacked the cards against them.
It forces them to create cheap price export industries to repay foreign loans and "aid" and to pay for oil priced in U$ dollar currency, instead of developing industries that benefit their own peoples.
But the fact is, that every industrialised power achieved its industrial development under conditions of protectionism. Including that present day champion of free trade the United $nakes of Amerika.
With protectionism the ruling class, a national bourgeois (or even a working class in power for that matter) can use its state to manage its affairs, so as to ensure the development or protection of its whole economy or selected parts of its economy so as to ensure its overall profitability or growth.
It can redirect its state revenues to subsidise particular sectors or even the workers in a particular sector. Import taxes can be levied on imports and subsidies to unprofitable sectors. The aim is to ensure the favourable conditions for average profits in each sector.
Sometimes, as in the case of Japan ,particular sectors may be selected and given favourable interest rates so as to force the direction of the economy in ways the ruling class as a whole considers favourable. For example to build the manufacturing export sector. The cheaper interest rates provided to ensure profitability, were achieved in Japan by using the government enforced low interest savings in the Post Office Bank. That is, the savings of the ordinary people were centralised and supplied to the selected capitalists at a internationally cheap rate of interest.
To dream that this bribed labour aristocracy in its service based industries in a services based economies like the U.$., British, or increasingly the Australian economy is the revolutionary proletariat is a Trotskyite and revisionist fantasy--an abandonment of Marxist class analysis for sociological speculation.
We have to learn to differentiate the woods from the trees. There are forests to see and save not just a tree to hug. Or the shoulder of an "exploited" labour aristocrat to cry on.
There is in process a great geographic shift in capitalism as industrial production is shifted to the Third World. The vast majority of the exploited industrial proletariat is now Third World workers. Billions of people employed for a couple of bucks a day. Look at their numbers in China; now add in India, South and Central America, Eastern Europe etc.
Now if one were seriously looking for an exploited proletariat one need look no further, their actual condition of life must make these workers potentially revolutionary. Socialists should be very optimistic about the future and yes, the exploited industrial workers the proletariat will lead the way but the proletariat is not the imperialist countries' bribed labour aristocracies--those who have a material interest in protecting imperialism. Marxists traditionally placed their hopes on the industrial proletariat in the fight against imperialism.
In a discussion on the labour aristocracy in Australia, an "anti-revisionist communist independence fighter" said he thought that I was wrong to say the working class is objectively split between those who have property and those who have none.
I had referred to the fact that government statistics shows 17 % of households have accumulated assets of only A$50,000.
Yet he spoke to me of an ordinary fellow worker working for the government and earning a high wage who (despite exploitation?) had been able to accumulate subsidised superannuation to the value of A$450.000. This person was a worker by class definition and according to him had the same interests as workers without property with the same need to fight capitalism and all were potentially anti-imperialists. He needs to do a Marxist reality check.
That ordinary worker he spoke of, with $450,000 super, quite possibly is also gaining rent from a second apartment too.
In any case his interest gain at say 5% would equal $425 a week more than what many poorer workers earn in one week. He may be an ordinary worker but, he is a coupon clipper for an extra small wage every week too. Does this "communist" consider this extra "wage" the hard earned fruits of the workers' own labour. Marxists have a different view on the nature of interest.
Interest is profit. In the final analysis it comes from surplus-value that the capitalist system extracts from the working class. The "Marxist" carefully pointed out he was not a capitalist because he is not directly employing labour and extracting surplus-value. Only an ultra-leftist would question the class status of a worker like that. But, isn't that 450,000 a big capitalist investment? Interest doesn't just fall from the sky.
Possibly one third of his income assuming S1000 a week wage is gained from capitalist income sources. (The last third probably more or less tax free.)
If a person were not a worker and invested $450,00 and lived off the $425 interest/wage wouldn't the same communist define that person as a petty bourgeois living by exploiting the workers? That person would be doing pretty good and be very happy with the Australian economy dominated as it is by U.S. imperialism, and would be pretty unwilling to fight that imperialist system wouldn't he? He has a big materialist interest in supporting the present system.
This anti-imperialist communist, will be waiting a long time for anti-imperialist unity with many workers like that, let alone the national bourgeoisie he hopes will also become anti-imperialist. In some countries like Australia those who have done well, are able to afford better education for their children. With the inheritance of the parents' wealth a hereditary class of well off labour aristocrats is being perpetuated.
Taking a long-term revolutionary point of view the situation is excellent for the socialist future.
The imperialists are exploiting millions of Third World proletarian workers and they are bound to resist.
There is no need to wait on a world revolution started in the imperialist heartlands by their labour aristocracies who are beneficiaries of that exploitation.
That's a job for Trotskyite dreamers and revisionists.