Re: Where have all the workers gone?

Paul,

 

I'll leave it to others to discuss some of the particular points you raise. But you do overgeneralize in extraordinary ways!  Consider this quote which you wrote:

 

> In comparison to any other
> time in history, what could be considered the proletariat makes up a
> lesser proportion of society than it has ever done. :

 

 

Ever?  1805?  1850?  1619? This is an enormous overstatement! 

 

There has been significant deindustrialization in the UK, North America, etc. There has also been significant industrialization in the so-called Third World. One can find factories and mines in rural areas of Africa where one could only find peasants fifty years ago. Mexico is another example of this. Furthermore, many of the "non-industrial" jobs are not that different from industrial jobs 50 years ago. Cleaner conditions, maybe, but the same routinized, alienated, basically physical labor.  Secretaries in typing pools, fast food workers, temporary janitorial services, etc. And then, there's prison labor, (in the U.S.).

 

Furthermore, the past 50 years were a distortion. Of course there was economic growth based on industry, especially from 1945-1975. So much of the world was devastated by World War II. It did alleviate for a while what Marx (and basically Adam Smith also) called the "crisis of overproduction" .

 

As to rebellion? Is the UK more, or less, industrialized than Russia was in 1917? NO, I don't believe that "revolution is imminent". And I think it is important to oppose utopian or mechanistic theories which predict sponntaneous uprisings that will demolish capitalism for all  time based on an idealized version of some "super-proletarian" who "automatically" develops the understanding to create a new, egalitarian world. Maerx never said that everyone would either be an employed factory worker or an owner, by the way.

 

But we will need a broader framework than just considering the UK (or USA or Western Europe) during the relatively short period of 1945-2000.   Hopefully others on this network will provide more historical political-economic information on this topic.

 

Alan Spector

 

===============================================

 

 

 

> At 21:23 -0600 10/12/00, Alan Spector 
wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Paul Broome" 
<p.broome@rhbnc.ac.uk>
> 
>
> >>  >
> >>
> >>  there 
won't be a revolt, because there is hardly a proletariat left to
> 
>revolt.
> >>
> >>  P.
> >>
> 
>========================================================
> 
>
> >Tell that to the garment workers in LA and NY, the underpaid, 
overworked
> >hospital workers all over the USA, the farm workers of 
California, Texas,
> >Florida, Ohio & Illinois, the steelworkers in 
my area of Gary, Indiana, the
> >autoworkers, coal miners, and 
especially, the unemployed proletariat youth
> >all over the 
USA.
> 
> Alan, the emphasis was on the 'hardly'. In comparison to 
any other 
> time in history, what could be considered the proletariat 
makes up a 
> lesser proportion of society than it has ever done. That's 
not to say 
> the working class that still exists are not still important 
- far 
> from it. Just that they are lesser in numbers and because of the 
> trappings of modern society, are less likely to either revolt or even 
> understand that they have the option of producing a revolution. Those 
> engaged in non-skilled labour for example, are less likely to take to 
> the streets than their class peers of even thirty or forty years ago 
> - social conditions are very different, as are social controls that 
> are impinged on people by social institutions.
> 
> In the 
UK for example, there is hardly any heavy industry compared to 
> twenty 
or thirty years ago - we have no native heavy goods vehicle 
> 
manufacturing; little ship building, hardly any steel mills or coal 
> 
mines; and even car production is highly mechanised with workers (and 
> I 
am being very generalistic here) often assuming virtually white 
> collar 
status. What is equally important is, that has these 
> industries have 
been replaced or modernisd, the social conditions 
> that were a product 
of them - inferior housing, welfare conditions 
> and dogmatised social 
structure, have largely disappeared. The 
> majority of what could have 
been termed the proletariat twenty or 
> thirty years ago now live 
comfortable lives in houses they own with 
> personal pension plans. The 
state and the institutions the state 
> fosters has sanistised society so 
the majority of society have no 
> comprehension of revolution or why they 
would want one. Again, I'm 
> being very generalistic, and I wouldn't want 
to detract from or 
> lesser the importance of the struggles that many 
workers clearly DO 
> care about and engage in. One has to look at the 
wider picture 
> though, and take an holistic perspective.
> 
> >
> >And of course, I haven't yet mentioned the main group, 
women and men from
> >Mexico to Mali, India to Peru, and the 
demoralized millions in Eastern
> >Europe.
> 
> Though it 
would of course be fair to include people from urban areas 
> in these 
countries, one cannot, and should not, include peoples of 
> the global 
South who  live in rural areas in a definition of the 
> proletariat. 
Though they have no less worthy struggles, and 
> conceptually, are 
recipients of the same problem (globalisation), the 
> rural peasantry are 
distinctly different from what might be 
> considered a (urban-based) 
proletariat.
> 
> >
> >It must be nice to live in a 
dream world where all the happy predictions of
> >the 1950's (cars that 
will drive themselves, dinners that will cook
> >themselves, cheap, 
clean nuclear power, and the main problem being too much
> >leisure 
time for the upper middle income groups....) where all those happy
> 
>predictions of no more proletariat can co-exist with other imaginary 
dreams.
> 
> One of the biggest obstacles we face in changing the 
disparities in 
> equality and equity in this world, is the fact that many 
people do 
> not update the analytical frameworks and conceptualisations 
that were 
> formulated in an entirely different era. That's not to say 
that the 
> theories of Marx, Hegel, Lenin, et al are irrelevant in the 
modern 
> world - far from it!! But when we talk of the proletariat and 
> bourgeoise, it is important to view these terms in a modern context 
> with relevance to the modern world, as well as in a historical 
> 
context.
> 
> I don't know about your 'dream world', but the 
prophesy of the 
> technocentrists of the forties and fifties have largely 
held to be 
> true for a great many in society. My parents - my father was 
a lorry 
> driver and my mother delivered the village post until their 
> respective retirements - did not hope to own a car or even a 
> 
telephone as teenagers (1950s). They live in the same council (state) 
> 
housing as they did when they got married forty-odd years ago and 
> could 
not have dreamt of the material benefits they now take for 
> granted. The 
social conditions that exist for those of my and my 
> parent's class are 
different today for the majority of the 
> 'proletariat'. Again, one has 
to look at the wider picture, and take 
> a holistic view.
> 
> >
> >Think about that as you type out a response on a 
computer built with the
> >labor of hundreds of workers from East Asia 
to the Arab world to
> >California....
> >
> 
>cheers,
> >
> >Alan Spector
> >
> 
>However, if you were remarking in sympathy and solidarity for the 
current
> >state of demoralization of the working class and the 
prospects for increased
> >unemployment, etc., then I take back all my 
sarcasm above, and apologize
> >graciously, since my comments are meant 
to be directed at those who deny
> >there is a working class, rather 
than those who lament the current
> >disorganized, vulnerable state of 
the working class.
> >
> 
> No need to apologise and I can 
handle sarcasm. Probably it is I that 
> should apologise for posting such 
a generalist comment without 
> attempting to substantiate or explain it. 
Yes I'm sympathetic to the 
> plight of the 'working class' and hold 
solidarity with those from my 
> roots as I always have done. I am only 
too aware that some kind of 
> working class still exists, as I am a 
product of those working class 
> roots. Very few from my social class get 
to make the transformation 
> that I have. Making that transformation has 
allowed me to (as 
> Chomsky* recently put it in an article) gain the 
privilege of freedom 
> to think. That is something a large proportion of 
society do not 
> realise they have, or are not allowed to realise it. 
That makes for a 
> very different 'proletariat' in the year 2000.
> 
> Comradely, Paul.
> 
> * "..It doesn't take special brains, 
but it takes special privilege. 
> Those people are right. You have to 
have special privilege, which we 
> have. Its unfair,
> but we've 
got it. To have the resources, training, time, the control over
> your own 
life. Maybe I work a hundred hours a week, but its a hundred I
> choose. 
That's a rare luxury. Only a tiny sector of the population can enjoy
> 
that.."
> 'Propaganda and Indoctrination', By Noam Chomsky. Excerpted from 
an 
> interview with David Barsamian: see ZNet (www.znet.org) for full 
> article.
> 
> -- 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> "The 
Macintosh isn't a computer...
> it's a way of life."  Don 
Rittner.
> o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
> Paul Broome
> 
Centre for Developing Areas Research
> Department of Geography
> 
Royal Holloway, University of London
> Egham, Surrey, TW20 OEX, UK
> 
> Tel (Work):+44 (0)178 444 3574
> Fax:   :+44 (0)178 447 
2386
> Voice Mail:+44 (0)207 681 2867
> http://www.appleonline.net/pbroome
> o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
>