Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:59:57 -0800
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: NY Times, dem.rights, etc.


DOWNSIZING SERIES IN NYT

Doug Henwood wrote:

>There's an amazingly useful, even original, story in today's (Mar 3) New
>York Times about the epidemic of downsizing - one of those rare instances
>where that paper puts its vast resources to good use.
>The NYT article is rich with polling and BLS data, but it's also full of
>the human interest anecdotes that journalists love so much. The star

   This series will continue until Sat., Mar. 9, in the
NYT. Look for the conclusions and proposed remedies in
the Sat. article.
   The series' heavy emphasis on personal tales of woe
continues a tradition of anti-working class panic-spreading
with regard to unemployment. The Times editors are making
the argument that unemployment is truly horrible. This line
of propaganda induces workers (including the professional
and managerial layers) to think that concessions to the
boss are necessary to save their jobs. "Anything would be
better than losing one's job," is what they are saying.
   But the series is also noteworthy as a response to the
political polarization in the U.S. and the rise of the
politics of resentment, which is related to the waves of
layoffs and wage-cutting attacks. The NYT is not only
saying, "we care" (!), but also sounding a note of alarm
to the bourgeoisie that the middle class is losing its
faith in the political system, and this spells trouble.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND THE MILITIAS

Rakesh wrote:

>I think it is silly to assume that if and when the "left" becomes strong,
>punitive institutions will sit idly by, thinking it unprincipled to unleash
>repression because we were once so soft on the right.  To caution against
>legal repression of the Right on the grounds that such tolerance will keep
>open extra-parliamentary terrain for us at a critical conjuncture seems to
>me totally groundless, a bizarre argument at odds with everything that
>Lenin theorized as the nature of the state.    

> Moreover, nobody wants to play the fool who protects the rights of those
>whose who will use them later to strip ourselves of the same.  

   Marxists should oppose violations of democratic rights, no
matter which group in society is utilizing those rights. We should
denounce the brutal attack on Randy Weaver and his family. Also
we should condemn the burning of the Branch Davidians' compound
in Waco, Texas. 
   The workers can only make progress by defending and utilizing
the democratic rights that they, and their struggling proletarian
forbears, fought for and won. Encroachments on civic liberties
harm the working class and tend to immobilize it. If the militia
people develop into fascists, and carry out violent attacks on
the unions, etc., it will be the responsiblity of the workers and
their allies to defend themselves against the rightist attacks,
using whatever means necessary. This workers' self-defense activity
will be all the easier to carry out if the democratic rights to free
speech and free assembly are preserved.
   The repressive forces of the state are directed at the workers--
not just in the future, but right now. Racist police brutality is
designed to intimidate workers. The death penalty has the same
character. Also the use of cops and national guard troops against
striking workers is intended to terrorize the strikers. We should
not argue in favor of the use of government terror or brutality
against ultraright groups. That makes it easier for the government
to direct the same brutality against working people in struggle.
   Workers must learn to hate cops, and learn to hate the use
of force against political opponents. You cannot settle a debate
by killing your opponents, yet this is the example that the
bourgeoisie sets for the whole world by killing the Davidians,
the Weavers, not to mention the Vietnamese, Iraquis, etc.
   The tendency to settle an argument with a club or a bullet,
the method of fascism, is a tendency that stems directly from
the heart of capital. The bourgeoisie is fascist by nature. What
restrains it is the power of the masses of working people, built
up over centuries of struggle. Fascism is nothing but unrestrained
capitalism.
   The struggle of the working class, by contrast, is based on
scientific understanding of the nature of human history and
human potential. Socialism means the spreading of this scientific
consciousness to broader masses of the population. Socialism is
advanced by a rational political process within the working class,
and it corresponds to the awakening of a scientific awareness of
the real historical character of capital, and the potential this
creates for a giant leap in human culture. For this we fight for
the greatest possible democratic space for the organization and
education of the working class and its allies.

THE VALUE PUMP

   Hugh Rodwell wrote:

>The process could be described as a slopping over of 'excess' value to
>sectors deficient in value, or it could be described as a siphoning off of
>'excess' value - or you could see it as a 'pump', as I like to. Since it's
>a process of vital importance to capitalism, since it operates
>automatically and unconsciously, and since it permeates every nook and
>cranny of capitalist society, I think the parallel with the heart and the
>circulation of the blood suggested by Value Pump isn't too far-fetched.

   I think this is basically right. Hugh Rodwell has done his homework.
At the same time, all analogies or metaphors have their limits. The
contractions of the heart merely facilite the recycling of the blood
throughout the body, with no long-term quantitative shifts. The
equalization of the average profit rate, on the other hand, is part
of a competitive process which promotes the modernization of backward
branches of industry and the overall increase in the organic composition
of capital. Also, the "value pump" metaphor seems to me too "physical"
and might lean in the direction of fetishizing social relations. But,
given the limits assumed, it is not wrong.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

Bradley Mayer wrote:

>	2) U.S. imperialism is no longer a beneficiary of two 
>exceptional circumstances: a) the benefit of a relatively isolated 
>development within a continent-country (19th century); b) a virtual 
>monopoly of the productive forces, especially of the most technically 
>advanced productive forces, in the aftermath of WWII; 
>	3) Consequently, the structural relation of the U.S. to the rest 
>of world capitalism and imperialism has changed for the worse, opening 
>up a period without precedent in U.S. history. Even bourgeois 
>commentators have begun to recognize this. 

   I appreciate much of Bradley's analysis of the current world
situation. I think he has a realistic perspective grounded in
Marxism. I would ask for a clarification of point 3, here, however.
   In my view, the US ruling class has strengthened its position
in the world market against its Japanese and European rivals in
the past fifteen years. This has something to do with the relatively
stronger position of the unions in Europe than in the US, and the
greater degree of success achieved by the US capitalists in driving
down the average price of labor power.
   Also, it is my feeling that the restructuring of mining,
forest-products industries, steel and other metals production
resulted in superior productivity gains in the US in contrast
to other imperialist countries. This was mostly in the 1980s.
On top of this, you have the great advances in the productivity
of metal parts production with the computerization of machine
processes. Gains in office productivity also resulted from
the introduction of more computers. Further fat was cut, and
is still being cut, from the managerial and technical layers
of major corporations. All this adds to enhanced US competitiveness.
   In autos, computers, trucks, heavy equipment, machine tools, and
many other industries, US corporations have increased their world
market share in recent years as against their main rivals. This is
my impression. But I am open to alternative viewpoints on this.
   Regarding point (2) above: the post-WW II US hegemony petered
out in the 1970s. That much is true. But what has happened in the
1980s? Hasn't the US recovered at least some of its predominance?
And isn't the US dollar still the world's most highly-coveted
currency?

Jim Miller
Seattle


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------