Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:53:31 -0600
Subject:  the working class -Reply


Jorn wrote:
> One of the political implications of this is very important:
> That the emancipation of the working class is the task of
> workers themselves. Not as an oppressed minority trying to
> get the oppressed majority to accept working class
> leadership - but as the oppressed and exploited majority
> drawing the rest of oppressed layers with them.

Jerry replied:
The political implications, suggested above, don't flow directly from
the  size of the working class. To demonstrate that, consider the law
of uneven  (and combined) development. If you accept that law, then
does the  beginning of the second sentence hold for most "developing"
capitalist  nations where the working class is still a numerical
minority?

Lisa:  To extract another tangent out of this exchange, I wonder why
you say that the working class is a minority in Lesser Developed
Countries [LDC, I think that is one common label].  Do you mean that
many people are still peasant farmers who may still own some means of
production/subsistence, such as a bit of land and a few animals? 
There may be some truth to this idea, but many/most of such people
are producing not just for subsistence but for market, for cash.  

Also, a mixed economy is common for any one household and many
individuals.  Wage labour for big farmers or cattle owners may be
common during the agricultural off-season for small farmers, for
instance, and small farms may be poor and insufficient to meet needs.
 So workers may not be entirely "free" of the ownership/use rights of
means of production, yet still be dependent upon wages.

But maybe this direction is not what you had in mind at all.

Lisa



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---