A Thread Repeated

[Director Mann]

Alas! If only I could have found the first!

During Marx's time the world saw what was un-industrialized countries, industrialized countries. Un-industrialized were simply nations that didn't invest into factories or barely started to get their feet wet. This was simply it. Theories were made for this situation. This is not the case anymore. now we have the un-industrialized, the industrialized with concentration on factories, and the industrialized with concentration on services (service based economy). Service based economies have the majority of their workforce not located in agriculture or industry, but instead in services.

Here is a map that gives a rundown of the world in this context.



If hard to read then here's a quick run down

Blue or close: Services
Red or close: Industry
Green or close: Agriculture

Now yes the service and office worker earns a wage, this much is true. But something important is missed here, quite a few in services with their add more worth to a commodity. What value has a systems analyst given? What value has the office manager given? In other words, services doesn't add value to commodities. These workers are a much different role than the previous ones of the past. They are do not identify themselves with the proletariat and will not see the problems of the proletariat as their own.

The service industry workers see themselves more aspiring to be considered among the Bourgeoisie themselves and work not to make ends meet but instead to advance to becoming Bourgeois.

The former industrial workers of America instead are fading. The factories the work at are closed and they are laid off. When the question of what they should do instead they are told to get an education or whatever it takes and to work in Services as well. As a result the presence of the industrial Proletariat Marx recognized fades from America along the likelihood of America being by majority behind a Labour movement or the ideas of any Radical Left party with them. Thus the chances of the Left here are diminished and nil with the Proletariat shrinking everyday.

But the factories are not gone, and here is where crucial parts of this theory are noted. No instead more and more these factories find themselves in other nations. Specifically these nations are of Southeast Asia and as well China. These nations are not at all services based economically. Instead these nations are finding themselves slide more towards industry. By transition these nations also find their Proletariat growing bigger. So in actuality what has happened is the nations of the West have just transferred their Proletarian problem to the southeast and continue to do so. This however is their folly, in doing so they only weaken the revolutionaries chances in their own nations, but what of the nations they transfer industry too? Many of those countries leaning towards industry have many new articles and stories reporting on Leftist groups or surges in Left parties. In other words the chances of the Left in these countries are growing stronger because of insourcing. The proletariat grows in number and support as the proletariat of the West diminishes. So what will happen as a result is when these nations are ripe for revolution, nations like Indonesia, nations like the United States will be further away from revolution than ever. This is why I do not believe there should be a reliance on worldwide proletariat movement, because at this point the Proletariat of the West will be close to nothing.

What will happen is that these nations with the United States' factories will become ready for revolution and when it finally erupts the Untied States will no doubt feel economic strains. The United States will either twiddle it's thumbs (Unlikely) or eventually rush forward to put down the uprisings. However things of importance to note. All of these nations that are taking the factories of the West contain terrain advantageous to defenders and have history of imperial aggression. Many of these places have jungles and dozens of islands. Invading and holding these areas would put a terrible strain on the US military. Other variables factored in the United States would be terribly unable to completely destroy any large mass movement and suffer extreme backlash.

Thus we come to a point where the United States formerly not ready at all to follow majorly and Left movement will slowly find itself sliding that way.


Now this is still complacent with me no longer being Trotskyist because this made me realize this. There cannot be "Permanet Revolution" in this scenario. Once the revolution tries to take the West it stops dead until Proletarian consciousness reforms there.

There rip it up if you so desire I'll come back and put down your posts later I'mam go do something else.  

[Maryhl]

I swear I posted these maps somewhere like three years ago. I got the "service economies are temporary" thing here.  

[Ana-Justine]

Ok. Permanent revolution is the theory that one cannot wait for the democratic revolution to make the country an advanced capitalist democracy, but rather that the bourgeoisie in those countries is so weak, nd so tied to international imperialism that it will not accomplish the historical tasks of the bourgeois revolution. Those tasks can only be carried out by the proletariat. And once the proletariat has gained power and begins the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the tasks of that very revolution will bring it into conflict with capitalism. Thus, to cement the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the revolution must pass over into a proletarian revolution.

So your post confirms the theory of permanent revolution as it really is, and only destroys the false notion of it you previously held.
With the increase of industry in these backward countries, the tensions between capitalism and the backward society/state will come to the fore, yada yada yada. You should remember me saying this many a time, so I shouldn't have to repeate /that/.

Otherwise, this is pretty much noting the export of capital, which is a key feature of Imperialism (along with monopoly capitalism) and the labour aristocracy: That section of the proletariat which the bourgeoisie bribes with wages a little (in absolute terms) higher than the rest of the proletariat, and better conditions.

That said: This service economy requires a number of things:
Buildings to work in, infrastructure to get to work, to send emails over and all the rest: There is only so much you can do over seas. And right now, we can't ship ready made skyscrapers from one side of the ocean to the other, at best we can send the cement and class and steel and copper and wood. It still has to be constructed on site.

Then there is maintainance.

Construction and the attending trades and professions have not left yet, and right now, they can't.

You forget that.

The natural conclusion of your article is this: Revolution is impossible in the imperialist centres, so we shouldn't bother trying to propagandize here.

So are you giving up on the revolution, or are you going to go to these places where it can happen and fight there?  

[Comrade Kotka]

"They are do not identify themselves with the proletariat and will not see the problems of the proletariat as their own."

I think this is just a problem of wording that needs to be fixed... after all, people in areas of service could easily see the problems of the proletariat as their own with a little convincing. It's not very hard to feel exploited at all in some areas of 'service' (hospitality, I'm looking at you).  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Comrade Kotka

"They are do not identify themselves with the proletariat and will not see the problems of the proletariat as their own."

I think this is just a problem of wording that needs to be fixed... after all, people in areas of service could easily see the problems of the proletariat as their own with a little convincing. It's not very hard to feel exploited at all in some areas of 'service' (hospitality, I'm looking at you).

Well, that is the thing with the labour aristocracy: The boourgeoisie buys them out. They have petty bourgeois lives, and see themselves as 'middle-class' or some s**t.

but your talk about Hospitality isn't about them...  

[Comrade Kotka]

Okay, well, 'service' is reeeeally broad (as are the pay rates within it).

But the important thing is... that yes, the bourgeoisie do buy them out. They think they are 'middle class' because they have game consoles for the kids and eat out once a week... but in the end (unless they are landlords or capitalists in some other way) they have nothing but their labour... and in that sense I think they could be sympathetic to the idea of the proletariat including them still.  

[Intermundia]

The Proletariat in America still exists but they are very disproportionate to what they should be, which is the overwhelming majority. The American proletariat, while still the largest class isn't overwhelmingly large, the middle class is slightly smaller. However what holds true is the fact that the middle class is still continually shrinking. I don't think i agree when you say the proletariat is shrinking simply because the middle class shrinks at a faster rate, and because a country cannot completely oust production. Where does the middle class go when their businesses fail? Into the proletariat. So in fact i think it holds more true the opposite is taking place and that the proletariat is actually growing but not at an exceptional rate as it should be.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Comrade Robson

The Proletariat in America still exists but they are very disproportionate to what they should be, which is the overwhelming majority. The American proletariat, while still the largest class isn't overwhelmingly large, the middle class is slightly smaller. However what holds true is the fact that the middle class is still continually shrinking. I don't think i agree when you say the proletariat is shrinking simply because the middle class shrinks at a faster rate, and because a country cannot completely oust production. Where does the middle class go when their businesses fail? Into the proletariat. So in fact i think it holds more true the opposite is taking place and that the proletariat is actually growing but not at an exceptional rate as it should be.

He isn't saying that the proletariat is shrinking, but that the blue collar sections of the working class is shrinking, while the white collar section of the working class (which doesn't identify as working class) is growing.

A short way to sum up his theory is this: The proletariat in the imperialist centers does not have revolutionary proletarian class consciousness, so there will be no revolution.

Another way of putting it is that he believes it is impossible for the proletariat of the imperialist centers to carry out a revolution, and that foreign revolutions will get crushed by imperialism.

"THERE IS NO HOPE!"

Kitty: Come into the chat waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay earlier next time.  

[Director Mann]

Comrade Robson

The Proletariat in America still exists but they are very disproportionate to what they should be, which is the overwhelming majority. The American proletariat, while still the largest class isn't overwhelmingly large, the middle class is slightly smaller. However what holds true is the fact that the middle class is still continually shrinking. I don't think i agree when you say the proletariat is shrinking simply because the middle class shrinks at a faster rate, and because a country cannot completely oust production. Where does the middle class go when their businesses fail? Into the proletariat. So in fact i think it holds more true the opposite is taking place and that the proletariat is actually growing but not at an exceptional rate as it should be.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Quote:

The rising trade deficit in manufactured goods accounts for about 58% of the decline in manufacturing employment between 1998 and 2003 and 34% of the decline from 2000 to 2003. This translates into about 1.78 million jobs since 1998 and 935,000 jobs since 2000 that have been lost due to rising net manufactured imports.

And more so going to more recent dates a CPUSA paper comments on the loss of manufacturing jobs as well.

I will not deny that many jobs still exist that can classify people as the Proletariat. As Gracchvs said there is infrastructure but I offer again that his can still be given to foreign companies and workers to come in and accomplish for the United States.

Even so the main point is that manufacturing and industrial jobs are going away.

Quote:

Manufacturing has been historically important because the conditions of production bring together
large number of workers in a cooperative endeavor, in direct and open confrontation with the capitalist
class over working conditions and the division of values created

Look at these statistics.

I'm not saying there won't be a lower class anymore, but they won't be just yet of the Proletarian consciousnesses. That is my overall point.

Gracchvs

The natural conclusion of your article is this: Revolution is impossible in the imperialist centres, so we shouldn't bother trying to propagandize here.

Not at all, keep some attempt at anythign there. It's ill-advised to keep Leftist movements completely quiet anywhere

Gracchvs

So are you giving up on the revolution, or are you going to go to these places where it can happen and fight there?

Well Gracchvs that should be an obvious answer.  

[Director Mann]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Another way of putting it is that he believes it is impossible for the proletariat of the imperialist centers to carry out a revolution, and that foreign revolutions will get crushed by imperialism.

The Opening Post

However things of importance to note. All of these nations that are taking the factories of the West contain terrain advantageous to defenders and have history of imperial aggression. Many of these places have jungles and dozens of islands. Invading and holding these areas would put a terrible strain on the US military. Other variables factored in the United States would be terribly unable to completely destroy any large mass movement and suffer extreme backlash.

You may wish to edit that part of your post out.  

[Director Mann]

Oh and yes Graccvs in response to what you told me to read, comments upon what I've re-read so far was also well answered by the CPUSA pdf with the beginning which went something like...

Quote:

Marxism, like any science, needs to be continually updated in light of changing conditions; the relative
decline of manufacturing has provided much discussion amongst Marxists. That discussion is far
beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, the concept that commodity production is the fundamental
source of value and of surplus value, while it might be broadened in the current period, provides an
overall context for the discussion of the role of manufacturing today.

The concept of modern imperialism as a (final) stage of capitalism was seminally developed by Lenin
in 1916. He described many features we see in today's capitalist globalization, including the
domination of finance over industrial capital, the export of capital replacing export of goods, the
competition amongst leading capitalist powers for markets, and uneven rates of development amongst
major powers. There have been many developments and changes in the last 92 years, but these Leninist
concepts provide a starting point for understanding and developing a theory of capitalist globalization
today.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

As long as the imperialists exist, they will try for counter-revolution in those places. And as long as they are denied the revolution in the imperialist centers, they will eventually become like China on the road to counter-revolution, and the USSR after counter-revolution.

You may not have read/remember The Revolution Betrayed, but as he said there: The biggest threat to the workers' states is not military intervention, but the cheaper commodities of the capitalist world.

So rather than the stalinist dogma of 'socialism in one country' you propose 'socialism in the poorer and under-developed half of the world'?

Of course, with little groups in the imperialist centers to act as a diplomatic tool, opposing action against the soviet 3rd world, but not actually fighting for revolution.

Sooner or later, one way or another, they will crush the revolution, so we should just not bother getting out of bed on the day of revolution

That is what your theory amounts to. If you disagree with the end result, you will either reject this theory, or you will come to agree with the end result.  

[Director Mann]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

As long as the imperialists exist, they will try for counter-revolution in those places. And as long as they are denied the revolution in the imperialist centers, they will eventually become like China on the road to counter-revolution, and the USSR after counter-revolution.

Then it is your saying there is no hope, not I.

Quote:

So rather than the stalinist dogma of 'socialism in one country' you propose 'socialism in the poorer and under-developed half of the world'?

The quickest development of revolutionary groups in at every opportunity is what I propose.Y ou're not the only one who dislikes isolated success.

Quote:

Sooner or later, one way or another, they will crush the revolution, so we should just not bother getting out of bed on the day of revolution

So instead of supposed failure because of a revolution that must be confined to Southeast Asia instead we're gonna delude ourselves? How is this a better choice?

Quote:

That is what your theory amounts to. If you disagree with the end result, you will either reject this theory, or you will come to agree with the end result.

We're treading dangerously on this topic branching off into far flung areas but I'm going to again bring up this.

How in the world is the 1st world gonna compete? They magically rebuild all the factories and sources of import they lost? They find new countries to willing to pimp off their populace? This scenario isn't in 1939 where even if a country moves down the revolutionary path the Imperialist nations can suddenly try to make up with their own industrial capacity. The whole point of this theory is that because the Capitalist world has depended too much on these nations that once their gone the First World will be crippled and eventually have no choice but to crumble.  

[Director Mann]

I felt like necroing this

Comrade Kotka

"They are do not identify themselves with the proletariat and will not see the problems of the proletariat as their own."

I think this is just a problem of wording that needs to be fixed... after all, people in areas of service could easily see the problems of the proletariat as their own with a little convincing. It's not very hard to feel exploited at all in some areas of 'service' (hospitality, I'm looking at you).

There was a word for these people and I had forgotten it but seeing now that I remember it I'll explain it here.

They don't identify with the Proletariat because a large portion of these workers fit into the category of the Labour Aristocracy. Thus there is no way they can identify with the proletariat (unless the fall out of being in the Labour Aristocracy  

[Comrade Kotka]

Yeah, I retract that statement now. It's okay, I see how it works.
(And this is why we learn. :3)