[Marxism] The absence of real forces [was: The low point]

[Jscotlive at aol.com]

By which he appears to mean a combination of "slogans in support of the  Arab
Resistance, in order to help inspire their people on the front lines  against
imperialism" and ones designed to "attract those motivated by  material
necessity" within the imperialist countries, which sectors he  defines as,
"workers, poor blacks, whites, immigrants." This, he says, "will  and can
only be done by connecting the war overseas with the war on the   working
class and the poor at home. This is not being done to any large  degree  at
present."

I'm going to leave aside the obvious idiocy  of listing "whites" as such in
this context, while limiting ourselves to  targeting only *poor* Blacks. It
seems fairly clear that Jscotlive's fingers  got ahead of his capacity for
careful formulation at this point, and what we  have should probably just be
read as "working people and the  oppressed."

Reply:
 
Let me clarify. In the UK, of late, there have been a series of one and two  
day strikes across the public sector - mail workers, rail workers, govt civil  
servants, social workers - all have been taking industrial action, albeit on 
a  small scale, in response to below inflation wage rises on offer and/or  
changes to their employment contracts, this as the govt continues its  process of 
deregulation and casualisation of the British economy in line with  free 
market prerogatives. My argument is that we need to take the antiwar  movement 
into the trade union disputes and trade union disputes into the antiwar  movement 
- in order to provide an analysis which identifies the common  denominator 
that underpins both struggles, namely the prerogatives of the free  market.
 
As Malcolm X once said: 'You can't understand what's going on in  Mississippi 
unless you understand what's going on in the Congo.' Conversely,  though, you 
can't understand what's going on in the Congo until you understand  what's 
going on in Mississippi.
 
Re my formulation, yes, you are right, working people and the oppressed. I  
meant poor blacks and poor whites in that sentence, however, in case you  
misconstrued my meaning there.
 
You:
 
Now, here's the problem with the approach of linking "the war abroad and  the
war at home" on that sort of scale as I see it. And that is that  most
working people --white folks especially, but not only-- do not  perceive
themselves as being targets of some war. At least not in this  country. (I
leave aside the ones that DO in the sense that "angloness" or  "whiteness"
considers itself to be under siege from the brown hordes invading  from the
South).

Reply:
 
The fact that people do not perceive the link does not in any way diminish  
the fact that the link does exist and that our task is to attempt to draw that  
link and help them perceive it. Yes, here in the UK too, most working class  
people lack consciousness. What of it? Twas ever thus.
 
False divisions set up by the ruling class on the lines of race, ethnicity,  
religion, gender, etc., are nothing new. But just because the task is  
difficult doesn't mean we don't set out to achieve it. There is a subjective  factor 
in all this.
 
You:
 
There has been a tendency on the left in the United States for decades  to
cherry-pick wage statistics to make the case that working people are under  a
relentless and largely successful assault to drive down their standard  of
living. I've argued with comrades on this list and internally in  Solidarity
that insofar as the RESULT is concerned, it simply isn't so -- the  standard
of living of working people has not, in fact decreased, it has  increased.

Careful examination of statistics --especially per capita  household
incomes-- to try to figure out what the life experience of  typical
individual working people has been will show that from where most  workers
sit, their standard of living has gradually improved. And overall  statistics
about housing --square footage, amenities like central heating and  air,
etc.-- number of televisions, radio sets, phone lines, cars, etc. etc.  etc.
per household all confirm this general picture. 

It IS true that  total wages and salaries as a percentage of national income
has steadily  declined to pre-1930s levels, that economic inequality is at
peaks not seen  since the "gilded age" of the 1890's, that many, perhaps most
entry-level  jobs pay less than they used to, ditto wages in mining and
manufacturing and  so on, that median wages have been stagnant for decades,
that consumer debt  levels are astronomical, that economic insecurity haunts
working people in  ways that were unthinkable during the post-WWII boom. And
all sorts of other  bad things.

Reply: