[Marxism] In reponse to a distortion of my views by a list member

[Joaquin Bustelo]

Bob Gould demonstrates a striking ability to misunderstand even the most
basic ideas: "In my view, for instance, the central point about many of
Joaquin Bustello's contributions is the way he seems to challenge the
existence of a modern working class, or even that a working class for itself
has ever existed in advanced capitalist countries."

I do not challenge "the existence of a modern working class"; what I've been
writing about (and not just recently, I've been doing it for many years
except no one seemed to get it until I grew a lot more emphatic in my
formulations) is that there is no working class *movement* worthy of the
name in the United States and that the *tendency* in other imperialist
countries *seems* to be *similar.* 

In other words, to use the most classical Marxist terminology, in the United
States, there is a working class "in itself" but not a working class "for
itself." There is no cohered social and political movement of workers
centered around the idea or sentiment that *as workers* we face common
problems and should seek common solutions.

And I have said, not once but repeatedly, that there was such a movement in
the United States but that it dissipated in the immediate post-World War II
period; and I have tried to root an analysis of this social and political
phenomenon in materialist causes, offering an explanation that is really,
strictly and solely based on the analysis by Marx and Engels of a similar
phenomenon in England starting in the 1850's and Lenin's extension and
application of this analysis to imperialist countries as a whole in the wake
of the collapse of the Second International.

As to Gould's points about Australia's labor movement, and the ouster of the
Howard government, I read them with some interest and some skepticism. 

My skepticism is based on having just lived through a parallel "ouster" in
the United States. It is true beyond any doubt that it was the votes of
working people, and this gets truer the more you get in strictly proletarian
territory, that was responsible for the defeat of the Republicans in the
2006 mid-term elections here. And it is ALSO true that "labor" --the union
apparatuses-- "mobilized" and massively so to bring about this result. And
it is also true that only a few months before the election the United States
was shaken by the most massive and sustained and proletarian series of mass
demonstrations and economic boycotts, which in some places took the
characteristic of political strikes, ever in its history (the Latino
immigrant rights upsurge in the Spring of 2006). 

If someone thinks that all this means that a class-for-itself movement has
re-emerged in the United States, which would be a qualitative change in the
political situation in this country, I've yet to see them make a convincing
case for it. Perhaps that will turn out to be the case -- and looking back
in a few years we'll look at 2006 as the year the tide turned. 

But the evidence thus far does not jibe with such sweeping assertions.

As for the political situation in Australia, including the stage of
development of the class movement, I look forward to following the views of
various comrades more intimate with matters there.

Joaquín