Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Marx is back

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 24 Jan 2014, 16:01
Here's a very interesting and thought provoking article from Foreign Policy. Any comments?

Quote:
Marx Is Back

The global working class is starting to unite -- and that's a good thing.
Image

Charles Kenny
Illustration by David Plunkert
JANUARY 21, 2014


The inscription on Karl Marx's tombstone in London's Highgate Cemetery reads, "Workers of all lands, unite." Of course, it hasn't quite ended up that way. As much buzz as the global Occupy movement managed to produce in a few short months, the silence is deafening now. And it's not often that you hear of shop workers in Detroit making common cause with their Chinese brethren in Dalian to stick it to the boss man. Indeed, as global multinational companies have eaten away at labor's bargaining power, the factory workers of the rich world have become some of the least keen on helping out their fellow wage laborers in poor countries. But there's a school of thought -- and no, it's not just from the few remaining Trotskyite professors at the New School -- that envisions a type of global class politics making a comeback. If so, it might be time for global elites to start trembling. Sure, it doesn't sound quite as threatening as the original call to arms, but a new specter may soon be haunting the world's 1 percent: middle-class activism.

Karl Marx saw an apocalyptic logic to the class struggle. The battle of the vast mass against a small plutocracy had an inevitable conclusion: Workers 1, Rich Guys 0. Marx argued that the revolutionary proletarian impulse was also a fundamentally global one -- that working classes would be united across countries and oceans by their shared experience of crushing poverty and the soullessness of factory life. At the time Marx was writing, the idea that poor people were pretty similar across countries -- or at least would be soon -- was eminently reasonable. According to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, when The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, most income inequality at the global level was driven by class differences within countries. Although some countries were clearly richer than others, what counted as an income to make a man rich or condemn him to poverty in England would have translated pretty neatly to France, the United States, even Argentina.

But as the Industrial Revolution gained steam, that parity changed dramatically over the next century -- one reason Marx's prediction of a global proletarian revolution turned out to be so wrong. Just a few years after The Communist Manifesto was published, wages for workers in Britain began to climb. The trend followed across the rest of Europe and North America. The world entered a period of what Harvard University economist Lant Pritchett elegantly calls "divergence, big time." The Maddison Project database of historical statistics suggests that per capita GDP in 1870 (in 1990 dollars, adjusting for purchasing power) was around $3,190 in Britain -- compared with an African average of $648. Compare that with Britain in 2010, which had a per capita GDP of $23,777; the African average was $2,034. One hundred and forty years ago, the average African person was about one-fifth as rich as his British comrade. Today, he's worth less than one-tenth.

Although many Americans get worked up about absurdly inflated CEO salaries and hedge fund bonuses, a hard economic fact has been overlooked: As the West took off into sustained growth, the gap in incomes among countries began to dwarf the income gaps within countries. That means a temp in East London may still struggle to make ends meet, but plop her down in Lagos and she'll live like a queen. If you're feeling bad about your nonexistent year-end bonus, consider this: Milanovic estimates that the average income of the richest 5 percent in India is about the same as that of the poorest 5 percent in the United States. Like banks and multinationals, wealth and poverty are now globalized. The lowest municipal workers in Europe and the United States are far richer than their counterparts in poor developing countries (even when purchasing power parity is taken into account), and they're almost infinitesimally better off than the majority of people in those countries who still survive off the earnings of small farms or microenterprises.

Sorry, Karl: The simple fact that poor people in Europe and America are in the income elite according to the standards of South Asia and Africa is why the workers of all lands have not yet united. The second congress of the Communist International, in 1920, condemned the despicable betrayal by many European and American socialists during World War I, who "used 'defense of the fatherland' to conceal the 'right' of 'their' bourgeoisie to enslave the colonies." The gathered representatives argued that the mistrust generated could "be eradicated only after imperialism is destroyed in the advanced countries and after the entire basis of economic life of the backward countries is radically transformed."

Yet all that might soon be changing. Globalization may have been the watchword of the 1990s, but it's still a work in progress. As interconnected global markets get ever more interconnected, average incomes are converging. The last 10 years have seen developing countries grow far more rapidly than high-income countries, closing the gap in average incomes. Economist Arvind Subramanian estimates that China in 2030 will be about as rich as the whole European Union today and that Brazil won't be far behind, clocking in at a GDP per capita of around $31,000. Indonesia, he reckons, will see a GDP per capita of $23,000 -- about the same as tech powerhouse South Korea today.

Put simply, this means that within the space of hardly a generation, a good chunk of the world will soon be rich, or at least solidly middle class. According to forecasts I've developed with my Center for Global Development colleague Sarah Dykstra, about 16 percent of the Earth's population lives in countries rich enough to be labeled "high income" by the World Bank. If growth rates continue as they have in the past decade, 41 percent of the world's people will find themselves in the "high income" bracket by 2030. In short, if developing countries continue growing at the rate we've seen recently, inequality among countries will shrink -- and inequality within nations will return as the dominant source of global inequality.

Does that mean Marx was right -- if just a couple of centuries off on his timing? Not exactly.

The reality is that this new middle class will have lives that Victorian-era working-class Brits could only dream about. They'll work in LED-lit shops and offices rather than in dark, hellish mills. And they'll live nearly 40 years longer than the average person in 1848 based on life expectancy at birth. But will they share common cause with their fellow factory workers an ocean away?

Maybe, but not because the barricade is the only option. Marx predicted that the global working class would unite and revolt because wages everywhere would be driven to subsistence. But as wages increase and level out around the world, the plight of the proletariat -- hard work, low pay -- today more than ever means easier work and better pay. And it's bringing hundreds of millions of people, in China alone, out of poverty. Clearly, the communist revolutions of the first half of the 20th century proved far, far worse for living standards than the well-regulated markets of the latter half.

But that doesn't mean Warren Buffett should breathe easily. In fact, it is exactly because the rich and poor will look increasingly similar in Lagos and London that it's more likely that the workers of the world in 2030 will unite. As technology and trade level the playing field and bring humanity closer together, the world's projected 3.5 billion laborers may finally realize how much more they have in common with each other than with the über-wealthy elites in their own countries.

They'll pressure governments to collaborate to ensure that their sweat and blood don't excessively enrich a tiny, global capitalist elite, but are spread more widely. They'll work to shut down tax havens where the world's plutocrats hide their earnings, and they'll advocate for treaties to prevent a "race to the bottom" in labor regulations and tax rates designed to attract companies. And they'll push to ensure it isn't just the world's richest who benefit from a global lifestyle -- by striving to open up free movement of labor for all, not just within countries but among them. Sure, it's not quite a proletarian revolution. But then again, the middle class has never been the most ardent of revolutionaries -- only the most effective. The next decade won't so much see the politics of desperate poverty taking on plutocracy, as the middle class taking back its own. But it all might put a ghostly smile on Karl's face nonetheless.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 24 Jan 2014, 16:21
Middles class = better paid members of the working classes.

I hope we all agree on one thing at least, there are only two classes, the class that owns the means of production and the other is the working class.
As for his predictions for 2030, well it is always dangerous to make predictions and as for those predictions, if they improve life then I am all for it just don’t call them socialism!
Marx is back? I’m glad of that, save Marxism from the state capitalists! We need Marxists to put Marx back into Marxism.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 Jan 2014, 19:45
I pretty much agree with this article. Capitalism needs to develop all the countries of the world so that they become rich (which it has a tendency to do, even under imperialism). Otherwise it simply bribes the organised and educated first world workers to stop them being revolutionary. When every worker has become like a first world worker there will be no source of surplus-value with which to bribe all of them with.

Quote:
Middles class = better paid members of the working classes.

I hope we all agree on one thing at least, there are only two classes, the class that owns the means of production and the other is the working class.
As for his predictions for 2030, well it is always dangerous to make predictions and as for those predictions, if they improve life then I am all for it just don’t call them socialism!
Marx is back? I’m glad of that, save Marxism from the state capitalists! We need Marxists to put Marx back into Marxism.


Don't forget the petit-bourgeoisie. Their main strength is their mindset (i.e. workers aspiring to join the bourgeoisie).
Soviet cogitations: 216
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jul 2013, 05:04
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Jan 2014, 20:26
But even in the First World there are subtypes within the working class. Affluent workers in the West often side with capitalists against other workers. In the U.S., there is an increasing economic and social divide between a growing underclass of relatively low-paid workers, the underemployed, the casually employed, etc., and the more affluent workers. This is a major roadblock to working-class solidarity and unity.

What if the future is that of a whole planet like the First World with a large submerged class of workers, a small affluent labor elite, and the capitalists on top?
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 Jan 2014, 21:11
Quote:
But even in the First World there are subtypes within the working class. Affluent workers in the West often side with capitalists against other workers. In the U.S., there is an increasing economic and social divide between a growing underclass of relatively low-paid workers, the underemployed, the casually employed, etc., and the more affluent workers. This is a major roadblock to working-class solidarity and unity.

What if the future is that of a whole planet like the First World with a large submerged class of workers, a small affluent labor elite, and the capitalists on top?


Wages are just the price of a commodity: labour-power. Therefore they are determined by markets (i.e. supply and demand). The fact that workers in sectors such as the finance industry make so much money compared to workers in other industries is because of the demand for intelligent workers capable of bringing in huge amounts of money to the finance firm. This is possible because industries like investment firms don't generate their profits through commodities that they produce, but through appropriating interest from productive capital all over the world (often in the developing world). If wages rise in the developing world then profits decrease and thus so does interest accruing to investment firms. Over time this can cause the wages of finance workers to fall because the industry is just not as profitable as it once was. Therefore demand for finance workers decreases and the price of labour-power in the sector falls.

In short, the high wages paid to some workers are possible because of the vast amount of surplus-value exploited out of other workers all over the world. The rise in wages among these workers eats into the surplus-value (profits) of global capital, thus decreasing the pay differences for the different strata of workers.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jan 2014, 21:18
Quote:
Affluent workers in the West often side with capitalists against other workers.

That often happens with the poorest of workers ( perhaps even more than with those better off ) and not just in the West.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 Jan 2014, 21:22
The poorest are, unsurprisingly, hardly educated. That the educated "wealthy" workers side with capital is much more depressing.

@gred: How is the exploited world supposed to rise to first world standards while they're being plundered by imperialism? Won't this inevitably continue the scheme of a richer first world and poorer third world? I mean what mechanism will distribute the plunder back so it can actually be spent on infrastructure and national production?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 Jan 2014, 01:10
Quote:
The poorest are, unsurprisingly, hardly educated. That the educated "wealthy" workers side with capital is much more depressing.

@gred: How is the exploited world supposed to rise to first world standards while they're being plundered by imperialism? Won't this inevitably continue the scheme of a richer first world and poorer third world? I mean what mechanism will distribute the plunder back so it can actually be spent on infrastructure and national production?


In short, demand for labour superseding supply.

As capital constantly wishes to accumulate and thus expand its markets further and deeper throughout the world, demand for labour tends to rise. This is why China and India have done so well over the past few decades: they have opened their huge labour markets to first world capital. This has caused huge numbers of peasants to flock to the cities where wages are higher than the measly pittance subsistence farmers tend to earn. As a result, wages in China have been steadily rising. This of course eats into the profits generated by first world capital as more and more has to be spent on workers' wages. This means more and more money is flowing into China and it is becoming a relatively prosperous nation (at least in some parts).

Now there is an element here which puts the brakes on this trend and that is the rural population. China still has hundreds of millions of rural workers who will be moving to the cities soon. Since these people are very poor they have a huge impact on setting the minimum wage for a lot of the labour jobs. They help keep wages low. However, once this rural population runs out and the majority of workers live in the cities, wages should continue to rise so long as capital wishes to make use of Chinese labour. Eventually China will become a relatively prosperous nation and first world capital may start to look elsewhere for its cheap source of labour (enter Africa - maybe). Once the pattern is repeated capital will have essentially run out of sources of cheap labour.

The thing we have to realise with imperialism is that it is essentially the capitalist mode of production and its historical pattern of development spread over the entire world. If we look at places like Britain, Germany and the USA, when capitalism began in those countries the workers were very poor and lived and worked in terrible conditions. Most people lived in rural areas and migrated to the towns in order to look for work. Wages began to rise as demand for labour continued to rise while the population (supply) could not keep up. Thus capital began to look abroad to less developed countries for a new source of cheap labour. We are now seeing this same process repeat itself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 25 Jan 2014, 11:07
Something about the recent history of my country and its own hundreds of millions of people tells me the idea that capitalism makes everyone better off in the long run in spite of its exploitative nature simply isn't true. Plenty of countries, including those in the developed world, have seen their standards of living fall significantly since the 1970s. Sure it's been made up for in some sense for first worlders by $3 t-shirts from WalMart, and even more by technology; for instance, today anybody with a good internet collection can come to experience some billions of dollars worth of cultural production, books, etc., virtually for free. It should of course be recognized that this is more a byproduct of capitalist technological development than deliberate design, some industries unintentionally selling others the rope with which to hang themselves while those continue to struggle to save copyright from the replicator.

the article wrote:
Clearly, the communist revolutions of the first half of the 20th century proved far, far worse for living standards than the well-regulated markets of the latter half.


What a ridiculously broad and baseless idea... There's a very strong possibility that there wouldn't ever be a strong middle class in Western countries if the Great Depression, combined with the Soviet experience, had not scared the bourgeoisie into the Keynesian compromise.

Call me a pessimist, but the idea that we all simply have to wait contentedly until capitalism makes everyone rich, and then naturally starts to fade away, sounds ludicrous. Along a long enough timeline, we're all dead anyway, and to argue that we must wait until capitalism reaches the logical end to its development means to support, passively or even actively, the tremendous injustices of its contemporary application, in the first world and in the third.

The horrible logic of capitalism lies in its basic acceptance of the idea of exploitation as the driver of prosperity. This is true whether it's applied to the individual corporation or to the standards of consumption for entire nations. Nations that resist its logic will continue to be coerced financially or bombed physically until they submit; there is something to be said about the millions of souls stuffed into the furnaces of capitalist progress whose bodies, minds and spirits are mangled, while statisticians talk about a rise in standards of consumption. Additionally, the relentless drive forward in technology's ability to replace human labourers, plus the limited resources of the planet, will make it simply physically impossible for the average Chinese or Indian to live like the average American.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 Jan 2014, 12:17
Quote:
Something about the recent history of my country and its own hundreds of millions of people tells me the idea that capitalism makes everyone better off in the long run in spite of its exploitative nature simply isn't true.


Is your country Russia? They are something of an exception to the rule considering the unique circumstances of their recent history.

Quote:
Plenty of countries, including those in the developed world, have seen their standards of living fall significantly since the 1970s.


Which ones? Yes the recent crisis has affected countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal etc and they are suffering. However, compare living standards in those countries today compared to 100 years ago (and all those countries were capitalist back then) and you can see that they have improved in the long-term.

Quote:
Sure it's been made up for in some sense for first worlders by $3 t-shirts from WalMart, and even more by technology; for instance, today anybody with a good internet collection can come to experience some billions of dollars worth of cultural production, books, etc., virtually for free. It should of course be recognized that this is more a byproduct of capitalist technological development than deliberate design, some industries unintentionally selling others the rope with which to hang themselves while those continue to struggle to save copyright from the replicator.


That's the nature of capitalist production. Nearly everything is produced to make money for its owner/originator. But as Marx pointed out, a commodity has to have a use-value in order for it to have exchange-value. If some things just happen to be useful by-products of capitalism then so be it. But that doesn't stop them being useful.

Quote:
What a ridiculously broad and baseless idea... There's a very strong possibility that there wouldn't ever be a strong middle class in Western countries if the Great Depression, combined with the Soviet experience, had not scared the bourgeoisie into the Keynesian compromise.


We're into "what if?" territory here. Remember that a middle class was rising in western Europe and the USA before the Russian Revolution. Lenin talked about this in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Now look at China with its rapidly expanding middle class - and there isn't even a Soviet Union around anymore! India too is seeing a rise in its middle class.

Quote:
Call me a pessimist, but the idea that we all simply have to wait contentedly until capitalism makes everyone rich, and then naturally starts to fade away, sounds ludicrous.


Why? If capitalism can still find a large source of cheap labour to exploit it can afford to pay off other sections of the global working class to blunt and revolutionary fervour they may have.

Quote:
Along a long enough timeline, we're all dead anyway, and to argue that we must wait until capitalism reaches the logical end to its development means to support, passively or even actively, the tremendous injustices of its contemporary application, in the first world and in the third.


This is one of the problems that Lenin, Mao et al all suffered from. They wanted to see socialism within their lifetimes in countries that weren't really ready for it (in terms of historical development). Sadly we sometimes have to accept that we won't necessarily live to see our desires played out.

Plus it shouldn't really be about justice, but advancing to a superior form of society. If one were to talk about justice then no one would consider the bourgeois defeat of feudalism to be progressive because it simply replaced feudal injustices with bourgeois injustices. Yet the bourgeois revolution ultimately laid the ground for the many advances we have today that simply could not have occurred under feudalism.

Quote:
The horrible logic of capitalism lies in its basic acceptance of the idea of exploitation as the driver of prosperity. This is true whether it's applied to the individual corporation or to the standards of consumption for entire nations. Nations that resist its logic will continue to be coerced financially or bombed physically until they submit; there is something to be said about the millions of souls stuffed into the furnaces of capitalist progress whose bodies, minds and spirits are mangled, while statisticians talk about a rise in standards of consumption.


All true and you should therefore recognise that finding a source of surplus-value with a particularly high rate of surplus-value plus a low price of variable capital is the source of most of the middle class wealth in the world.

It all boils down to this: how do you propose we defeat imperialism? All communist parties say they are anti-imperialist but none of them have any practical solutions in how to actually defeat it. Any suggestions? My answer is that we cannot defeat it due to the circumstances already mentioned. We therefore have to wait for it to burn itself out because it is not a globally sustainable system.

Quote:
Additionally, the relentless drive forward in technology's ability to replace human labourers, plus the limited resources of the planet, will make it simply physically impossible for the average Chinese or Indian to live like the average American.


But as their wealth rises it will put a strain on the wealth of the American middle class.
Soviet cogitations: 216
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jul 2013, 05:04
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 25 Jan 2014, 16:54
gRed Britain wrote:
We're into "what if?" territory here. Remember that a middle class was rising in western Europe and the USA before the Russian Revolution. Lenin talked about this in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Now look at China with its rapidly expanding middle class - and there isn't even a Soviet Union around anymore! India too is seeing a rise in its middle class.


Robert C. Allen argues that the Soviet Union was the second most successful development story in the 20th Century, right behind Japan.

A summary of his theory can be found here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... /allen.pdf

What makes the Soviet experience so impressive is that they accomplished so much while being effectively under siege by the capitalist powers, having survived the brutal Nazi invasion which destroyed much of the developed western portion of the country, and shouldering the burden of a Cold War with the United States.

What is dismaying is that the leadership in other socialist countries like the People's Republic of China, instead of learning from the mistakes of the Maoist era and from the USSR itself, decided to throw their lot in with capitalism. The problem of capitalist restoration in the actually-existing socialist states leads me to believe that the issue is political, that is, the nomenklatura sees capitalism as a way to make themselves wealthy like their Western counterparts. The same is also true of some of the workers who see themselves joining a Western-style middle class. For the bulk of the population who do not join the new middle-class, life is probably worse under capitalism than even under the very imperfect socialisms of the 20th century.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 Jan 2014, 18:02
Quote:
Robert C. Allen argues that the Soviet Union was the second most successful development story in the 20th Century, right behind Japan.

A summary of his theory can be found here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... /allen.pdf

What makes the Soviet experience so impressive is that they accomplished so much while being effectively under siege by the capitalist powers, having survived the brutal Nazi invasion which destroyed much of the developed western portion of the country, and shouldering the burden of a Cold War with the United States.


Yes it was impressive (although with a large amount of suffering from the people). However I always think it's worth remembering the physical size of the USSR. After all, the Russian Empire managed to defeat Napoleon's invasion in 1812 when they were relatively backward while France was the strongest military power in the world. The vast Russian interior, the cold weather and its huge resources of manpower all contributed in this regard just as they did during WW2.

Quote:
What is dismaying is that the leadership in other socialist countries like the People's Republic of China, instead of learning from the mistakes of the Maoist era and from the USSR itself, decided to throw their lot in with capitalism.


Well the Eastern Bloc countries were under the USSR's thumb. When they tried to reform (or even go it alone a la Tito) the USSR adopted a hostile policy towards them. As for China, what should they have done? Mao was an idiot who couldn't run a country to save his life. He put forward huge campaigns which were not fully thought out and could not be properly implemented resulting in huge suffering and loss of material property. I've been reading Deng's speeches from the late 1970s-early 1980s and his main reason for capitalist reforms seems to be the fact that China was so economically poor. He asks: what is the point of socialism in China when it is materially inferior to capitalism in the West?

Quote:
The problem of capitalist restoration in the actually-existing socialist states leads me to believe that the issue is political, that is, the nomenklatura sees capitalism as a way to make themselves wealthy like their Western counterparts. The same is also true of some of the workers who see themselves joining a Western-style middle class.


Possibly but remember that Deng was a lifelong Marxist who went on the long march and travelled to France to study Marxism. Why, after all that, would he simply want to implement capitalist reforms because he was a secret capitalist?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 26 Jan 2014, 03:30
I'm not so sure about the arguments in this article.

The rehashing of John Prescott's declaration that "we're all middle class now" seems to fly in the face of the facts. Increasing inequality and the hollowing out of the Western middle class, a trend which began in the '70s with the end of the postwar boom, has been well covered in the bourgeois press.

Quote:
In the UK:"When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the bottom 90 per cent of the population had an average annual income of £10,567. By 2007, that had risen by a little under 20 per cent to £12,430. Now let’s look at the top 1 per cent. In 1997, they made an already very impressive £187,989 a year. A decade later, that had risen by more than 60 per cent to £301,325. So the gap between them and everyone else had increased dramatically in both relative and absolute terms... the middle classes are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of that divide."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/10377807/Well-never-have-it-so-good-again.html

"There is an ongoing hollowing-out of the middle ranks in the British job market – the managers, the administrators. What growth there has been [in this area] has been driven by the public sector over the last 10 years. With the government's spending cuts, you have to question the future of many of those managerial jobs."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/24/middle-class-in-decline-society


Quote:
In the US:"A report on Wednesday from the left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress notes that as middle-class incomes have steadily fallen, so have union membership rates."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html

"Imagine a future in which real wages for most workers decline year after year; a future in which middle-class jobs that disappeared in the Great Recession won't be coming back; a future in which young Americans either squeeze into an increasingly wealthy elite or tumble to the bottom, with fewer and fewer in what we once called the middle class. Actually, that's a description of the present."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-inequality-20131023,0,7173397.column

"...[the] net worth of the middle fifth of American households has plunged by 26% in the last two years. Or that the income of the median American family, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than in 1998."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/13/american-middle-class-poverty

"According to an August 2012 Pew Research Center report, only half of American households are middle-income, down from 61 percent in the 1970s. In addition, median middle-class income decreased by 5 percent in the last decade, while total wealth dropped 28 percent. According to the Economic Policy Institute, households in the wealthiest 1 percent of the U.S. population now have 288 times the amount of wealth of the average middle-class American family."
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/10/16/decline-of-the-middle-class-behind-the-numbers

"As Michael Spence has explained, corporations have gotten so good at "creating and managing global supply chains" that large companies no longer grow much in the United States. They expand abroad. As a result, the vast majority (more than 97%, Spence says!) of job creation now happens in so-called nontradable sectors -- those that exist outside of the global supply chain -- that are often low-profit-margin businesses, like a hospital, or else not even businesses at all, like a school or mayor's office."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/whats-the-single-best-explanation-for-middle-class-decline/261355/


Quote:
In Canada:"Almost one half of every dollar earned in the country goes to the richest one-fifth. In 1980, 43 cents of every dollar went into the pockets and bank accounts of the top 20 per cent, a share that has slowly and steadily increased to reach a bit more than 47 cents. But even this understates the concentration of incomes since the underlying driver is the higher and higher proportion flowing to the top 1 per cent, who collected eight out of every 100 dollars earned in 1980, and 12 of every 100 in 2010.

At the same time the slice of the pie going to those in the bottom has not changed, while those in the middle have, indeed, experienced a decline in their share."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-decline-of-the-us-middle-class-is-a-canadian-story-too/article14540755/


Quote:
In Europe:"When the crisis just broke out, more than 50% of Spaniards said they belonged to the middle class. Latest polls have revealed that the Spanish middle class now smaller. Salary cuts, higher taxes and loans are forcing more and more people out of the middle class. Some 60% of Spanish families are affected by unemployment and a lack of income."
http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_31/The-decline-of-the-middle-class-in-Europe/

"A study by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin found that the broad middle of the German work force, defined as workers making from 70 to 150 percent of the median income, shrunk to 54 percent of the population last year, from 62 percent in 2000."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/business/worldbusiness/01middle.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


So too with the claim that of easier work and better pay. Workers in the West are working longer hours, for less pay and with worse conditions. Any increased wealth is only enriching the big capitalists, as real wages stagnate or fall. It seems no better elsewhere, with developing countries fighting to deliver the lowest wages.

Quote:


And there doesn't seem to be much evidence of working-class Britons moving to the Third World to take advantage of the lower costs of living, despite the popularity of Timothy Ferriss' books. Regardless of their position in the global context, a British or Greek worker who can't heat their home or put food on the table is in no position to be migrating halfway around the world. Although "rich" compared to people in the LDCs, these workers are now struggling precisely because their jobs have been sent offshore - and the Western worker loses any meaningful share of the super-profits. It is in his immediate interests to support the struggle of workers abroad for better wages.

The experience of the 1960s and '70s, when Western workers had never been better off and were far ahead of other nations, was record levels of trade union militancy and solidarity with working-class movements in other countries. The threat of existing socialism played a role, but the primary contradiction was the sharpening of internal class struggle as workers demanded a higher share of the boom.

As S. N. Nadel points out, the development of middle-class culture is an ideological trick to divide the working class, "lessening class polarization and class contradictions". But the past forty years has seen rising instability of the petty-bourgeois and middle strata, increasing proportions of whom are thrown back into the proletariat. The sharpening general crisis of capitalism has stripped the system of all dynamism, its falling profit rates forcing the increased reliance on fictitious capital and monopoly-led crony capitalism to stave off crisis. The skilled blue collar job is out, the McJob is in. A far-cry from the "golden age" of 1950s "middle-class America."

Does the author's "solution" not sound like a continuation of the vulgar theories of capitalist "transformation": i.e. Galbraith, Rostow, or the theorists of the old Second International? A tough sell post-2008, I would have thought.

Piccolo wrote:
The problem of capitalist restoration in the actually-existing socialist states leads me to believe that the issue is political, that is, the nomenklatura sees capitalism as a way to make themselves wealthy like their Western counterparts.

I agree, and the KKE has taken this position on the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Quote:
Theses of the CC on Socialism
We reject the term “collapse” because it underestimates the extent of counter-revolutionary activity, the social base on which it can develop and predominate due to the weaknesses and deviations of the subjective factor during socialist construction.

The victory of counter-revolution in 1989-1991 does not reveal a lack of the minimal level of development of the material pre-requisites necessary to begin socialist construction in Russia...

We consider as incorrect the theoretical approach that the law of value is a law of motion of the communist mode of production in its first stage. This approach became dominant since the decade of the 1950s in the USSR and in the majority of CPs. This position was strengthened due to the expansion of non-capitalist commodity production, which objectively emerged through the planned passage from pre-capitalist relations in agricultural production to cooperative commodity-money ones.

This material base exacerbated the theoretical shortcomings and weaknesses of the subjective factor in the formulation and implementation of central planning. A theoretical base was created for opportunist policies which weakened central planning, eroded social ownership and strengthened counter-revolutionary forces.

http://interold.kke.gr/News/2008news/20 ... socialism/
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jan 2014, 19:44
Quote:
I'm not so sure about the arguments in this article.

The rehashing of John Prescott's declaration that "we're all middle class now" seems to fly in the face of the facts. Increasing inequality and the hollowing out of the Western middle class, a trend which began in the '70s with the end of the postwar boom, has been well covered in the bourgeois press.


I'm not saying that everyone is rich in the West and getting richer. I'm saying that, relative to the developing world, the West still has it far better, irrespective of deviations from wages and living standards over the past 40 years.

Quote:
So too with the claim that of easier work and better pay. Workers in the West are working longer hours, for less pay and with worse conditions. Any increased wealth is only enriching the big capitalists, as real wages stagnate or fall. It seems no better elsewhere, with developing countries fighting to deliver the lowest wages.


All true but the West still has it better than the developing world. Working hours may be getting longer but they are still better than those in Bangladeshi sweatshops. The same goes for wages and working conditions.

Quote:
And there doesn't seem to be much evidence of working-class Britons moving to the Third World to take advantage of the lower costs of living, despite the popularity of Timothy Ferriss' books.


That's because the standard of living is much worse in the third world.

Quote:
Regardless of their position in the global context, a British or Greek worker who can't heat their home or put food on the table is in no position to be migrating halfway around the world. Although "rich" compared to people in the LDCs, these workers are now struggling precisely because their jobs have been sent offshore - and the Western worker loses any meaningful share of the super-profits. It is in his immediate interests to support the struggle of workers abroad for better wages.


I don't know about Greece but most people in Britain can afford to heat their homes. There is even welfare such as winter fuel allowance for the elderly. This is a dream for developing countries. And yes Western workers are losing their productive labour jobs to the developing world. However Western economies are increasingly turning to service economies and thus there are unproductive labour jobs. This is another way that super-profits can be paid.

Quote:
The experience of the 1960s and '70s, when Western workers had never been better off and were far ahead of other nations, was record levels of trade union militancy and solidarity with working-class movements in other countries. The threat of existing socialism played a role, but the primary contradiction was the sharpening of internal class struggle as workers demanded a higher share of the boom.


True, but you must remember that capital, being a global system, has its limits for increasing demands for wage rises. If they rise too much, capital simply offshores to the developing world where wages are much lower. Where does capital go once the developing world workers start demanding wage rises? That is the real contradiction.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 27 Jan 2014, 23:03
gRed Britain wrote:
I don't know about Greece but most people in Britain can afford to heat their homes. There is even welfare such as winter fuel allowance for the elderly. This is a dream for developing countries. And yes Western workers are losing their productive labour jobs to the developing world. However Western economies are increasingly turning to service economies and thus there are unproductive labour jobs. This is another way that super-profits can be paid.

I could have been clearer here. There is no doubt that British and European workers on the whole are better off - even comfortable. The question is whether their living standards will continue to decline. Already we are seeing strengthening resistance amongst the people to attacks by capital, following more than a decade of low class struggle. The poorest Western workers have been spurred to action by their worsening position, suggesting the potential for more unrest if the crisis deepens. (e.g. increased migration, growing trade union activity, 'bedroom tax' & poor housing affordability, pensioners unable to heat homes despite the fuel allowance, etc.)

Clearly global class contradictions will be sharper when capital has exhausted new sources of cheap labour. But surely workers in the imperialist countries are not doomed to complicit enslavement until imperialism caves in on itself? What about revolts such as May '68, the growth of large Communist parties in Europe during the Cold War, and other post-war militancy?
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 27 Jan 2014, 23:33
Quote:
I could have been clearer here. There is no doubt that British and European workers on the whole are better off - even comfortable. The question is whether their living standards will continue to decline. Already we are seeing strengthening resistance amongst the people to attacks by capital, following more than a decade of low class struggle. The poorest Western workers have been spurred to action by their worsening position, suggesting the potential for more unrest if the crisis deepens. (e.g. increased migration, growing trade union activity, 'bedroom tax' & poor housing affordability, pensioners unable to heat homes despite the fuel allowance, etc.)


Yes. There is also the idea that the more people have, the more they have to lose. Thus first world workers will be upset by the loss of things which third world workers can only dream about. But an upset worker is still an upset worker.

Quote:
Clearly global class contradictions will be sharper when capital has exhausted new sources of cheap labour. But surely workers in the imperialist countries are not doomed to complicit enslavement until imperialism caves in on itself? What about revolts such as May '68, the growth of large Communist parties in Europe during the Cold War, and other post-war militancy?


Well what else can they do? Imperialism has almost exclusively been blamed for the lack of revolutionary activity among first world workers for the past 100 years. If imperialism can still conduct itself in order to maintain this status quo I don't see how things will change in the short term. The collapse of 2008 could have brought about a complete collapse of the financial system and thus society as people would no longer have been able to withdraw money from their accounts. Yet the bourgeois governments were still able to bail out the system and keep it going. While the imperialist governments can still do this, they can still head off revolutionary unrest.

As for those other achievements, they all failed in the long term. the '68 revolts amounted to nothing, communist parties have been shot through and are now a series of splits who all hate each other more than capitalism. Until someone provides an actual method for defeating imperialism other than angry rhetoric (which, funnily enough, doesn't work), revolution in the first world will be a pipe dream and revolution in the third world will fail under its internal contradictions (I will explain these if you like).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 208
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2009, 19:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 28 Jan 2014, 15:10
It is truth that the first world capitalists can bail out the system at the moment, but what about the second and third world countries? In Thailand, two capitalist fractions have been fighting for decade but neither can consolidate power, why? Because both fraction cannot find the sounding way to develop the economy. What about Egypt, why the people is still not content with the governments, despite two coup d'état over three years? Again, it is because all three goverments cannot recover the economy (at the moment, I do not know about future). And there is also Ukraine, what is the true reason behind the riot? At first, it appear to be a fight between EU and Russia, but in the core, it is that the capitalist cannot find the way out of the crisis.

And in my homeland, the Vietnamese capitalist is struggling too. In the past, I really had high hope for the potential of the Vietnamese capitalist during 2010-2020 period, but now I cannot see where is the light for their future. National corporations are riped with corruption and the private sector is only care about exporting and entertainment. What is the future plan of the national corporations? Are they intend to continue to drain the last remaining legacy of socialist economy, or receive "charity" (ODA) from the Japanese capitalist? What is the future for the private sector? Are they continue to export to the first world, despite the first world workers living standard is falling (and continue to falling)? Are they continue to build pagodas, temples, tourist sites (I am not kidding) to squeeze the last penny of people, whom increasingly become poorer? Even I cannot guarantee that I will get a job that ensure my "middle class" living standard now, despite studying in the National University (I have weak health, it is unlikely that I can survived the IT sector sweat shop, and became a university teacher is harder these days, because of low demand).

And it is 2014 now. The crisis start in 2008, but the world still has not recover. We only have another 4-5 years before the next crisis strike (the 10 years cycle of crisis). It is likely that I will need to fight for socialism in the near future, not only for revolutionary ideal, but for a better future for myself and everyone.

It is as the KKE have said: "The need for social ownership, Central Planning with working class power is emerging as an urgent necessity. Socialism is more necessary and timely than ever from the standpoint of the material conditions". Marx is back and stronger than ever. The duty of every Marxist now is making the dream of Marx and Engels come true.
"Stalin brought us up — on loyalty to the people, He inspired us to labor and to heroism!" Soviet Anthem 1944.
Let's work hard and do valorous deed!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 30 Jan 2014, 10:53
gRed Britain wrote:
Until someone provides an actual method for defeating imperialism other than angry rhetoric (which, funnily enough, doesn't work), revolution in the first world will be a pipe dream and revolution in the third world will fail under its internal contradictions (I will explain these if you like).

Marxists (and particularly Marxist-Leninists) have always had more than "angry rhetoric" - socialism as a science. And as capitalism continues to become less dynamic and reliant on bubbles for recoveries, imperialism is less able to pacify the workers with money (e.g. François Hollande's inability to end austerity).

I would be interested to know your idea of these "internal contradictions", but I can imagine we will fail to agree. It returns to the "socialism in one country" debate. Lenin clearly stated that uneven development was inherent to capitalism, and that socialism may be victorious even in a single country only at first.

V I Lenin wrote:
Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... aug/23.htm


Stalin expands further on the topic:
J V Stalin wrote:
According to Bukharin, the imperialist front breaks where the national-economic system is weakest. That, of course, is untrue. If it were true, the proletarian revolution would have begun not in Russia, but somewhere in Central Africa. The “Introductory Essay on Leninism,” however, says something that is the very opposite of Bukharin’s thesis, namely, that the imperialist chain breaks where it (the chain) is weakest. And that is quite true. The chain of world imperialism breaks in a particular country precisely because it is in that country that it (the chain) is weakest at the particular moment. Otherwise, it would not break. Otherwise, the Mensheviks would be right in their fight against Leninism.

And what determines the weakness of the imperialist chain in a particular country? The existence of a certain minimum of industrial development and cultural level in that country. The existence in that country of a certain minimum of an industrial proletariat. The revolutionary spirit of the proletariat and of the proletarian vanguard in that country. The existence in that country of a substantial ally of the proletariat (the peasantry, for example), an ally capable of following the proletariat in a determined struggle against imperialism. Hence, a combination of conditions which render the isolation and overthrow of imperialism in that country inevitable.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /12/18.htm


Trotsky's rejection of the law of uneven development is based on the same ideas of Charles Kenny's article in the OP - the alleged tendency for global 'levelling'. The problem with this theory is that any such phenomena simply cause the contradictions between imperialist powers to sharpen as they fight to regain the upper hand.

The clear economics gains made in socialist countries throughout the world over several decades disprove the 'impossibility' of building socialism today. What stood in the way was revisionism.

Engelsist wrote:
And in my homeland, the Vietnamese capitalist is struggling too. In the past, I really had high hope for the potential of the Vietnamese capitalist during 2010-2020 period, but now I cannot see where is the light for their future.

I find the Vietnamese economy interesting. What is your view on the Communist Party of Vietnam? Do you believe the leadership will continue following the ideas of New Democracy, or are the ideas of neoclassical economics popular as in China?
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 30 Jan 2014, 19:59
Quote:
Marxists (and particularly Marxist-Leninists) have always had more than "angry rhetoric" - socialism as a science.


How will "socialism as a science" defeat imperialism? "Socialism as a science" isn't a method, it's a catchphrase. All communist parties today claim to uphold "scientific socialism" yet all they ever do is denounce imperialism. Meanwhile imperialism continues its march across the globe. Let's hear your detailed plan as to how we can defeat imperialism.

Quote:
And as capitalism continues to become less dynamic and reliant on bubbles for recoveries, imperialism is less able to pacify the workers with money (e.g. François Hollande's inability to end austerity).


We've just had the biggest capitalist crisis since the 1930s and yet not one capitalist government has been overthrown. Sure there have been a few riots and demonstrations but so far capitalism and imperialism have remained deeply entrenched.

Quote:
I would be interested to know your idea of these "internal contradictions", but I can imagine we will fail to agree. It returns to the "socialism in one country" debate. Lenin clearly stated that uneven development was inherent to capitalism, and that socialism may be victorious even in a single country only at first.


The first contradiction of trying to build socialism in the third world is that between ideology and material conditions. Socialism is described as being the superior stage to capitalism, thus ideologically the socialist state promotes itself as superior to the capitalist world. Yet materially the third world country is significantly inferior compared to the capitalist countries. This leads people to query why socialism can be superior when the material conditions of existence are inferior. People realise that you can't eat ideology and so have a tendency to emulate the capitalist countries in their pursuit of a better material existence.

The second contradiction is between the relatively poor quality of education and organisation among the working classes and their supposed position as the ruling class. With so many illiterate workers and peasants, the working classes in the third world can hardly be relied upon to be the ruling class in society. Thus the communist party (made up of intellectuals) tends to rule in their place and supplant the working class as actual rulers. Socialism cannot be considered to have been implemented when the working classes aren't even the ruling class!

Finally the contradiction between idealism and materialism. The previous contradiction means that the communist party tends to conjure ideals out of thin air as to what a socialist society "should" look like. They therefore decree how people should live their lives, what films they watch, how they dress, where they work, what art is allowed etc. Any diversions from this idealism (which is completely at odds with Marxist theory btw) finds the party inflicting severe punishment on the supposed "ruling class" for violating these ideals. Thus the party is completely alienated from the masses it claims to represent. If a party were to apply actual Marxist theory it would be materialist and thus allow the social superstructure (whatever that may appear as) to emerge from the economic base. In previous "socialist" countries the party has simply tried to impose its ideals onto society by the use of force and without their consent.

Quote:
The clear economics gains made in socialist countries throughout the world over several decades disprove the 'impossibility' of building socialism today.


Would that be all those countries which collapsed? Also China, Vietnam and Laos' development only really took off after introducing capitalist reforms. How's that for economic gains? Yes the USSR made big economic gains (although it might well have done so under capitalist rule. The Germans in WWI were worried about how powerful the Russian Empire had the potential to become in the future) but I don't consider it to have been a genuinely socialist country.

Quote:
What stood in the way was revisionism.


Have you ever asked why this revisionism occurred? Take Deng Xiaoping. He joined the communists at 16, travelled to France to study Marxism, joined up with the CCP back in China, worked in the Jiangxi Soviet, went on the Long March, fought the KMT and then worked as an official in the PRC for many years including being denounced during the Cultural Revolution and seeing his son paralysed by the Red Guards. Do you think he went through all that just so he could put in place a secret evil master plan to implement "revisionist" capitalist reforms? Revisionism was used because the command economy has its limits and people were sick of ideological terror campaigns being inflicted upon ordinary citizens by omnipotent leaders who were utterly detached from reality.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 31 Jan 2014, 07:14
gRed wrote:
Which ones? Yes the recent crisis has affected countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal etc and they are suffering. However, compare living standards in those countries today compared to 100 years ago (and all those countries were capitalist back then) and you can see that they have improved in the long-term.


Compared to a hundred years ago, sure, Western workers are better off. Compared to 40-50 years ago, not really. The idea that a working man by himself could provide for his family sounds laughable today; it didn't back then.

gRed wrote:
This is one of the problems that Lenin, Mao et al all suffered from. They wanted to see socialism within their lifetimes in countries that weren't really ready for it (in terms of historical development). Sadly we sometimes have to accept that we won't necessarily live to see our desires played out.


The Chinese peasant communal experiment aside, I must say that I find it hard to believe that the Soviet socialist 'experiment' could have somehow turned out differently had Russia first been a developed industrial capitalist superpower. In fact, they managed to prove to many nations that they could industrialize, urbanize and educate people just about as well as any capitalist country, and without the benefits of war profits or colonial or neocolonial superprofits accruing to them. The failure of the USSR was not a matter of Russia's historic underdevelopment, but rather a result of difficulties of building socialism in a world dominated by capitalism, and betrayal from within in a system too rigid to be able to handle such possibilities.

gRed wrote:
After all, the Russian Empire managed to defeat Napoleon's invasion in 1812 when they were relatively backward while France was the strongest military power in the world. The vast Russian interior, the cold weather and its huge resources of manpower all contributed in this regard just as they did during WW2.


Don't want to get off track here, but all the things you've mentioned were were a sideshow compared to the Soviets organizational and logistical capacity, combined with what amounted to superior military and technological capabilities and doctrines. By 1942 the 120 million or so USSR faced a European fascist and fascist occupied territory with nearly 500 million people, and several times the potential industrial capacity, together with the most powerful and battle-hardened military machine in the world at the time. We often here from Russian liberals that 'the people' won the war, but without the organizational capabilities of the leadership, and moreover, without the period of industrialization, the USSR would have stood no chance against the modern, mechanized warfare that had taken the world by storm.

gRed wrote:
I've been reading Deng's speeches from the late 1970s-early 1980s and his main reason for capitalist reforms seems to be the fact that China was so economically poor. He asks: what is the point of socialism in China when it is materially inferior to capitalism in the West?


What China had from the 1950s on wasn't socialism; at any rate it wasn't Marxist-Leninist socialism, but rather a degeneration to and acceptance of a communal peasant approach that halted national development for decades.

gRed wrote:
We've just had the biggest capitalist crisis since the 1930s and yet not one capitalist government has been overthrown. Sure there have been a few riots and demonstrations but so far capitalism and imperialism have remained deeply entrenched.


This to me seems the consequence of the tremendous defeats of 1989-1991. Without the existence of a socialist superpower, how can small countries how to make or consolidate revolutionary socialist gains? How can Greece, for example, fight the economic (and military, if it comes to that) might of the entire EU?

gRed wrote:
The second contradiction is between the relatively poor quality of education and organisation among the working classes and their supposed position as the ruling class. With so many illiterate workers and peasants, the working classes in the third world can hardly be relied upon to be the ruling class in society. Thus the communist party (made up of intellectuals) tends to rule in their place and supplant the working class as actual rulers. Socialism cannot be considered to have been implemented when the working classes aren't even the ruling class!


But this contradiction was to a very large extent overcome in the Soviet example, and the USSR did start out as very much a third world country in almost every sense.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.