104
Does it harm the global proletariat to fight for improved conditions in the imperial core?
(hexbear.net)
Saw this comment on the commie side of TikTok. My gut tells me this is ultraleft bs, but perhaps my fellow hexbears can educate me on this discussion which I’m sure is not new.
I don’t see how a poor American on food stamps is responsible, even though a systematic analysis reveals that international superexploitation is a thing.
The American proletariat can and should organize in any case. I don’t see how Americans can build any sort of socialist movement if any organization at all is accused of being hypocritical.
The vast majority of the work done in the belly of the beast involves the destruction of that beast, not the enlargement of the consumer class making up the beast's stomach. That doesn't mean all the work; there are very oppressed people in the US and there are ways to help them (e.g. seizing empty properties to house homeless people, forcing cities to allow empty spaces to be used by homeless people and/or for community gardening) that don't rely on more exploitation (e.g. "build more houses using cheap materials from the global south and high wage construction labour in the global north").
That said i wanna re-emphasise the degree of international inequality in hellworld.
In Divided World Divided Class Zak Cope maintains that there's no legally (illegally, yes, but if one is paid min wage and working legal hours, no) exploited workers in the global north. He is using the marxist definition of exploitation i.e. "being paid less than the value of the products of your labour", so he isn't arguing it doesn't suck to work a min wage job, but he is arguing that anyone paid the legal minimum wage is paid over and above the value of the products of their labour (if they are even a productive labourer). Cope shows that this inflated wage is largely paid through superprofits and their various redistributions.
Cope shows the degree of the inflated nominal and real wages relative to the South, and he argues that the source of these living standards is redistributed superprofits from imperialism. He lays out his numbers, sources and methodology for his calculations fairly upfront, alongside more detailed statistics in his appendices. He concludes that the Global North extracted around 8 trillion dollars of surplus value from the South in 2008 alone, which re-appears in the North in various amenities, social services, cheap goods, and high wages (3.4 to 3.7 times higher (in terms of purchasing power) in the OECD countries). These wages ofc exist so the capitalists have someone to sell their products to so they can realize the surplus value and prevent crises of overaccumulation through ever increasing consumption--but without the superprofits the capitalists would not have any money to pay this consumer class; every single global north company with legally employed global north workers would go bankrupt.
Even as the majority of people's wages, livelihoods, etc become more stressful and precarious in the North over the last 30 years of neoliberalism(I've heard this called structural reproletarianisation, book was written in 2013 so is slightly dated regarding specific numbers), Cope argues living standards have been increasing; in the late 90s food, electronics, clothes, etc were all cheaper than they were in the early 70s and all sorts of novel luxuries became increasingly prevelent even in poor households. At the same time, wages accross the global south were being slashed, social programmes destroyed, environmental regulations voided, governments toppled, food prices spiked, etc. Wages in the north stagnated and jobs became more precarious and often shittier, but cost of living fell and continued to fall basically until the crash we're in rn afaik.
Cope maintains that while it sucks to be a worker in the US, Canada, etc, it sucks much much more in the global south and the relative unsuckiness of work in the North is paid for by superprofits in the global south. Increasing wages in the north or demanding more equal sharing of the superprofits from imperialism are both demands that reinforce the citizen's privileged position wrt the international working class.
That said, Cope doesn't make the point that people in the north are to blame, or responsible for things (he is a marxist, not a moralist). His point is, that, much like the petite bourgeois as a class have property to reinforce, the citizens of the global north have a property (their entitlement to welfare, "safety", cheap goods, political rights) that they don't want taken away, which Cope argues is a key reason why, like the petite bourgeois, we often see the citizen working class of the global north turn towards fascism.
If that's the case, then why can minimum wage workers in the Global North not afford homes or healthcare, when people in non-imperialist socialist states like China, Cuba, and Vietnam tend to have both of these?
Becauase the prices of those commodities, produced in the global north, are generally kept high bc the wages paying the people doing are kept high. In addition, theres a lotta expensive equipment thats much more availible in the north than south, and anyone caught doing medical treatment below these high, expensive, standards (or without a license) is imprisoned.
Also bc, yknow, in socialist countries that welfare is actually a concern. But you'll also note that AES puts a lot more emphasis on preventative care than expensive treatments, when possible, because unlike in capitalism the goal isnt to wring out as much money as possible.
I'd also note as this is the marxism comm, "healthcare" isnt rly included in "value of labour power". Value of labour power is the value required to allow the proletariat to exist, not to exist healthily. If the proletariat, as a class, continues to exist i.e. can afford sufficient food and shelter to not literally die—that is what capital considers the minimum value of labour power.
I can't say I've ever heard that definition of value of labor power. I was under the impression that "value of labor power" meant the total value that a worker produces, part of which is appropriated by the capitalist as surplus value.
Why would capitalists pay these workers as much as, or more than, the value of their labor? That means you're getting zero or negative surplus value from them - in other words, the capitalist is either not making money or is actively losing money by employing them.
It's the definition Marx uses in Capital. The difference between value of labour power and the value of the products of labour is the source of surplus value. Marx himself invented the category of labour power; earlier economists thought that the employer buys labour.
First off so they can buy the commodities and avoid the horror of warehouses full of unsold goods. Second off because the trade unions won higher wages. Arghiri Emmamuel's Unequal Exchange looks at how that came about over the the 1860-1920ish period, then intensified after ww2.
This is exactly Cope's point; businesses in the global north are not profitable unless kept aloft by the superprofits
I haven’t read that Cope book (unfortunate name lol) but seems kinda dubious to say that all western workers are labor aristocratic.
Is the logic that the average US daily wage is higher than the value of the goods produced during the working day, therefore workers are being overpaid for their labor power?
The problem I have is that in Marx, the value of labor-power is flexible, because politically determined. Its value is the value of the goods required for its reproduction, at a certain standard of living. And because it costs more to live in countries like the US, the value of labor power for US workers really is higher.
I would of course agree that it isn’t fair that this is the case, but the reason things are “cheap” in peripheral countries is in large part because of US fuckery which relatively weakens their currencies. This weakening of currencies doesn’t suddenly convert the entire US proletariat into labor aristocrats… IMO. It really feels nonsensical to look at it this way when so many US workers are in poverty.
Costs of living are actually lower in terms of percentage of wage in the imperial core, as I said in original comment (as as Cope shows with numbers both for wages, costs of necessities and hours of labour to earn necessities)
Cope has read all three vols of capital and cites and engages with them extensively fwiw. He is aware of Marxs arguements and in fact cites Marx extensively to support his arguments. I would suggest reading the Cope book bc, tbh, you could probably follow the maths better than I could. He takes all your points into account and directly refutes them (some of them even in the two prefaces). It felt like reading Marx, in terms of his thoroughness.
👍 I will add to my reading list
This is interesting but I'm extremely skeptical. If all workers are paid more than the value they produce, why do business hire anyone? And if all business in the core are inherently unprofitable, what is the mechanism that keeps them afloat?
I agree with the skepticism but it’s a little more complicated than that, I think. It could still benefit the bourgeoisie to keep the US labor force in a system of debt peonage. The workers are paid a wage that exceeds the value of labor power, but that money eventually returns in the form of interest. The main point of Hudson is that the West is highly financialized and receives value primarily through economic rent (value transfer) rather than surplus value (value creation through industry).
One of the reasons shit is so expensive in the US is precisely because of the artificially high price of land which allows landowners to extract rent from individuals and businesses. This shows up in high cost of goods and in very large mortgages.
Cope argues superprofits from imperialism
This could make some sense in aggregate, but doesn't make any sense on a micro level. How does, say, a fast food franchise receive the super-profits? And why is the restaurant hiring people that lose them money? If it's motivated by a need for sales, and the sales are "worth it" economically, meaning enough to cover labor and other costs plus profit, isn't that just describing surplus value?
If you're rly interested I'd suggest reading Cope's book, as he lays out the figures and even the movement of the money better than I can with more citations than I can. As you suggest, it's about the aggregate motion of capital. Take your restaurant example:
The restaurant isn't losing money so long as imperialism persists, because they're selling e.g. burgers for inflated prices. The burgers can be sold for inflated prices because e.g. construction worker is paid inflated wages. Construction company can afford to pay inflated wages because it's buying artificially cheap materials and because it's being paid inflated fees by e.g. a bakery. Bakery can pay the inflated fees because it's buying artificially cheap materials and because it's selling e.g. cakes at inflated prices. The cakes can be sold for inflated prices because e.g. tech employees are paid inflated wages. Tech companies can afford to pay employees inflated wages because e.g. government buys new windows hardware at inflated prices. Government can afford those inflated prices because a. the global south governments pay them yearly debt repayments or b. because they tax superprofit made in the global south.
Ok, that's starting to make sense. Still not sure about it, but I feel like I'm understanding it at least a little better. Definitely interested to read the book now, thanks for all the info
Same here. I don't understand economics well enough to have an opinion I trust enough to criticize it, but all of this seems like it flies in the face of what I do understand of Marxist economics. There was another information dense comment about these things in this thread by u/Droplet but that one at least seemed to be in line with my poor understanding. @Droplet@hexbear.net could you respond to what u/ComradeRat is saying? Are you more or less in agreement? For that matter, do you know if Zak Cope is more or less in agreement with Michael Hudson?
This clicks. A way to ask this question in a global perspective is "based on the average global price of the goods and services you create, how does your wage/compensation compare".