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.
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