Michael Lebowitz is a professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser. This article was presented as opening remarks at a conference in Caracas Venezuela that discussed the reduction of the working day.
May Day -- The capitalist workday, the socialist workdayhttp://links.org.au/node/374By Michael A. LebowitzApril 24, 2008 -- As May Day approaches, there are four things thatare worth remembering:1. For workers, May Day does not celebrate a state holiday or giftsfrom the state but commemorates the struggle of workers from below.2. The initial focus of May Day was a struggle for the shorter workday.3. The struggle for the shorter workday is not an isolated strugglebut is the struggle against capitalist exploitation.4. The struggle against capitalist exploitation is an essential partbut not the /only/ part of the struggle against capitalism.What I want to do today is to set out some ideas about the capitalistworkday and the socialist workday which I hope can be useful in thecurrent struggles in Venezuela and, more immediately, in today'sdiscussion. The capitalist workdayWhat is the relation between the work the capitalist workday andexploitation? When workers work for capital, they receive a wage whichallows them to purchase a certain amount of commodities. How /much /isthat wage? There is nothing automatic about the wage level. It isdetermined by the struggles of workers against capital.Those commodities which form the worker's wage contain a certainquantity of labour, and those hours of labour on a daily basis areoften described as the ``necessary labour'' of the worker -- the hoursof labour necessary for workers to produce the commodities theyconsume on a daily basis.But, in capitalism workers do not just work their hours of necessarylabour. Because they have been compelled to sell their ability to workto the capitalist in order to survive, the capitalist is in theposition to demand they work longer than this. And the differencebetween their hours of necessary labour and the total work thatworkers perform for capital is /surplus/ labour -- the ultimate sourceof capital's profits. In other words, capitalist profits are based onthe difference between the workday and necessary labour; they arebased upon surplus labour, unpaid labour, exploitation.So, the more the capitalist is able to drive up the workday, thegreater the exploitation and the greater the profit. Marx commentedthat ``the capitalist is constantly tending to reduce wages to theirphysical minimum and extend the working day to its physical maximum''.How true. Marx continued, though, and noted ``while the working manconstantly presses in the opposite direction''. In other words, classstruggle: workers struggle to increase wages and to reduce theworkday; they struggle to reduce exploitation by capitalists.Of course, your workday is more than just the time spent betweenclocking in and clocking out. There is the time it takes you to get towork, the time it takes to buy the food you need to survive, the timeto prepare that food -- all this is really necessary labour and partof the worker's workday. But since this labour is free to thecapitalist, since it is not a cost for him, it is therefore /invisible/to him. So, when the capitalists want to drive down necessary labourby driving down wages (or by increasing productivity relative towages), it is not the labour he does not pay for that he wants toreduce. Rather, he wants as much free labour is possible, as muchunpaid labour as possible.It is not surprising that workers want to reduce their unpaid labourfor capital and to do so by struggling to reduce the capitalistworkday. But it is not only the unpaid labour in the workday that is aburden for workers; it is also the /paid/ labour that they arecompelled to do for capital. In other words, the problem is not onlyexploitation. It is the way that capitalist production deforms workingpeople. In the capitalist workplace, the worker works for the goals ofcapital, under the control of capital and with an organisation ofproduction which is designed not to permit workers to develop theircapabilities but, rather, has the single goal of profits. ``All meansfor the development of production'', Marx stressed about capitalism,``distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him'' and``alienate from him the intellectual potentialities of the labourprocess''. In other words, the process of capitalist productioncripples us as human beings. Life in the capitalist workplace is aplace where we are commanded from above, where we are mere tools thatcapital manipulates in order to get profits.That is why we want to reduce the capitalist workday. That is why wecannot wait to escape. It is not only the exploitation, the unfairnessand the injustice in the distribution of income. Time away fromcapitalist production appears as the only time in which we can beourselves, a time when our activity can be /free/ time, time for thefull development of the individual.This is what it necessarily looks like within capitalism. But we haveto recognise that so many of our ideas within capitalism are infected.The most obvious example is the phenomenon of consumerism -- we mustbuy all those things! What we own defines us. The socialist answer,though, is not that everyone should own the same things -- in otherwords, equalisation of alienation; rather, the socialist idea is toend the situation in which we are owned and defined by things.The battle of ideas, which is central to the struggle for socialism,is based on the alternative conception of socialism. Its focus is notto reform this or that idea that has developed within capitalism but,rather, to replace ideas from capitalism with conceptions appropriateto socialism. So, is our idea of the workday within capitalisminfected? And, can we get any insights into the workday by thinkingabout the workday within socialism? The socialist workdayFirstly, what do we mean by socialism? The goal of socialists hasalways been the creation of a society which would allow for the fulldevelopment of human potential. It was never seen as a society inwhich some people are able to develop their capabilities and othersare /not/. That was Marx's point in stating clearly that the goal is"an association, in which the free development of each is thecondition for the free development of all." And this is clearly thepoint, too, of Venezuela's Bolivarian constitution where it stressesin article 20 that ``everyone has the right to the free development ofhis or her own personality'' and in the explicit recognition inarticle 299 that the goal of a human society must be that of``ensuring overall human development''.In contrast to capitalist society, where ``the worker exists tosatisfy the need'' of capital to expand, Marx envisioned a socialistsociety where the wealth that workers have produced ``is there tosatisfy the worker's own need for development''. So, what is thenature of the workday in a society oriented toward ensuring overallhuman development?Let us begin by talking about necessary labour -- quantitatively.There is the labour which is contained in the products we consumedaily -- just like before. To this, however, we need to add the labourthat workers want to devote toward expanding production in the future.In socialism, there are no capitalists who compel the performance ofsurplus labour and invest a portion of the profits in the search forfuture profits. Rather, workers themselves in their workplaces andsociety decide if they want to devote time and effort to expandingsatisfaction of needs in the future. If they make this decision, thenthis labour is not surplus to their needs; it forms part of what theysee as their necessary labour. Thus, the concept of necessary labourchanges here.In a socialist society, further, we recognise explicitly that part ofour necessary labour is labour within the household. In other words weacknowledge that our workday does not begin after we leave thehousehold but includes what we do within the household. Article 88 ofthe Bolivarian constitution recognises the importance of this labourwhen it notes that labour within the household is ``economic activitythat creates added value and produces social welfare and wealth''.The concept of necessary labour and our workday within a socialistsociety also includes the labour which is required to self-govern ourcommunities. After all, if socialism is about the decisions we makedemocratically in our communities, then the time we need to do this ispart of our necessary labour. Similarly, if socialism is aboutcreating the conditions in which we are all able to develop ourpotential, then the process of education and of developing ourcapabilities is also activity which is necessary.When we think about the socialist workday, in short, we think aboutthe workday differently. Our view of the quantity of necessary labour,for example, is not distorted by the capitalist perspective oftreating as necessary only that labour for which capital must pay.That is the difference between the political economy of capital andthe political economy of the working class. From the perspective ofworkers, we recognise as necessary labour all the labour that isnecessary for ``the worker's own need for development''.But the difference is not only quantitative. In socialism, the workdaycannot be a day in which you receive orders from the top (even instrategic industries). Rather, it is only through our own activity,our practice and our protagonism that we can develop our capabilities.Article 62 of Venezuela's constitution makes that point in itsdeclaration that participation by people is ``the necessary way ofachieving the involvement to ensure their complete development, bothindividual and collective''. In other words, in every aspect of ourlives (the traditional workplace, the community, the household),democratic decision making is a necessary characteristic of thesocialist workday; through workers' councils, communal councils,student councils, family councils, we produce ourselves as newsocialist subjects.Thus, when we look at the workday from the perspective of socialism,we see that the simple demand for reducing the workday is a /demandfrom within capitalism/. Its message is simple -- end this horror!This is an ``infected'' conception of the workday. It starts from aview of labour as so miserable that the only thing you can think ofdoing is reducing and ending it.When we think about building socialism, however, we recognise that thedemand is to /transform /the workday -- to recognise all parts of ourworkday explicitly and to transform that day qualitatively. Ratherthan only ``free time'' being time in which we can develop, from theperspective of socialism it is essential to make the /whole/ day timefor building human capacities.In short, there are two ways of looking at the demand for the reducedworkday: one way talks simply about a shorter work week and thuslonger weekend vacations; in contrast, a second way stresses thereduction of the traditional workday in order to provide the time on adaily basis for education for self-managing, for our work within thehousehold and our work within our communities. In other words, it isthe demand to /redefine and transform our workday/.The first of these is simply a reform within capitalism. Forsocialists, May Day should be the day to struggle for the /whole/worker's day, to struggle for the /socialist/ workday.[Michael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at SimonFraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of /BeyondCapital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class/ and /Build ItNow: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century/. This article waspresented as initiating remarks to the ``Roundtable Discussion on theReduction of the Workday'' held on April 24, 2008, at the CentroInternational Miranda, Caracas, Venezuela. The event brought togetherleaders from different union federations and currents, as well as arepresentative from the women's movement, to discuss the importance ofthe demand of the reduction of the workday in the lead up to May Day.The event was organised by the program ``Human Development andTransformatory Practise'' coordinated by Lebowitz, at the CentroInternacional Miranda.This article was first published in /Links -- International Journal ofSocialist Renewal/ <http://www.links.org.au/>. If reprinting, please ininclude the full name of the journal, with a working hyperlink to the/Links/ site.]: http://links.org.au/node/374_______________________________________________
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
After the Venezuelan Referendum
This is from CBC. While there no doubt are lineups and some shortages the price of basic necessities is kept within the reach of the poor. Transportation is probably dirt cheap as gas is about 4 cents a litre! There is no discussion of attempts by Chavez to set up local organisations that get the marginalized involved in politics local affairs. This is a counterpoint to the authoritarian tendencies that are always emphasized. Although this is certainly not just anti-Chavez propaganda and makes many valid points it is rather strange that she makes nary a mention of US intervention in Venezuela. The leftist intellectual, Petkoff, she mentions as anti-Chavez is actually a type of neo-liberal supporting the leftist governments of leaders such as Lula in Brazil who certainly have done even less than Chavez for the poor. However Petkoff is also an opponent of US intervention. In an earlier government Petkoff adopted neo-liberal economic policies:
" In the second government of Rafael Caldera (1993-1998), MAS was in coalition with the centrist party Convergence of Caldera, along with other left-wing parties such as the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) and the MEP, and other right-wing parties as the National Movement of Integration. Petkoff served as Minister of the Central Office of Coordination and Planning (Cordiplan), directing the government's economic policies. From Cordiplan, Petkoff managed the Venezuela Agenda, a neo-liberal government program for reducing the size of the public administration, controlling inflation and stopping the currency devaluation, while administering social programs aimed at improving the population's nutritional health and providing "children-mother" services for the poorest."
Petkoff has rejected his communist past and is now firmly in the liberal fold not just in political but also it seems economic terms. Nevertheless, Petkoff is certainly correct that Chavez is dependent upon oil and for his changes to last over the longer term the economic base must be broadened so as not to be dependent on solely high prices for oil, nevertheless there is surely nothing wrong with using oil rents to further social programs at present. I just wonder who is driving all the new cars in Venezuela and paying almost nothing for fuel.
CONNIE WATSON
After the referendum
December 6, 2007
I'm writing this on the voyage home from Caracas to Mexico. Experts consider it the most popular flight in the Western Hemisphere for moving illegal drugs.
Accordingly, before boarding, passengers were divided into male and female line-ups. Each of us was frisked. I was pulled aside when they found my hidden money pouch.
After my frisker quickly rifled through the U.S. cash inside, she said, "Don't worry. You are OK." Lucky for me, Venezuela has become so expensive that I spent most of the money I brought with me.
Not so lucky for Venezuelans.
Socialism or the basics
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, shown at a news conference on Dec. 5, 2007, must reframe his agenda in the wake of the referendum loss. Chavez argued the referendum result was a 'crap victory' for the 'No' side but a 'courageous defeat' for his 'Yes' side. (Miraflores Press Office/Associated Press) As President Hugo Chavez ponders how to move his "21st century socialism" along after changes to the constitution were defeated in a squeaker vote on Sunday, the people of Caracas have plenty of ideas to keep the president busy. Whether the people I talked with loved Chavez or hated him, their priority wasn't an ideological plan to transform Venezuela into a socialist state. They could all cite a list of very basic things they want their government to deal with.
They want:
milk, beef, chicken, cooking oil, toilet paper (to name a few) in the stores
an end to line-ups
an end to the rampant violent crime in Caracas
an end to the tension and mistrust that has built up between those who support Chavez and those who don't
an end to the infernal traffic jams that can easily eat up half a person's day
That's what we heard when we travelled to several poor barrios as well as middle class neighbourhoods.
Voters reject constitutional amendments
In those very neighbourhoods, the official vote tallies from the referendum show that many of the poor, traditionally 'Chavista' (pro-Chavez) communities did not vote for his reform package.
Many people in the barrio of La Vega, which didn't support the referendum, said they still loved their president for the attention he has paid to poor people and the changes he has made, but they were afraid of the proposed constitutional amendments because they didn't have enough information on what they were voting for.
In the information void, they told me, rumours circulated like wildfire: that the reforms would turn Venezuela into another Cuba, that their small properties might become the property of the state, that this would bring on more confrontation within Venezuela and with other countries. More troubles are the last thing they want when daily life is such a struggle.
For someone who loves the president, it's not easy to tell him "no." But Chavez took the results like a true democrat, honouring the oh-so-close vote but promising to return with his grand plan for socialism.
Chavez should address the fundamentals
In the meantime, many voters say they really want the president to address the country's fundamentals.
A 'Yes' campaign banner hangs across a street in the January 23rd barrio, a poor neighbourhood in Caracas where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez went to cast his ballot. (Connie Watson/CBC) Crime is on the rise. During my stay in Caracas, the local papers tallied 50 murders over one weekend and 46 over the next. These are mostly young men between 18 and 35, often murdered in the poor areas of the capital, often in drug- or gang-related incidents.
Line-ups for food waste hours of every day. Food shortages and scarcities of the most basic products have a way of making people angry with their government, no matter how much they love their president. They don't know what exactly is wrong, but they know they want the president to fix it.
Prices are rising. Inflation is higher than almost any other country in Latin America. All the oil cash floating around is fueling demand for all kinds of goods. Supply is being sated by imports and more imports.
When it comes to food, the government controls prices of the basic items (including milk, beans, rice, cooking oil) so that those living in poverty can still afford them. That policy is colliding with the government’s policy to control Venezuela’s currency exchange rate. (Rates for Venezuelan Bolivars on the black market are often three times the official rate.) That means farmers often would pay more to produce an item than they are allowed to charge for it.
Traffic in Caracas makes Mexico City look like a fast-moving freeway. You can easily spend three to four hours a day stalled among blaring horns. The combination of gas so cheap you can fill up your tank for a Canadian dollar and oil cash so plentiful that more people are buying cars makes city streets like parking lots. Yet very little of Venezuela's oil riches has been invested in much-needed infrastructure, such as public transit, highways and bypasses. Private investors are steering clear of Venezuela because of the political uncertainty and Chavez's recent nationalization of major industries.
The Chavez government has prioritized direct aid to the poor rather than major infrastructure projects. It gives monthly payouts to people living in poverty, to spend as they choose. And Petroleos de Venezuela, the government's oil company, is now the major financier of social "missions" that work inside the poor barrios. These missions — which are extremely popular — include schools (for everything from basic literacy to high school education), health care clinics and soup kitchens.
The curse of oil
Venezuela has had a long history of political battles over how to best use its oil riches.
That debate has intensified and become more polarized under Chavez.
Effigies of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and Simon Bolivar, considered the liberator of Latin America, at a 'Yes' side rally. Chavez officially changed the name of the country to 'The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela' in Bolivar's honour. (Connie Watson/CBC) As the leftist intellectual Teodoro Petkoff puts it, "We are victims of the curse of oil. Petrol states are very wealthy. But at the same time, this wealth is a blessing and a curse. It's an economic disease." Petkoff is editor of Tal Cual newspaper, a former economics minister, former leftist guerrilla and an outspoken critic of Chavez. "As in any other petrol state, we have wealth concentrated in very few hands. Even after nine years of Chavez. And you have 60 per cent of the population living in poverty. But in these years of Chavez, the problems have deepened. We depend much more than before on oil."
Chavez points out that Venezuela's oil reserves are so vast, and the price of oil is so high, that he has breathing room to deal with the economic and political ills of the country. But rather than fixing one problem at a time, Chavez argues he needs a bolder plan that would give him the power to control Venezuela's purse strings — its spending and its exchange rate — as well as to construct a new socialist version of the petrol state.
As one highly educated man at a pro-Chavez rally told me, "Chavez has given these poor people dignity, and that's something people who don't like Chavez can't take away."
That is true. Poor people are feeling more confident and more politically powerful since I last visited to Venezuela, but they're also wasting countless hours in food line-ups, traffic jams and behind locked doors, worried about their own personal security. And all the oil money isn't addressing those fundamental issues.
" In the second government of Rafael Caldera (1993-1998), MAS was in coalition with the centrist party Convergence of Caldera, along with other left-wing parties such as the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) and the MEP, and other right-wing parties as the National Movement of Integration. Petkoff served as Minister of the Central Office of Coordination and Planning (Cordiplan), directing the government's economic policies. From Cordiplan, Petkoff managed the Venezuela Agenda, a neo-liberal government program for reducing the size of the public administration, controlling inflation and stopping the currency devaluation, while administering social programs aimed at improving the population's nutritional health and providing "children-mother" services for the poorest."
Petkoff has rejected his communist past and is now firmly in the liberal fold not just in political but also it seems economic terms. Nevertheless, Petkoff is certainly correct that Chavez is dependent upon oil and for his changes to last over the longer term the economic base must be broadened so as not to be dependent on solely high prices for oil, nevertheless there is surely nothing wrong with using oil rents to further social programs at present. I just wonder who is driving all the new cars in Venezuela and paying almost nothing for fuel.
CONNIE WATSON
After the referendum
December 6, 2007
I'm writing this on the voyage home from Caracas to Mexico. Experts consider it the most popular flight in the Western Hemisphere for moving illegal drugs.
Accordingly, before boarding, passengers were divided into male and female line-ups. Each of us was frisked. I was pulled aside when they found my hidden money pouch.
After my frisker quickly rifled through the U.S. cash inside, she said, "Don't worry. You are OK." Lucky for me, Venezuela has become so expensive that I spent most of the money I brought with me.
Not so lucky for Venezuelans.
Socialism or the basics
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, shown at a news conference on Dec. 5, 2007, must reframe his agenda in the wake of the referendum loss. Chavez argued the referendum result was a 'crap victory' for the 'No' side but a 'courageous defeat' for his 'Yes' side. (Miraflores Press Office/Associated Press) As President Hugo Chavez ponders how to move his "21st century socialism" along after changes to the constitution were defeated in a squeaker vote on Sunday, the people of Caracas have plenty of ideas to keep the president busy. Whether the people I talked with loved Chavez or hated him, their priority wasn't an ideological plan to transform Venezuela into a socialist state. They could all cite a list of very basic things they want their government to deal with.
They want:
milk, beef, chicken, cooking oil, toilet paper (to name a few) in the stores
an end to line-ups
an end to the rampant violent crime in Caracas
an end to the tension and mistrust that has built up between those who support Chavez and those who don't
an end to the infernal traffic jams that can easily eat up half a person's day
That's what we heard when we travelled to several poor barrios as well as middle class neighbourhoods.
Voters reject constitutional amendments
In those very neighbourhoods, the official vote tallies from the referendum show that many of the poor, traditionally 'Chavista' (pro-Chavez) communities did not vote for his reform package.
Many people in the barrio of La Vega, which didn't support the referendum, said they still loved their president for the attention he has paid to poor people and the changes he has made, but they were afraid of the proposed constitutional amendments because they didn't have enough information on what they were voting for.
In the information void, they told me, rumours circulated like wildfire: that the reforms would turn Venezuela into another Cuba, that their small properties might become the property of the state, that this would bring on more confrontation within Venezuela and with other countries. More troubles are the last thing they want when daily life is such a struggle.
For someone who loves the president, it's not easy to tell him "no." But Chavez took the results like a true democrat, honouring the oh-so-close vote but promising to return with his grand plan for socialism.
Chavez should address the fundamentals
In the meantime, many voters say they really want the president to address the country's fundamentals.
A 'Yes' campaign banner hangs across a street in the January 23rd barrio, a poor neighbourhood in Caracas where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez went to cast his ballot. (Connie Watson/CBC) Crime is on the rise. During my stay in Caracas, the local papers tallied 50 murders over one weekend and 46 over the next. These are mostly young men between 18 and 35, often murdered in the poor areas of the capital, often in drug- or gang-related incidents.
Line-ups for food waste hours of every day. Food shortages and scarcities of the most basic products have a way of making people angry with their government, no matter how much they love their president. They don't know what exactly is wrong, but they know they want the president to fix it.
Prices are rising. Inflation is higher than almost any other country in Latin America. All the oil cash floating around is fueling demand for all kinds of goods. Supply is being sated by imports and more imports.
When it comes to food, the government controls prices of the basic items (including milk, beans, rice, cooking oil) so that those living in poverty can still afford them. That policy is colliding with the government’s policy to control Venezuela’s currency exchange rate. (Rates for Venezuelan Bolivars on the black market are often three times the official rate.) That means farmers often would pay more to produce an item than they are allowed to charge for it.
Traffic in Caracas makes Mexico City look like a fast-moving freeway. You can easily spend three to four hours a day stalled among blaring horns. The combination of gas so cheap you can fill up your tank for a Canadian dollar and oil cash so plentiful that more people are buying cars makes city streets like parking lots. Yet very little of Venezuela's oil riches has been invested in much-needed infrastructure, such as public transit, highways and bypasses. Private investors are steering clear of Venezuela because of the political uncertainty and Chavez's recent nationalization of major industries.
The Chavez government has prioritized direct aid to the poor rather than major infrastructure projects. It gives monthly payouts to people living in poverty, to spend as they choose. And Petroleos de Venezuela, the government's oil company, is now the major financier of social "missions" that work inside the poor barrios. These missions — which are extremely popular — include schools (for everything from basic literacy to high school education), health care clinics and soup kitchens.
The curse of oil
Venezuela has had a long history of political battles over how to best use its oil riches.
That debate has intensified and become more polarized under Chavez.
Effigies of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and Simon Bolivar, considered the liberator of Latin America, at a 'Yes' side rally. Chavez officially changed the name of the country to 'The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela' in Bolivar's honour. (Connie Watson/CBC) As the leftist intellectual Teodoro Petkoff puts it, "We are victims of the curse of oil. Petrol states are very wealthy. But at the same time, this wealth is a blessing and a curse. It's an economic disease." Petkoff is editor of Tal Cual newspaper, a former economics minister, former leftist guerrilla and an outspoken critic of Chavez. "As in any other petrol state, we have wealth concentrated in very few hands. Even after nine years of Chavez. And you have 60 per cent of the population living in poverty. But in these years of Chavez, the problems have deepened. We depend much more than before on oil."
Chavez points out that Venezuela's oil reserves are so vast, and the price of oil is so high, that he has breathing room to deal with the economic and political ills of the country. But rather than fixing one problem at a time, Chavez argues he needs a bolder plan that would give him the power to control Venezuela's purse strings — its spending and its exchange rate — as well as to construct a new socialist version of the petrol state.
As one highly educated man at a pro-Chavez rally told me, "Chavez has given these poor people dignity, and that's something people who don't like Chavez can't take away."
That is true. Poor people are feeling more confident and more politically powerful since I last visited to Venezuela, but they're also wasting countless hours in food line-ups, traffic jams and behind locked doors, worried about their own personal security. And all the oil money isn't addressing those fundamental issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)