Youtube has intellectual purposes...

Some Highlights

Chomsky
BBC Interview Part 1
BBC Interview Part 2

Debate of Chomsky vs. Foucault
Part 1
Part 2

Michel Foucault On 'Disciplinary Society,'
Part 1
Part 2

Michel Foucault On 'Pleasure Vs. Desire'
Clip

Sut Jhally and Edward Said on "Orientalism"
Clip

There are tons more on youtube, use it productively.

The Decline of the American Dream…For the Working Class

This article (1) seems to be cautiously worried and partially intrigued about the American public’s failure to increase consumer spending when wages have increased and energy costs have fallen. Yet, through its explanation of the factors that could be attributing to this dilemma for capital the article points to the logic of capital and its inherent bias against labor - the working class.

Where are Americans spending all the money they’re saving on gas? Not at Wal-Mart, it seems. Wal-Mart Stores was one of several large retailers, along with Target and Costco, to post disappointing October sales totals yesterday. The results suggest that lower- and middle-class Americans are holding on tightly to their wallets even as energy prices fall and wages rise.(2)

And holding on tightly they should, because American consumers bank accounts are in the red, America has a negative savings rate folks, that is not good for the lower and middle classes.

The slowdown in business at big-box retailers like Wal-Mart is one sign that some consumers are cutting back as the weakening housing market is dragging down overall economic growth.(3)

This is also not good news for two reasons (1) the housing bubble has to deflate at some point in time and (2) all the individuals just scraping by who bought a house during the low interest rate boom of 2003-2004 are just now starting to declare bankruptcies and this should become an even bigger problem as interest rates rise. Most lower income and middle class families turned towards ARM – adjustable rate mortgage - loans when interest rates hit historic lows in 2003-2004. Unlike traditional fixed rate loans whose rates are fixed over the life of the loan, typically 15, 20, 30 or now 40 years the new ARM loans have low teaser rates for 1, 3, 5, 7 or 10 years which then adjust after that initial low rate to the going market rate and then can readjust as soon as every year after that. In addition, during the initial low teaser interest rate period the home owner can also choose P&I – principal and interest - or IO – interest only - payments, P&I pays off the interest on the loan as well as the loan itself, while interest only merely pays the interest on the loan and does not even begin to reduce the actual loan amount.

Now, the ARM loans are appealing to lower income and young buyers who believe they will be making more money in 5-10 years and they better be, because when their ARM adjusts or the P&I payments start kicking in their monthly payments will skyrocket. An example:

For Inga Rogers, the party ends in 38 days. On Nov. 1, the adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM, she took out three years ago at the spectacular rate of 3.875 percent will get considerably more expensive. Ms. Rogers, a single mother of two living in a three-bedroom ranch in suburban Boston, faces a rate increase of three percentage points, raising her monthly house payment by $300, to $1,419, and putting her at a financial crossroads(4).

Now, this situation is not in the best interests of lenders nor homeowners, the American government and the business industry does not want individuals to grow sour on the myth of obtaining the American dream and lenders with high bankruptcy rates make no profit. But with so many people taking on ARM loans it signals the main problems that the lower and middle classes are facing: HIGH HOUSING PRICES and LOW WAGES.

Another topic we could address in a future article is what is going to happen to the generation coming out of college now that is being priced out of the housing market on the West and East coasts and is forced to either (1) move back in with their parents and save money to buy a home or (2) rent for a majority of their life and pray that the housing market crashes so they can find an affordable house.

Think about how much rent you pay or the cost of your mortgage for the year...if it is over 30% of your annual income then where you live does not meet HUD’s (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) definition of affordable housing.

The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States.(5)

Based on the 2003 American Community Survey:

In 2003, more than one-third of renter households in every state lived in unaffordable housing...nationally, 47 percent of renter households paid over 30 percent of their income on housing in 2003 (up from 45 percent in 2002).(6)

There is not a single jurisdiction in the country where a person working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at the prevailing minimum wage can afford a one-bedroom apartment. On a national basis, a person needs to earn a Housing Wage of $15.78 an hour, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent.(7)

Obviously, there is a housing crisis in America, everyone should not only be guaranteed a place to live, but one that is affordable. These statistics display just how precarious the lives of the lower classes really are, how individuals struggle day by day to not just put food on the table, but a roof over their head. For more information on actions going on to remedy this situation check out: National Low Income Housing Coalition(NLIHC) or The Joint Center for Housing Studies(JCHS)

In essence, by paying worker's little they are forced to take out high-interest high-risk loans to purchase a home and live out the American Dream and when interest rates increase and their paychecks do not they will have to default on their loans and possibly declare bankruptcy, which will no longer wipe their slate clean, but force them to pay back their debt - no chances to screw up anymore. The capitalist class will get its money one way or another. The extension of credit to the masses, one way to increase profit levels - to bridge the gap between low worker pay and the high cost of commodities - can be seen as one way to attempt to squeeze as much capital from the hands of workers as possible.

Another interesting point, giving high-interest high-risk loans to individuals who are realtively unlikely to afford these loans in the long run benefits financial capital but does not benefit other forms of capital - such as entertainment capital, for consumers who are burdened with housing debt are no longer able to enjoy time out on the town anymore, because their housing payments eat up all their disposable income. This displays the contradictory nature of competing capital - they fight with each other over the same nest egg.

Back to issues of consumer spending:

But even as the economy continues to downshift, wages are increasing and Americans are finding themselves with more disposable income, in part because of falling gas prices. Instead of spending that money, low-and middle-income consumers appear to be sticking to their budgets…There is some evidence to suggest that Americans are putting more money aside. This week, the Commerce Department reported that the national personal savings rate in September came the closest it has in a year and a half to being positive. It was negative $15 billion, its healthiest level since May 2005.(8)

Excuse me? The healthiest level since May 2005, back in the 1980s the savings rate of the U.S. was 8%, it has been negative for several years now. If this is a not a key example of the lower and middle classes getting screwed by the capitalist class then I do not know what is. The fact that so many families are spending more than they take in is definitely not good news for the working classes, especially in light of the recent action by congress, which passed their heavily class biased bankruptcy bill that in essence prohibits working class families from declaring bankruptcy and starting over, it is now harder to do that, most will have to pay back their debt. So much for a new lease on life.

Explain how good the retirement of the working classes will be if they are forced to live day-to-day for their entire lives? With no savings means no retirement, abysmally low social security payments, elongated working lives and the loss of leisure and relaxation in one’s old age.

Welcome to the fifth layer of hell.

From Ideology to Hegemony

Below is a section from my thesis on how Marx, Gramsci and Althusser saw the concept of ideology. It is very informative in my study of society and I hope it will be helpful for you as well.

For Karl Marx (Tucker [1972] 1978), when individuals view the world through the lens of ideology “men” and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura. This brings up two important questions: (1) What does this mean? (2) How does this happen? For Marx, the lived ideology of the subordinate class, the proletariat, was based upon the dominant classes mode of thought. The bourgeoisie use the power legitimated to the state to make their particular interests appear as if they are in the interests of all of society, that they are the general interest. To do so the bourgeoisie employ the superstructure (the legal and political structure of society) to reproduce the existence of a capitalist base (the economic structure of society). In essence, ideology causes men to see their social existence and relations in ways that do not actually exist, as a result of a socialization process into the dominant classes way of thinking. A mode of thought that does not speak to nor is it from the proletariat’s location within the forces of production, which causes the proletariat’s mode of consciousness to support the dominant class and further their own exploitation. The proletariat sees an economic system of man as a social being and between men as one of autonomous individuals and between things. This view obscures their exploitation and allows the bourgeoisie to accumulate surplus value (profit) from the labor of the proletariat.

In Marx’s view, as individuals enter into relations to reproduce their material livelihood, relations that are independent of their will, they enter into social and political relations as well, ones that are constructed and based upon the form of production through which individuals reproduce their material existence. Furthermore, it is through the reproduction of their material existence that individuals produce their ideas, conceptions and consciousness. Consequently, each persons consciousness is determined by where they fall in the reproduction of society’s material existence. A system of reproduction that depends on an increasingly regimented division of labor, a division of labor that produces different forms of consciousness that come into direct conflict. This conflict arises from the division of labor, as intellectual and material activity are separated and given to different individuals who now have different interests, goals and outlooks on life. Consequently, the struggle for power between these different forms of consciousness are played out in the sphere of civil society, that of the state. Since it is through the state that a group of individuals can gain the political power invested within the state and turn their particular class interests into that of the general interest. As a result of the successful attempt to exercise their particular interests as the general interests, the civil society becomes that of the bourgeoisie and reproduces in the superstructure the same conflicts that exist at the level of the base. “For the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its intellectual force (Tucker [1972] 1978:172).” The class that owns the means of production is at the same time the class of mental production and therefore, the class that lacks ownership of the means of production is unable to articulate their material interests and becomes subject to the ruling classes mental productions.

In summation, the ruling classes ideas must obtain a universal dimension and speak of their communal orientation, they must become the only way of seeing society and its form of existence, their ideas must appear to gain an independent existence apart from the ruling class. As a result, it is illusion when laws appear to gain independence of their relation to the ruling class, who use the state to reinforce their particular interests as the general interest. Thus, the ruling class and the ruling ideas become “lived” by the subordinate classes even though they do not correspond to their actual mode of existence. Thereby, when the division of labor in society that reproduces man’s material existence is actually a social division of labor and therefore a relation of men it can appear as merely a relation of things. For that reason, the current form of production and consumption takes on the appearance of autonomous individuals exchanging private property and denies the interconnection of man that is required for their production and consumption; when in reality this form of production and consumption actually creates men as independent individuals who interact through private property. How individuals view the world is largely imaginary for Marx, a world of illusion, as they do not correspond to reality. They view what is a man made activity and inherently a relation of “men” as a relation of things, one that obscures the capitalist economic system as a historical creation of man and is thereby subject to their control. This illusionary world furthers the proletariat’s exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie, who have made their specific value system a universal value system.

Antonoi Gramsci (1971) builds off of Marx’s exposition on ideology and its relation to both the base and the superstructure of society with his discussion of the formation of hegemony. Gramsci argues that every social group arising out of economic production creates a group of intellectuals that provides the group with the knowledge of its purpose in the economic, social and political spheres. These intellectual elite attempt to function as the organizers of society and seek to not only keep but also extend their own classes power. For Gramsci there are two superstructural levels, the civil society (private individuals) and the political society (the state) that work together to preserve hegemony, one groups dominance over others that is exercised throughout society. The two major effects of hegemony are (1) that the masses give consent to the way society is structured and run and therefore give consent to the dominant social group to continue as rulers and (2) this consent thereby allows the dominant social group to exert its force legally to maintain the current societal form.

For that reason, hegemony consists of not just political force to make compulsory the current economic form, which benefits the dominant group, but that the dominant group is able to maintain a hegemonic influence on subordinate groups through the use of culture as well. Hegemony is maintained through ideas and modes of thought; its power can be wielded either through physical force or intellectual force. It is through the intellectuals of the dominant group that an ideology is disseminated that cultivates within the subordinate groups the bourgeois values that will maintain the current economic, social and political structure. Therefore, through the use of ideology the dominant group is able to gain consent over the lower classes, as the lower classes see their reality through the lens of the bourgeoisie and do not see the world as it is, but as they live it through ideology. It is important to note that Gramsci did not see hegemony as static nor without conflict. Hegemony must be constantly maintained through the use of the superstructure – the apparatuses of the church, education, media and family, which all contribute to the creation and implementation of ideology, which allows for the maintenance of hegemony. Consequently, Gramsci saw that hegemony is difficult to maintain and that total incorporation or domination does not occur, thereby enabling resistance to the dominant ideology. Thus, the role of ideology in the subordination of the working classes was key for Gramsci and he argued for the creation of “organic” intellectuals that were of the working class and spoke of and to their interests. If the working class was ever to gain control of the means of intellectual production, that of the education system and the state and therefore the means to disseminate values that favored themselves then they needed to create a mass of “organic” intellectuals who would popularize the values of the proletariat.

Althusser expounds upon Marx’s concept of ideology and Gramsci’s concept of hegemony through his essay on “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (2001). Althusser begins with the explanation that the dominant mode of production conditions the social formation and that the continuation of the social formation requires the reproduction of the current productive forces and the existing relations of production. For Althusser, the current productive forces and the existing relations of production are reproduced through the interrelations between the Repressive State Apparatus and the many different Ideological State Apparatuses: religion, education, family, law, politics, communications and culture. In contrast to the Repressive State Apparatus which is one public entity that functions through the use of violence and repression there are a plurality of ISAs whose province is private and function primarily through ideology. Yet, the two are linked since the ruling class that holds State power and controls the RSA also has influence over the ISAs, as “no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses” (Althusser 2001:98). The RSA secures by force the political conditions necessary for both the reproduction of the relations of production and the power of the ISAs, while the ISAs primarily secure the reproduction of the relations of production. Therefore, it is through both control of the RSA and the ISAs that the ideology of the ruling class becomes the ruling ideology. Additionally, Althusser agrees with Gramsci in two respects: (1) that the control over the ISAs by the ruling class is not concrete, resulting in the ISAs being the site of class struggle and (2) that the foremost or dominant ISA in capitalist society is the school or educational ideological apparatus; the school is one of the foremost reproducers of the relations of production and infuses each type of worker with the ideology necessary for their reproduction of the existing relation of production, it socializes them into the ruling ideology.

Althusser builds off of Marx’s work and argues that through ideology men do not represent the real world to themselves, the world as is exists, but an imaginary representation, the world as it appears to them. Ideology represents not the system of relations that actually exists in society and by which men interact with each other but the imaginary relations to which they believe they are governed. “Ideology represents the imaginary relationships of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (Althusser 2001:109). It is an ideology that becomes lived by the people and therefore gains a material existence, as it exists within an apparatus of control and influences action. Ultimately, ideology is situated on turning individuals into subjects, on creating a subject who sees him or herself as a self-contained subject who subjects himself to self-control; rather than being forced into submission the individual submits themselves to subordination, a process Althusser named this interpellation. The individual views him or herself as an autonomous person, a construction of his or her own action rather than their construction through the pre-existing social structures. In actuality, the individual is constituted as a subject not by themselves but by the ISAs. Althusser’s structuralist oriented philosophy shines through in his idea of ideology and interpellation, he argues that the individual is constituted as a subject by pre-given structures; that they are socialized into existing modes of thought with little ability to resist and that the individuals inability to see the process of their social constitution as an autonomous individual is itself ideological.

Althusser, Louis. 2001. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an Investigation.” Pp. 85-126 in Lenin
and Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith. New York, NY: International Publishers.

Tucker, Robert C, ed. [1972] 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Class Struggle and The Logic of Capital: France

France expands working hours:

Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said the changes were aimed at restoring the work ethic in France and improving its sluggish economic performance by encouraging people to earn more by working more…He said the change was vital to keep the French economy competitive and to create more jobs...Employers said the 35-hour week, introduced in 1998, had failed to create jobs and was uncompetitive…the changes will allow workers to work up to 48 hours a week - the maximum allowed by the European Union.(1)

This is a perfect example of how capital valorizes itself, how capital begets capital. Now capital is produced through the production of surplus value, a process that can go either of two ways – the production of absolute surplus value or the production of relative surplus value. Absolute surplus value is produced through the elongation of the working day while relative surplus value is produced through the increase in productivity of labor.

An example is that the working day is 8 hours, the necessary labor time is the amount the laborer has to work to produce the equivalent value of their wage. Under capital this time is always less than is actually worked, for as labor power is the only commodity that produces value – machines merely transfer value from themselves to the commodities, they do not produce additional value – if the worker stopped producing at the equivalent of their wage there would be no surplus value for the capitalist – the owner of the means of production.

Therefore, the excess labor the worker expends past the amount of time necessary to reproduce their wage value in commodities is labeled as surplus labor time – during this time the commodities produced are combined together and become the surplus value. Consequently, the elongation of the working day is one way to produce more surplus value, as the wage paid out will not be equal to the value of the commodities produced. The capitalist would not push to extend the working day if it was not in their favor.

Another tactic is relative surplus value – increased productivity. An example of which is where the worker now produces in two hours what they used to produce in three hours. They are paid the same amount, but must produce more commodities in the same amount of time. Meaning, that they now produce more surplus value in the same time than they used to, due to mechanization.

Yes, France is beset by several economic problems, one being a labor problem, another a capital problem, the former being unemployment which is hovering around 10% and the latter being rigid hiring and firing regulations which are blamed by industry for preventing corporations from easily hiring and firing labor, which industry argues produces the high unemployment levels. Additionally, industry attacks these labor laws for limiting innovation and growth.

These arguments leave out the facts that the French welfare model is much more supportive and plush compared to the U.S. welfare model – which is almost non-existent. Moreover, capital wants and needs flexible and cheap labor and so desires as little labor protection and regulation laws as possible, for these labor laws limit the exploitation of labor by capital. Implicit within this argument is the assumption that economic growth and innovation is always good – but one must ask good for whom? What standards are we judging economic growth by – nuclear proliferation, pollution levels, GDP, profit levels?

And so what is the solution to unemployment and supposed lack of competitiveness on productivity levels: INCREASE WORKING HOURS!!!

Now this defies most logic for the workers, while it may benefit a small number of individual workers it will negatively harm the workers collectively, it gives in to capital’s desire for surplus-value through an increase in ASV – absolute surplus-value - an increase in the total working day. Corporations benefit because they can now have their current workers work longer hours and avoid the hiring of new employers whose costs are more than the mere regular or overtime pay the current worker would receive, because a new worker would get benefits and other costs that are tacked onto their wages, new increases which are not incurred through the elongation of exploitation of the current worker.

In addition, the elongation of working hours actually directly maintains the current unemployment rate, especially within that industry, for instead of hiring new workers to fill up the required working hours they now force their current workers to work longer. This is where the movement for shorter hours, higher wages comes in. So capital wants to elongate working hours, mechanize, or automate to increase productivity levels. The workers response should be yes, but we will work less as a result, for this increase in productivity, spurred by the desire to decrease costs of production, will result in layoffs which will increase the unemployment levels and decrease the wages of the current workers – as increasing unemployment tends to decrease wages due to higher supply and lower demand. By saying they will work less they allow for the increase in productivity while not increasing the unemployment rate and maintaining their wage or salary level.

For instance, if 7 workers reduce their work week from 40 to 35 hours a week, there is now one more 35 hour work week position available. Imagine this taking place on a large scale, wages are relatively maintained, workers can work less, unemployment decreases and production levels increase. The one problem is that for this movement to work it needs to be inclusive and global, which is a major hurdle, but not one that should detract us from its pursuit, the shorter hours, higher wages movement had its birth in the U.S. and needs to be revived as a sound and plausible theory for social change.

Restoring the work ethic, come on, last time I checked people did not want to work more because they enjoyed their jobs, but because they needed the extra money – does this not signify that maybe the jobs do not pay enough and it is a tactic of capital’s to underpay their employers so they are forced to take overtime or work longer hours to earn enough money to survive and thereby maintain the current unemployment levels, which continues to depress the wages or salary of their job. If the workers created a tight labor market through shorter hours – higher wages then workers could get the best of both worlds. Most people do not like to think of being exploited, it is not top on the list of things one wants to do on a daily basis; the whole concept of a work ethic and working longer hours is ridiculous. The language of the work ethic and uncompetitiveness is the language of capital and is a race to the bottom for the worker.

To see labor's response to these and previous attacks on the rights and lives of workers, to see their show of refusal and their collective power, check out these news articles, (2), (3), (4), (5)

Freedom and the ability for security, stability and self-determination are not gained in a day nor given to you, it must be obtained through struggle.

Labor will not put up without a fight!

The State as a Class Weapon

The Capitalist Class has succeeded tremendously in transforming the state from that of a welfare oriented model to that of a mechanism for capital accumulation. From a state that is geared towards the workers and therefore the lower and middle classes towards the capitalists and therefore the upper and capitalist class.

Through rewriting the tax code, increasing bonuses for top-executives and providing enormously generous stock options and severance packages the rich are getting much richer and the middle classes and the poor are falling behind significantly (more on this in a future post).

The first graph (right) shows the dramatic increase in CEO to average worker pay that has occured in the U.S. since the 1940s, with a dramatic take-off occuring in the 1990s. The numbers are mindboggiling and unique to the U.S., for other countries are no where near as high (more on this in a future post).. For instance, in 1940, half of the executives earned more than 54 times the average worker's pay and in 2004, half of the executives earned more than 104 times the average worker's pay. What is even worse is that the top 10% of executives earned 74 times the average worker's pay in 1950, in 2004 this had increased to 350.


The second graph (left) shows the increase in dollars of average executive pay, increasing from around $1 million in the late 1960s to $4.4 million dollars today. An increase of 77.3% (comparision to average worker's pay increase in % in a future post).



The last graph shows just how much the guilded age is back in full swing, how the richest of the rich are becoming more rich and distancing themselves from even the rich. How the rich are amassing more and more wealth (futher numbers on this in future post).

Class Struggle: Workers and the Nation-state of Greece

The marxian view of the state (simplified): under capital the state is a weapon of class warfare, controlled by the ruling elite and used to maintain its political and economic power while subordinating others classes to its interests.

But look at what has happened recently in Greece, the workers are fighting back.

[A] 24-hour general strike [was] called by the main public and private sector unions…There was widespread disruption to transport and public services across Greece on Wednesday…The unions called the strike as part of an escalating campaign of action over the conservative government's attempts to reform the economy…There is real discontent amongst the workforce at low wages and high prices. Union officials say the minimum wage in Greece is half the European Union average(1).

It is nice to see that labor has some organization and power in the world today. The Greeks know how to stand their ground and fight for the hard won benefits that all individuals should receive. This is not just a one of occurrence either, Greek labor has been very active the past two years in striking and letting their voice and power be shown(2)(3)(4)

It would be nice to see this type of syndicalistic labor action in the United States, whose corporatist labor structure has effectively gutted any radical potential of labor to create a social welfare state. The extremely bureaucratic and top-down business and management approach of American labor has decimated the rank-and-file and grassroots support which was a key for mobilization and building bridges within the labor movement and making it part of a wider social struggle as well. Additionally, the heavily anti-labor laws in the U.S. gutted a lot of the radical potential of labor unions as well.

However, the loss of a rank-and-file labor organization structure lead to the lack of focus on increasing membership, maintaining energy in the labor organization process and building coalitions with other groups oriented to social struggle. About the only worthwhile and grass-roots oriented labor organization now is UNITE(5).

Labor’s demise is largely its own fault for not branching out and increasing membership - through grass roots campaigning and union leadership, failing to make labor part of a broader coalition for social change and for letting the government rob it of its revolutionary potential through the enactment of anti-labor legislation, which was allowed to pass precisely because of the two problems mentioned previously.