If I don’t respond directly respond to a point I think they are fair. Inflation eats at the super-profits in wages and eats into the super-profits in greater proportion the smaller the wage. That being said I would put the limit of boojified to be the point where they cross into genuine exploitation (but this does need to be factor in time, segments with long breaks between sources of income would be falling fast into lumpen: unemployed, health/body reasons, discrimination, national oppression). In reality we generally skip over realizing an exploited proletariat due to moving straight from semi-proles to lumpen-proles, this is somewhat problematic for economic organizing and this relationship should be focused on rather than one of the loot share struggle between semi-proles and bourgs (petite and haute). Organizing as anti-inflation attracts strata with interests against national liberation and the bottom 20%, and these cannot be organized as a single mass without convincing the these strata to commit class suicide (challenge level extreme). So far the loot sharing struggle remains as no real exploited prole exists within citizenship standards (outside of some children), so we need to be careful who we are organizing, because just as quickly the balance can swing back towards the boojified workers if they are able to co-opt the energy for their own selfish reforms, (much of the bottom would like it too, pushing us further from agitating towards revolution and prole internat). I want to be clear that my disagreement with your original post is that this strata of people “losing” is growing. I don’t think this is the case, “racial” and gender wealth gaps are increasing which points to privileges growing for white-men. Gender oppressed whites could be on the decline as it seems white-men are desperate to maintain monopoly on income streams “for the sake of the white nation”. That’s certainly a contradiction worth digging at to lop off the white gender-oppressor strata.
White collar work rises over time in every country country as development occurs and the societal needs for social labor increase. That’s just a factor of development, it’s not a sign of bourgeoisification.
Yes but ratios of physical commodities to services do matter globally (the nature of Imperialism). The US workforce is predominantly service facing. If the world was to be equalized, it would be noted that the US has too many of such workers than would be valued by equal exchange. The point is, radical change would happen in the economy if the economy was cut off from physical inputs, including much of the factory work. This would cause internal pressure in the US’s near environment, heightening the settler relationship to the extreme. This is already the scenario Magacoms dream of, being able to “re-industrialize” with all all these natural resources “available to us”. That being said the US white-collar industry has specific anti-communist goals as well. Growing a Labor Aristocracy encourages “brain drain” from all other states and forces even Communist ones to adopt this model of valuing labor, creating Semi-Proles if not LA classes in their countries. It is a sign of bourgeoisification when these workers are paid significantly higher wages than primary and secondary industries. I only mean to say lower wage office workers are pushed from their role as equal users of the MOP, as in paid the same for even less access to it, like in terms of proximity, when looking at the global context in a fair LTV world (e.g. it’s not natural but policy that these workers maintain wages well above global standards). The bulk of office workers are being privileged with increased pay and benefits and this gives them interests that put them at odds with the global proletariat and in the case of Socialist countries with their own proletariat. China has been clamping down on housing speculation and tackling wages for white-collar workers to keep them in check and the current TikTok debacle has Chinese employees potentially benefiting from ByteDance entering the US exchange, likely to be the biggest IPO of all time and the workers own 20% of the company. This leads to the increased stock ownership of unions and unorganized white-collar work in that apparently some 72% of companies offer equity, most give bonuses (which shouldn’t be directly compared yoy but happen often as carrot sticks), and some 19% of employees individually own their employer’s stock. Now stock grants are simply a sleight of hand keep a share of an employee’s wages, but that also means that total compensation is the more accurate number in terms of labor costs and carries with it some stake the employee has in the company. US wide stock ownership dipped in the early 2010s but has since raised back to over 60%. There are not many Capitalists in terms population points, and about 1/5th is considered petty business owners, so much of the stock owners are wage workers who do not own direct productive assets. More households own stocks than ever before. That being said, in general, the top 4/5ths of USian workers are gaining bigger shares of global production (though there might be tugs and pulls in the innards of this mass), the bottom 20% are (slowly) falling behind and here the bulk is oppressed nations. The value of the bottom mass has never been understated though its improvement directly contradicts the global proletariat and indirectly themselves with increased eugenics and increased incarceration.
The colonial police are being transformed into colonial soldiers by the heightened contradictions, but yeah, they were always meant to keep the peace for settlers.
But in Algeria the colonial police did, eventually, start torturing and killing white Algerians. Who gets to be a settler changes as conditions worsen for the empire.
For example, I get to be a settler as long as I stay white passing and am not visibly trans. That goes away if I don’t do my makeup or get literally any Sun etc etc but soon enough that shit isn’t going to protect me because the knives are out for trans folk, and I blame imperial decline. Who gets to be a settler will be winnowed away.
I would not premise Algeria as a model for WITBD in the Americas. The land relationship in the US is essentially one big “tourist sector” that would be visible in Algiers but gone from the rest of the country. Much of the land in the US is run by settler kulaks, and settler claims for domination of land are much greater in the US. The US settler regime has always harmed the bottom of settlers, it seems this does not matter much to the vast majority self interested mass, besides that they are given much lighter treatment if not loopholes to avoid punishment from civil society. Again I strongly put primary fear of oppressed nation led lumpen revolt in the cities, and Indigenous land protection all over, as the reason why police and settlers are getting more militant (only a continuing trend of the last 70 years of continued Jim Crow).
That being said I agree that gender oppression is packaged into settler-nationalism through colonially imposed gender domination. Certainly there is a struggle as strata of settlers are more obsessed with the nation (settler-nationalist sexual politics, white anxiety) than others, the recycling of petty bourg settlers during the growth (and decline) of Imperialism I think holds contradictory seeds for gender liberation and increased gender oppression (combined form assimilation). So I think, motion in Imperialism whether up or down fans the flames of the gender struggle. I believe this also reflects in other eugenic regimes of social control (“ability”, “race” – which is obfuscated national character). Having an antagonized position in the gender structure certainly reduces national ties, often to the point where it’s easy to sever, this is why it’s more important to stress the nat-lib struggles who do not uniformly adopt settler gender norms (certain class-strata may) and are often antagonized by them as policy (ON lumpen “surplus males”, state enforced “single-motherhood”, forced adoptions, and gender oppression in the carceral system). We should not be scared of calling national and gender antagonisms, class antagonisms, and in that sense in certain contexts they can become primary antagonisms in a decisive moment, superseding other class identities including settler and bourgeois. All of these oppressed classes have interests to agitate and form lines on. The support we get at CLN from settlers is already showing strong correlation to certain gender and sexual demographics, regardless of “economic class” background, and our opponents are more often than not bigots towards them. Just as WITBD with the Feminism movement, Marxists must be able to slice the economic sources of Revisionism and solidify a line that is revolutionary even if that means being less “popular” than bourgeois lines, we don’t need a majority.
If I don’t respond directly respond to a point I think they are fair. Inflation eats at the super-profits in wages and eats into the super-profits in greater proportion the smaller the wage. That being said I would put the limit of boojified to be the point where they cross into genuine exploitation (but this does need to be factor in time, segments with long breaks between sources of income would be falling fast into lumpen: unemployed, health/body reasons, discrimination, national oppression). In reality we generally skip over realizing an exploited proletariat due to moving straight from semi-proles to lumpen-proles, this is somewhat problematic for economic organizing and this relationship should be focused on rather than one of the loot share struggle between semi-proles and bourgs (petite and haute). Organizing as anti-inflation attracts strata with interests against national liberation and the bottom 20%, and these cannot be organized as a single mass without convincing the these strata to commit class suicide (challenge level extreme). So far the loot sharing struggle remains as no real exploited prole exists within citizenship standards (outside of some children), so we need to be careful who we are organizing, because just as quickly the balance can swing back towards the boojified workers if they are able to co-opt the energy for their own selfish reforms, (much of the bottom would like it too, pushing us further from agitating towards revolution and prole internat). I want to be clear that my disagreement with your original post is that this strata of people “losing” is growing. I don’t think this is the case, “racial” and gender wealth gaps are increasing which points to privileges growing for white-men. Gender oppressed whites could be on the decline as it seems white-men are desperate to maintain monopoly on income streams “for the sake of the white nation”. That’s certainly a contradiction worth digging at to lop off the white gender-oppressor strata.
Yes but ratios of physical commodities to services do matter globally (the nature of Imperialism). The US workforce is predominantly service facing. If the world was to be equalized, it would be noted that the US has too many of such workers than would be valued by equal exchange. The point is, radical change would happen in the economy if the economy was cut off from physical inputs, including much of the factory work. This would cause internal pressure in the US’s near environment, heightening the settler relationship to the extreme. This is already the scenario Magacoms dream of, being able to “re-industrialize” with all all these natural resources “available to us”. That being said the US white-collar industry has specific anti-communist goals as well. Growing a Labor Aristocracy encourages “brain drain” from all other states and forces even Communist ones to adopt this model of valuing labor, creating Semi-Proles if not LA classes in their countries. It is a sign of bourgeoisification when these workers are paid significantly higher wages than primary and secondary industries. I only mean to say lower wage office workers are pushed from their role as equal users of the MOP, as in paid the same for even less access to it, like in terms of proximity, when looking at the global context in a fair LTV world (e.g. it’s not natural but policy that these workers maintain wages well above global standards). The bulk of office workers are being privileged with increased pay and benefits and this gives them interests that put them at odds with the global proletariat and in the case of Socialist countries with their own proletariat. China has been clamping down on housing speculation and tackling wages for white-collar workers to keep them in check and the current TikTok debacle has Chinese employees potentially benefiting from ByteDance entering the US exchange, likely to be the biggest IPO of all time and the workers own 20% of the company. This leads to the increased stock ownership of unions and unorganized white-collar work in that apparently some 72% of companies offer equity, most give bonuses (which shouldn’t be directly compared yoy but happen often as carrot sticks), and some 19% of employees individually own their employer’s stock. Now stock grants are simply a sleight of hand keep a share of an employee’s wages, but that also means that total compensation is the more accurate number in terms of labor costs and carries with it some stake the employee has in the company. US wide stock ownership dipped in the early 2010s but has since raised back to over 60%. There are not many Capitalists in terms population points, and about 1/5th is considered petty business owners, so much of the stock owners are wage workers who do not own direct productive assets. More households own stocks than ever before. That being said, in general, the top 4/5ths of USian workers are gaining bigger shares of global production (though there might be tugs and pulls in the innards of this mass), the bottom 20% are (slowly) falling behind and here the bulk is oppressed nations. The value of the bottom mass has never been understated though its improvement directly contradicts the global proletariat and indirectly themselves with increased eugenics and increased incarceration.
I would not premise Algeria as a model for WITBD in the Americas. The land relationship in the US is essentially one big “tourist sector” that would be visible in Algiers but gone from the rest of the country. Much of the land in the US is run by settler kulaks, and settler claims for domination of land are much greater in the US. The US settler regime has always harmed the bottom of settlers, it seems this does not matter much to the vast majority self interested mass, besides that they are given much lighter treatment if not loopholes to avoid punishment from civil society. Again I strongly put primary fear of oppressed nation led lumpen revolt in the cities, and Indigenous land protection all over, as the reason why police and settlers are getting more militant (only a continuing trend of the last 70 years of continued Jim Crow).
That being said I agree that gender oppression is packaged into settler-nationalism through colonially imposed gender domination. Certainly there is a struggle as strata of settlers are more obsessed with the nation (settler-nationalist sexual politics, white anxiety) than others, the recycling of petty bourg settlers during the growth (and decline) of Imperialism I think holds contradictory seeds for gender liberation and increased gender oppression (combined form assimilation). So I think, motion in Imperialism whether up or down fans the flames of the gender struggle. I believe this also reflects in other eugenic regimes of social control (“ability”, “race” – which is obfuscated national character). Having an antagonized position in the gender structure certainly reduces national ties, often to the point where it’s easy to sever, this is why it’s more important to stress the nat-lib struggles who do not uniformly adopt settler gender norms (certain class-strata may) and are often antagonized by them as policy (ON lumpen “surplus males”, state enforced “single-motherhood”, forced adoptions, and gender oppression in the carceral system). We should not be scared of calling national and gender antagonisms, class antagonisms, and in that sense in certain contexts they can become primary antagonisms in a decisive moment, superseding other class identities including settler and bourgeois. All of these oppressed classes have interests to agitate and form lines on. The support we get at CLN from settlers is already showing strong correlation to certain gender and sexual demographics, regardless of “economic class” background, and our opponents are more often than not bigots towards them. Just as WITBD with the Feminism movement, Marxists must be able to slice the economic sources of Revisionism and solidify a line that is revolutionary even if that means being less “popular” than bourgeois lines, we don’t need a majority.