"The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress
themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the
periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is
the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but
in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the
intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the
mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire."

Karl Marx Capital Volume One Afterward to the Second German Edition
London January 24, 1873
http://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/capital-afterward.htm


Time and again, whether it's healthcare "reform", welfare reform, tax policy,
the absence of climate change legislation, the gutting of public education,
etc., it should be crystal clear to the working class that compromise is only
possible between factions of capital exclusively, leaving out vital worker
interests entirely. Let us hope that the present economic crisis is drumming
into the heads of the working class in the US the recognition of the
irreconcilable differences, economic and political, between the capitalist classes,
their sycophant Democratic and Republican party politicians, and the economic and
political interests of the working class. You're analysis clearly points out
Lil Joe that yes, no compromise is possible!

David


December,20 2010

Democratic Party vis-a-vis Labor Party:

No Compromise is Possible

by Lil Joe

The objective of this Article is to argue by documentation and
analysis that the Democratic Party, the same as the Republican Party,
is a political representative of factions of the capitalist class. This is
documented in the legislation and votes by Democrats in the House and
Senate on class issues.

Every class struggle is a political struggle. Political parties
represent classes whose economic political interests are
irreconcilable and positions mutually exclusive. Factions
are of the same class. The Democratic Party and the
Republican Party represent factions of the capitalist ruling classes.

Between the capitalistic appropriating classes and the working
class however there is no 'middle ground' and no 'compromise'
is possible. It is not possible that a political party can serve
fundamentally opposing interests - a party cannot represent
capitalists interests and labor interests at the same time.

Capitalist and proletarians interests are opposed to one another and
are mutually exclusive. What has been demonstrated and documented by the recent
bailout of General Motors by the Democratic Party dominated Congress and
Presidency is that the deal resulted in the maximization of profits for
capitalists, but, wages cut in half, benefits slashed, hours increased, increasing
exploitation for workers.

Capital accumulations and profits are derived directly from the
exploitation of wage workers, and it is the function of the
capitalists, as capital personified, to maximize cumulative wealth
produced by proletarian labor. Wealth is the objectified value of
labor power transferred to the product by the labor process. "The
capitalist functions only as personified capital, capital as a person,
just as the worker is no more than labor personified." (Marx, Capital,
p. 989).

It is in the interests of the proletariat, workers as living
embodiments of the value of labor power, to resist exploitation and
maximize the wages derived from the wealth they produce. Whereas, to
the contrary the interests of capitalists is to increase capital
accumulation and profits by intensification of the degrees of
exploitation and maximize the rate of surplus value over expenditures.

Thus, in the economic battlefield the interests of capitalists and
proletarian are clashing in permanent warfare. The interests of
capitalists and workers are mutually exclusive in that wages paid to
workers by capitalists in exchange for their labour power and the
profits derived by capitalists by the exploitation of those workers
are inversely related. It is a rational antinomy: battleground taken
by capitalists is at the expense of wage labor and advances made by
wage labor are snatched from capital.

The economic emancipation of the working class is the task of the
working classes themselves, and to this end the working class forms its
own class parties that will achieve these ends by winning the battles
of democracy, thereupon legislating the transfer of the productive
forces from the private possessions of capitalists to the public
property of the working classes. Thus, this enables workers
self-management of production and distribution, ending the antinomy of
wage labour and capital by the abolition of capitalist commodity
production and the buying and selling of labour power. There is no
middle ground, because either the capitalists will possess the
productive forces and exploit wage labour, or the working class will
possess these productive forces and eliminate wage labour and exploitation.


Mutually exclusive interests

"In layman's terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot
occur at the same time (i.e., they have no common outcomes). An
example is tossing a coin, which can result in either heads or tails,
but not both. Both outcomes cannot happen simultaneously.
Incidentally, both outcomes are collectively exhaustive, which means
that at least one of the outcomes must happen." (See Wikipedia
article @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events)

The Democratic Party, masqueraded in this country as 'the working
man's party', and 'representative of the middle class', is continuing
to expose its true class content with every legislative vote in
Congress, and the proposals of President Obama. The American working
class, in this country, desperately needs to advance the Labor Party
as its political representative in government.

A political party represents class interests. The Democratic Party
cannot serve both General Motors and the United Auto Workers. The
Democratic Party proved itself to be the party of domestic industrial
capital. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said: "Fuck the UAW!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/rahm-emanuels-fuck-the-ua_n_704809.html

Just as, by analogy, rape is rape. Could you imagine the response to
an attorney defending a rapist by advocating as a 'compromise' -i.e.
have the charges against his client dropped - on the 'ground' that it
wasn't rape, 'because the rapist only got the head of the penis into
the vagina'? The fact determines the concept: sexual engagement is
either consensual or it is rape. There can be no compromise, the
interests of the villain and the victim are mutually exclusive.

Exploitation of wage labor by capital is the exploitation of wage
labor by capital. Exploitation is exploitation. The political parties
in power either represent the interests of the capitalist classes or
those of the working classes.

There is no 'compromise', for instance, the Democrats in Congress threw
out its promise to pass Card Check legislation, which would counter the
ability of capitalists to intimidate union organizers, and it threw
out the Single Payer and even the public option to instead aid
the insurance companies by forcing workers to purchase from
those very same parasitic insurance corporations.

These were no 'compromises' or 'finding of middle ground', it was in the
interests of finance capital who financed these Democrats' campaigns.
The Democrats also served the interests of 'big pharmaceuticals' by
killing legislation that would have allowed the reimporting of drugs
that are cheaper than domestics.

Only a Labor Party, whose members of Congress would be fully funded by
trade union finances of this association of workers, could fight
for Single Payer, Card Check legislation, and so on. This is because
funding from capitalists would be forbidden of labor party candidates,
and only trade unions, minorities and the poor would be allowed to
lobby labor members of congress.

Working class Americans need consciousness of its collective interests
qua class, that transcends the ethnic and gender 'identity politics'.
Class struggle politics of a Labor Party subsumes the person of individual
workers by recognizing and fighting for the needs of all workers.


Democratic, as well as Republican, party politicians can draw
gullible workers into their partisan services of capitalists only by
making non-class issues appear as the issues for elections. These
politicians, together with their paid ideological propagandists thrive
on exacerbating differences among workers: 'big labor' as union v
non-union workers, immigrant and 'undocumented' workers v native born
workers, Black, White, Chicano workers against each other, pro- and
anti abortionists, Christian workers v Muslim workers, pro and anti
-gay and lesbian same sex marriage, and other 'cultural wedge issues'
are deliberate divisions. 'Cultural wedge issues' designed to manipulate
the gullible.



These and other such 'issues' are ideological antinomies that serve
the appropriating classes by their hired guns, demagogic baiters
-racists, sexists, Islamophobes and Homophobes - promoting these
'wedge issues' as ideological red herring issues that divert American
workers from critical thinking and analysis of what we as the working
class have in common. Regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, creed or lack
thereof, the interests of capital and labor are mutually exclusive.

Workers in the US need to recognize demagogic manipulation and quit
allowing radio, television and print propagandists and ideologists and
demagogues to determine for them what is a political issue.

"Dem·a·gog·ic or dem·a·gog·i·cal [dem-uh-goj-ik, -gog-, -goh-jik]
adjective Definition: rabble-rousing: making an appeal to people's
emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered to be
politically manipulative and dangerous"
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861603569/demagogic.html

The capitalist mode of appropriation, the buying and selling of labor
power used in capitalist commodity production on the basis of wage
labor, the interests of capital and labor in the production and
appropriation of wealth are inversely related. "An inverse or negative
relationship is a mathematical relationship in which one variable, say
y, decreases as another, say x, increases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversely_related

Working classes common interests are inversely
related to the class interests of the capitalist classes that exploit
them. That is, workers produce the wealth that is appropriated by the
capitalist class, in exchange for wages. But, workers are more than
objectified embodiments of labor power. As human beings workers are
demanding social equality, which means the overthrow of the capitalist
system of structural inequality and domination. There can be no
compromise, as there is no middle ground.


Together with the struggle for wages to keep up with the increasing
cost of living, the workers need to fight together for housing for all
and transportation, universal health care and free quality public
education and the rights of workers to organize internationally, an
open border and the elimination of documentation discrimination, the
freeing of all political prisoners and the defeat of right wing
fascists bent on criminalizing abortion, the rights of single moms to
public assistance equal to median wage, the preservation of Social
Security and so on.

What is needed in the working classes is a Labor Party that subsumes
the person of individual workers by recognizing and fighting for the
needs of all workers.

Thus, praxis [practice] of class struggle negates the negatives that
have hitherto kept the workers divided and at war of all against all.
While this negation of the negatives produces, by this dialectical
process, the consciousness-positive elements of binding class
interests in common, the capitalist classes and their political
representatives: the Democratic Party, just as much as the Republican
Party, is a party based on capital and financed by it.

The contemporary American Labor Party [U.S.A.] has been formed and
sustained by trade unions -at any rate trade unionists. It already has
members in the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO and other unions - locals of unions and
state organizations were in fact the founders of the Labor Party and its
primary financiers. This is a necessary condition for this Party to be a
workers party, excluding finances from capitalists who otherwise would
purchase the Labor Party activists and political campaigns.
(See Labor Party Blog @ http://www.thelaborparty.org/)

I take issue, even with the implicit pragmatic propositions in
American culture, that 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'
[which ignores the law of value], or that 'a glass is half empty'
vis-a-vis 'half full' being predicated on subjective illusions. It is
this same pragmatism that has workers in America voting for the
Democrats as 'the lesser evil', and accepting Democrats policies along
with the Republicans as 'compromise', the silly notion that 'politics
is the art of the possible', rather than the actual fact that politics
promote the interests of classes, and these classes interests are
irreconcialable.

No One -no worker- involved in the class warfare of workers' vis-a-vis
capitalists, has any objective basis, nor scientific method derived
argument, to justify, nor to prove, that it is in the economic
interest's of American proletarians to be lackeys of the Democratic,
capitalist's class party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party is not just financially based
in capital's contributions that purchase its politicians, who
therefore represent their capitalists sponsors as their actual
'constituency'. Also half the millionaires in the US Senate and House
of Representatives are themselves millionaire Democrats.


Published on Saturday, November 7, 2009 by Politico
Report: 237 Millionaires in Congress
by Erika Lovley

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest
lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251
million. As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent
unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new
report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress
are millionaires. That's 44 percent of the body - compared to about 1
percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest
lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251
million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7
million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen.
Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry
(D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100
million, according to the Center's 2008 figures.

"Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren't
hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures,
much more than most Americans make," said CRP spokesman Dave
Levinthal. "What we see through these figures is that many of them
have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities,
stock holdings, property and other investments."

The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates - lawmakers are required
to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so
it's impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses
the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/07-4

Being 'rich' is not the issue. I don't do ad hominems. What is the
issue is how the wealth is derived: there are no millionaire athletes
and only a couple millionaire entertainers in Congress.


G. William Domhoff:
"Who Rules America"

Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or
family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the
wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable
assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer
durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily
converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use
purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full
discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets
is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card
debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition,
economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in
this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth
minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5)
explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable
wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the
short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately
available for consumption or various forms of investments."

We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people
earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or
royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory,
those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes,
depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in
reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have
the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most
of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the
income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10
million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more
details.) ...

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively
few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class)
owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the
managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which
means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only
15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In
terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's
home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful
work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010). ...

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of
households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial
securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90%
of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of
non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as
the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of
the people own the United States of America.
(See G. William Domhoff: "Who Rules America" @
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

Although wealth is quantified qua 'money', and whereas money is a an
equivalence and measure of value, and therefore of wealth, it is not
itself wealth.

Income, as such, is not wealth. Wages are used by workers to purchase
means of subsistence, whereas profits of capital, in the accumulation
and self-expansion of capital, is invested in production, which is the
production of wealth that is owned by the capitalist classes.

A worker, because of seniority &/or internal division of labor [skill
and function] in a particular industry vis-a-vis others might have
higher wages than others, and vis-a-vis other branches of industry,
agriculture, service and commerce, which category of worker 'make
more money' [has relatively higher wages compared and contrasted to
others] is irrelevant as far as class is concerned.

Class is not determined by'income bracket'! The highest paid
workers, viz: salaried employees in the professions, are just as much
dependent upon their jobs for wages and therefore on capitalists to
hire and exploit them, as are the lowest paid wage professions.

The unemployed workers are also still part and parcel of the working
class, whether they collect unemployment compensation or welfare and
food stamps, or work their asses off in the economy of the surplus
population. One unemployed homeless in the 'surplus population'
vis-a-vis others might have panhandled more money than others, but
that money isn't wealth, either.


The poorest of the homeless surplus population, e.g., the car window washer
or the bag carriers working Wal-Mart, actually contribute by their
labor more wealth to this country than do lazy, non-working
capitalist parasites, who contribute nothing but appropriate all the
produced wealth of the nation: rich trash, the capitalist class.

'Trailor park trash' isn't the occupants, but the owners of the lots,
and the finance capitalists. You recall, the rock star celebrity of the
Democratic Party, the then President of the United States, Bill
Clinton showed his class arse where he and his defenders against Paula
Jones demonised this working class, poor woman as 'trailer park trash'.
(See Googles @
http://www.google.com/search?q=paula+jones+trailer...)

It was this same Bill Clinton who tossed working class single moms
into the trash of the surplus population. The Obama Commission is in
the process of slashing spending on Social Security and other social
programs, in order to pay for tax cuts for capitalists and to feed the
military-industrial complex's permanent arms economy, and to pay for its
wars of occupations.

Together with Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton took bows
before cheering capitalists for cutting working class women, single
mothers and their children, from any long term access to public
assistance by his so-called 'welfare reform'. This, hailed as 'ending
welfare as we know it', limited public assistance any individual
received, in their lifetime, to two years. Obama is carrying through
with the same agendas.

In this current 'Great Recession' [euphemism for Great Depression]
there are many more millions of U.S. workers, those who have been
unemployed for more than 99 weeks (aka '99ers), that are being tossed
permanently into the surplus population.

It is also because of the Democratic-Republican Clinton-Gramm-Gingrich
so-called welfare 'reform' legislation - 'the era of big government
is over' - that access to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, as well
as single adults, are denied access to General Relief.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?" No? "Then let 'em
all die, and decrease the surplus population" - Scrooge.

The only recourse in town to circumvent starvation of this surplus
population, other than turning to a life in the criminal black market,
and theft, is the hiring by the armed forces. The Dream Act! It is but
a component part of the whole.

The government as employer - the sucking up of the able bodied, men
and now women, gay and lesbian as well as 'straights' of the surplus
population into the armed forces, to be killed as an alternative to
and away from the glutted labor market's productive forces, is and has
always been an option on the capitalist's play list.
(See Martha E. Gimenez THE POPULATION ISSUE: MARX VS. MALTHUS
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/popissue.html )



That wealth is derived from capital - investments, stocks and bonds,
rent, securities and other - profits, rent and interests place these
members of Congress in class relations of production as these are
derived from the appropriation of labor by wages paid to those
workers, thus their interests and those of workers are mutually
exclusive.


US: The millionaires´ Congress
By Tom Eley

26 November 2010
Members of US Congress increased their combined personal wealth by
more than 16 percent from 2008 and 2009, even as the population they
nominally represent was going through the worst wave of job losses and
wage cutting since the Great Depression.

According to an analysis of financial disclosures by the Center for
Responsive Politics, just under half of the US Senators and
Representatives, 261 of 535, were millionaires in 2009, compared to 1
percent of the population at large. Fifty-five of these Congressmen
have a net worth of greater than $10 million, and eight have fortunes
estimated at over $100 million.

Median wealth for all members of Congress in 2009 was $911,510, up
from $785,515 in 2008. In the "people´s House," the median net worth
was $765,010 in 2009, up from $645,503 in 2008, considerably below,
however, the $2.38 million median net wealth for US Senators in 2009,
which was up from $2.27 million in 2008.

These figures, if anything, are underestimations. Congressmen are only
required to report their assets in a broad range- the Center for
Responsive Politics works out an average based on this range-and they
are not obliged to include their residences.

The richest member of Congress in 2009 was Rep. Darrell Issa, a
right-wing California Republican, whose net worth was estimated at
$303.5 million for 2009, an increase of 21 percent in one year. He was
followed by another representative from California, Jane Harman, the
pro-war, pro-CIA Democrat, whose wealth increased by 19 percent to
$293.4 million, and Democratic Senator and former presidential
candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts, whose wealth-gained by marrying
the widow-heiress of the Heinz Ketchup fortune-was estimated at $238.8
million, up 14.3 percent in one year.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado), Sen.
Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Florida) and Rep.
Michael McCaul (R-Texas) were the other lawmakers whose wealth was
estimated to be greater than $100 million in 2009.

There was no appreciable difference between the income levels of
Democrats and Republicans. "Overall, party affiliation appeared to
play little discernable role in predicting an increase in the value of
lawmakers´ personal assets: 12 Democrats and seven Republicans ranked
among the top 20 congressmen whose average wealth increased by the
greatest percentage between 2008 and 2009," the report notes. "That´s
roughly proportional with Congress´ partisan makeup."

The outgoing Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, had assets
estimated at about $60 million (far more than her Republican
successor, John Boehner, who had only $3.5 million). Unlike many
members of Congress, Pelosi listed her home (and vineyard) as an
asset, estimating it to be worth as much as $15 million. Her
investment portfolio is a veritable who´s who of major corporations,
among them AT&T, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Alcoa, Apple, Dow Chemical,
and Motorola, to name only a handful.

Indeed, the report documents not only the wealth of the legislators,
but their financial interests in the largest corporations and banks.
Eighty-two members of Congress are invested in General Electric,
followed by Bank of America (63), Cisco Systems (61), Proctor & Gamble
(61) and Microsoft (54), Exxon Mobil (46), Wells Fargo (45), Berkshire
Hathaway (44), Apple (42), IBM (41), Johnson & Johnson (39), JPMorgan
Chase (38), Coca-Cola (39), PepsiCo (36), Wal-Mart (28) and Goldman
Sachs (27).

When these firms call on legislators on Capitol Hill, they are not so
much lobbying as meeting with prominent shareholders.

BP, the London-based oil giant whose profit-driven recklessness
resulted in the greatest environmental disaster in US history, was
invested in by 24 members of Congress, paced by John Kerry, who had BP
assets estimated in value somewhere between $351,000 and $765,000.

Sixty-four members of congress had assets in Pfizer, the largest US
pharmaceutical, and 80 reported significant transactions with the
firm. The pharmaceuticals, insurance giants, and HMOs were well served
by their Congressional investors in regard to the Obama
administration´s health care "reform." The measures passed will
guarantee the profits of the major industry players for years to come,
while relegating the vast majority of the population to a segregated,
second-tier health care system.

The wealth data provide part of the explanation as to why Congress has
failed to take any steps to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of
millions of Americans. The ladies and gentlemen of the House and
Senate are members in good standing of a social layer far, far removed
from the growing misery experienced by wide layers of the population.

"Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial
ills-unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings-that have
befallen millions of Americans," commented Sheila Krumholz, executive
director of the Center for Responsive Politics, in a consummate
understatement. "Congressional representatives on balance rank among
the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios
that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents."

But it is not merely a question of insensitivity. The statistics lift
the curtain on a political class that is flesh of the flesh of the
financial aristocracy. When Congressmen support policies that benefit
the elite-e.g., the Wall Street bailout or the maintenance of tax cuts
for the rich-they are not only serving their powerful clients, but serving
themselves. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/cong-n26.shtml


Lil Joe
================



LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe