Here Comes Bourgeois Socialism – Again 03:18 Apr 28 0 comments
The US-Turkey stand-off in context: the US and the weaponisation of global finance 19:04 Sep 13 0 comments
Fuel Price Hikes Hammer South Africa’s Working Class 17:53 Sep 20 0 comments
The Davos Blind Eye: How the Rich Eat the Poor and the World 18:07 Jan 26 0 comments
Riflessioni sullo stato di crisi del capitalismo 06:41 Dec 24 0 commentsmore >>
Recent articles by Lucien van der Walt
Recent Articles about International Economy
Here Comes Bourgeois Socialism – Again Apr 28 20
A Case for Anarchist Class Analysis May 01 19
From Living Wage to Working Class Counter-power
Based on a talk given in Kenya, this article argues that, while official minimum wages and other improvements are welcome gains, they are inadequate in an exploiting system based on the rule of the few. It is necessary to pose the more ambitious demand for a 'living wage,' set by the working class, and to enforce this by building powerful, autonomous, self-managed, conscientised class-struggle movements.Rejecting 'privilege' theories, it argues that all sectors of the working class benefit from demands and campaigns that secure equal rights, equal treatment and equal wages, against divide-and-rule systems, and in which strikers build alliances with communities and users. A 'living wage' movement of this type should be located in a larger project of building a popular counter-power that can resist, and then topple, ruling class power.
FROM LIVING WAGE TO WORKING CLASS COUNTER-POWERLucien van der Walt, 2015, 'South African Labour Bulletin,' volume 39, number 2, pp 35-39
(Original PDF in "related link" at end)
Whilst a living wage is part of the struggle, it should not be the end in itself but should link to broader working-class struggle to build a counter-power that overthrows the existing power structure, writes Lucien Van Der Walt.
The wage system is at the heart of the subjugation of the broad working class - workers, their families, the unemployed. Not owning independent means of existence - for example, land or productive machinery - or governing power - for example, real decision-making - the working class is compelled to work for wages, in order to survive.
Even those who do not have waged employment are reliant, through family members, on wages by those who are employed; the unemployed are, above all, unemployed workers. In this sense, the working class are 'wage slaves': unlike slaves bought permanently by masters, the wage slaves must seek out masters, and sell themselves, by the hour.
Since wages are always below the level of workers' output, workers are exploited through the wage system: they are paid less than the value of what they produce, the surplus value accruing to employers.
These employers are the state, including the state corporations and army, and private employers, especially corporations, but also including small employers.The big employers constitute a ruling class, owners of the state and of capital, including of state capital, and the political and military elite.
Exploitation is closely linked to a larger system of domination - economically, culturally, socially, politically - by the ruling class - those who control means of administration, coercion and production - over the popular classes as a whole. Besides the working class (broadly understood), the popular classes include the peasantry (the small family farmers, exploited through rent, taxes and monopolies).
It is through two pyramid shaped structures that the ruling class - a small minority - has centralised power and wealth in its hands, these being states (centred on state managers: political and military elites) and corporations (centred on private capitalists), which work together.The struggle for higher wages is, in short, a struggle against the ruling class.
MINIMUM WAGE VERSUS LIVING WAGE
A minimum wage means a wage below which workers cannot be paid.This might apply to specific sectors - for example, farming - or specific jobs - for example, teachers.
It is better to have a minimum wage than not, since it provides a 'floor' below which wages cannot fall. Certainly, employers - state and private - prefer not to pay minimum wages; it limits their power.
But a minimum wage is not the same as a living wage, and the workers' movement should fight for living wages, instead of minimum wages.
A living wage is a wage upon which working-class people can live with dignity and justice.
A living wage is a wage that meets working-class needs - not just subsistence needs (costs of living), but also larger social and cultural needs, enabling a dignified existence. It should also be set at levels that remove, as far as possible, divisions in the working- class - that is, also help achieve the political need for working class unity against all forms of oppression.
And since these living wage goals bring the working class into direct conflict with the existing social order, the living wage struggle needs to be part of a fight for much for radical changes.
Minimum wages, where they exist, are normally set at the lowest levels of barebones subsistence (food, shelter, clothing etc) agreeable to employers. In almost all cases, minimum wages are set below the level unions and workers demand. Given inflation and rising costs, statutory minimum wages fall in real value, allowing employers to effectively cut wages to below basic subsistence.
And while workers are constantly told to compare their wages to workers in other countries and sectors, there are no maximum wage settings to limit employer incomes.
TOP-DOWN WAGE SETTING
A large part of the problem with the minimum wage is how it gets set - at the level of affordability to employers (including the state), plus calculation of the most minimal 'basket' of subsistence costs.
Normally the calculation is done in a way that, first, underestimates workers' financial needs, and second, limits that calculation to the most basic items of subsistence, that is, the lowest possible cost of living.
There is no single way to calculate minimum wages, but the calculations are controlled by states and other employers, who devote extensive full-time resources - accountants, lobbyists, negotiators - while unions lack this capacity and control.
This is the background against which minimum wages set by governments generally fall below required levels for basic subsistence.
LIVING WAGES, FROM BELOW
A living wage is something much more radical. First, it involves a much more generous estimate of basic subsistence needs - not just living from hand-to-mouth, steps away from starvation.
Second, it recognises that workers' needs are not simply food and shelter. People also have needs that are social (for example, the ability to participate in society, with dignity, without exclusion, without barriers), and cultural (for example, spending time with family, time for enjoyment, time for education and self-improvement).
Minimum wages are currently set narrowly, and primarily in the interests of the employers i.e. they prioritise the needs of the ruling class, which benefits from the exploiting wage system.
Biased, top-down calculations by and for the ruling class should be replaced with wage policy from below: it should instead be the working class that defines the level of the required wages. Rather than rely on state and employer calculations of 'basic' needs, the working class should - through forums and campaigns and movements - set the living wage level that it needs.
It should then campaign vigorously for its adoption, and impose this in the teeth of ruling class opposition.The situation where wage calculations are restricted to small groups of experts - both within unions, but, above all, in the state and the corporations - must end.
JUSTICE, UNITY, EQUALITY
Third, the setting of a living wage level also requires consideration of larger issues of equality and justice. Society is not just based around the division between classes, but is also divided within classes, along lines like race, nationality and gender.
These divisions mean, for example, that immigrant workers earn lower wages, in general, than national workers, are concentrated in worse jobs, and face problems that national workers do not face - for example, popular prejudice and police terror against immigrants as immigrants.The same can be said about the situation of working-class women, minorities, rural workers etc.
This situation of disparities is sometimes misinterpreted as a system of 'privilege', because one group in the working class (for example, national workers) is 'privileged' by being treated somewhat better than another (for example, immigrants).
But the problem with the 'privilege' theory is that the inequality between the two harms the interests of the whole working class; it primarily benefits the ruling class, in that it divides the working class, weakens unions, confuses people about where their problems arise, increasing the rates of exploitation.
For example, two groups of workers - immigrant and local - get pitted against one other, seeing the other as the enemy. But there is nothing to gain for national workers if immigrants are terrorised by police as immigrants; it is not a 'privilege' to be terrorised at a lower rate.
It is not a 'privilege' for national workers to get slightly higher wages than immigrants, or to be exploited slightly less: on the contrary, this situation forces national workers - themselves already severely exploited and oppressed - into competing for jobs with immigrants by accepting lower wages and more exploitation.This then opens the doors for 'xenophobia', which leaves the ruling class safe, as the working class devours itself.
Therefore, a living wage definition must also ensure equality and justice.The living wage must aim at equal wages, redress for past wrongs, and just and unifying wage levels, as part of fighting against the specific forms of oppression faced on the lines of gender, race and nationality, the fight for equal rights and treatment -a class movement against all oppression, not an individualist politics of 'check your privilege'.
This universalist approach helps bridge the divisions in the working class - thus, the demand for the living wage can help meet the political need to unite the working class, by overcoming myriad forms of division and oppression, with a common struggle.
GLOBALISING FROM BELOW
Effectively, winning the same wage levels for all workers in a given sector will remove the downward pressure of the extra-low wages of a sector of workers, unify workers around a common set of demands, elaborated together, and directly challenge the specific problems faced by the most oppressed sections.The struggle itself helps forge unity, overcome sectionalism.
This same principle needs to be expanded across industries, as a way of removing the same disparities within the economy; across the gap between full-time and casual workers, and the employed and unemployed, as a way of bringing workers into a single labour market with decent conditions; and globalised, as a way of removing the same disparities between countries.
That is, the demand for a living wage should aim for a universal, and ultimately, international, living wage - as part of a project of working class unity.And since the demand for a living wage requires campaigns and actions, this also requires building international solidarity, against divisive politics and ideas.
ALLIANCES BEYOND WORKPLACE
Wage levels are, in the final analysis, shaped by the balance of power - not the cost of living, or labour market conditions.Therefore, winning a living wage requires widespread mobilisation and education by the working class, from below.
Without powerful workers' organisation - above all, effective and democratic unions - wage levels cannot improve. Better wages will not arise from appeals to the conscience of employers, or through the law.They rest, ultimately, on punitive actions based on popular organisation, including strikes.
This also requires organising beyond the workplace. Alliances need to be built with other parts of the working class, including those affected by strikes and other actions.To do this, it is essential to link workplace struggles to neighbourhood issues, to
strengthen campaigns, otherwise the division between workplace and community will undermine the struggle.
This means raising issues from communities and making them part of strike or campaign demands.
For example, if the electricity workers strike, over wages, this will affect communities. It is necessary to explain what the strike is about, and why communities should support workplace struggles, but it is also necessary that workplace struggles support neighbourhood demands - for example, electricity strikes should include neighbourhood demands, such as for higher wattage connections in working- class neighbourhoods, at lower prices.This also means giving thought to selective strike actions - for example, blacking out elite suburbs, not working-class townships. It also means that higher wages should not be paid for by higher electricity charges, where employers 'rob Peter to pay Paul.'
Actions that destroy facilities, disrupt examinations and services to the working class, lead to industry closures - these should be avoided.
Strikers have an ethical obligation to the larger working class - but none at all to the ruling class, which they are forced, by their situation, to confront and resist and challenge. Rather, the aim should be to unite the whole working class, and win better conditions for the whole working class.
LIVING WAGE NOT ENOUGH
Finally, it is also essential to remember that wage struggles are inadequate.
They are essential.They improve the living conditions of people. They develop confidence in the ordinary people's ability to change the world in which they live. If workers are afraid to fight for the most basic things - money to live upon - they will never be able to fight for anything more - like changing society into something better.
But better wages are not enough.
The wage system itself rests on a deep system of social and economic inequality, between the popular and ruling classes, and divisions and oppression by factors like race, gender and nationality. The best wages cannot remove the basic system of class rule and its attendant inequalities.
Thus, struggles - including at work -should never be reduced to wage struggles.They should escalate to include demands for greater control - by the working class - over the workplace and over working-class neighbourhoods, as well as greater popular class unity.
This means building counter- power: the organised power of the broad working class, participatory, pluralistic, democratic, and outside and against the state, creating workplace and community/ neighbourhood structures that provide the basis for resistance in the present - and lay the organisational basis for a new society.That is, structures that can become the governing power in society, replacing the top-down systems of state and capital with an egalitarian society of working- class self-management.These include democratic unions, and neighbourhood movements - this is not a project of building a political party.
This project rests on self-activity and autonomy. It means, for example, rather than cooperating with employers to improve productivity through productivity deals, a programme of developing a workers' veto on retrenchments -that is, implementing a refusal to be retrenched.
Building counter-power does not mean cooperation with the state, or the corporations, or running in elections. It is, instead, about relentless struggle against state and capital, as well as against divisions in the working class, and against all forms of oppression and exploitation, while expanding the role of counter-power in daily life.
Building counter-power means locating all struggles in a larger project to fundamentally change society, by removing the systems of economic and social inequality, and a system of political power -including the state - that play a key role in entrenching these systems.
This requires building widespread counter-power that unifies all the sectors of the popular classes, unifies on the basis of justice, equity and struggle, and shifts power from the ruling class to the popular classes, and from the state and the corporations, to the counter-power of the people.
RIGHTS RELY ON POWER
It is an illusion to think that the state can be used to entrench justice, including living wages. All states, without exception - no matter how red their flags, or socialist their slogans - are controlled by minority ruling classes; constitutions are pieces of paper, ignored unless working- class people enforce them through struggles, not litigation. Even then, the balance of power shapes how laws are interpreted and applied, if at all; so, it is only through strength - struggle, autonomy, self-managed counter-power - that anything can be won.
Unless the working class and the popular classes build the power to enforce their demands - including wage demands - upon the ruling class, they will never win those demands.The balance of power shapes income distribution, how and where decisions are made, who is rich and who is poor, and who lives, and who dies.
But all victories - even the greatest - under the existing system - capitalism and the state - are partial. Better wages are continually eroded by issues like rising prices, and rising unemployment.
Furthermore, a better-paid wage slave, is still a wage slave.The deep system of dispossession that forces people into wage labour, has to be uprooted.The highest wage does not remove exploitation; the system cannot operate unless workers are paid less than the value of their production. Exploitation does not have to mean a low wage: it means only that workers are paid less than the value of their production.
The deep class system is also based on a basic disparity of power and wealth, across society, in everything from the running and finance of schools (always worst for the working class) to the structure of the economy (which is why it is possible to have a country with mines producing gold, which has no real use, yet a massive shortage of houses).
Fundamental change means displacing the ruling class from power, through counter-power, implementing a new society, based on participatory and democratic planning of the economy and society.This requires a continual project of struggle, autonomous of the ruling class - including the state, including the parliament and state elections- and it requires conscientising the mass of the people on the or need for a larger struggle for self-management, the removal of hierarchy, and social and economic equality - that is, a project of revolutionary counter- culture, running alongside with and strengthening the counter- power.
FROM WAGES TO SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
Building counter-power and counter-culture is only possible by engaging with struggles for immediate reforms, including wage struggles.
Through such struggles - and not through abstract plans - the mass of people get mobilised; their victories increase their confidence; their defeats teach valuable lessons, including in the importance of solidarity and unity, and the common interests of the broad working class; a working class that will not fight to put bread on the table will never manage to fight to completely change society.
The argument that fights for minimum or living wages are too moderate - that struggle must ignore this as a distraction, and proceed straight to 'revolution' (or failing that, to riots and so on)- is wrong. Wage battles, like all immediate struggles, are limited, but they are a step on the road to deep changes.
A real change in society will not arise from a simple collection of partial struggles and victories, however 'militant,' but preparing for a decisive confrontation - where the accumulation of massive counter-power - infused with counter-culture - can displace, permanently, the existing power structure.
NO SHORT CUT
There is no short cut, since this project requires widespread mobilisation and conscientisation; smaller struggles, sometimes emotive, sometimes 'militant,' are valuable, but never enough; there needs to be a quantitative (in terms of numbers and structures) and qualitative (in terms of growing mass confidence, organisation, consciousness and power) change.
This requires careful work, not a leap of faith; the small struggles are the foundation of the great struggle, not a rival, not a substitute, but only a step in the right direction.
** Lucien van der Walt is an industrial sociology professor at Rhodes University.This is part of a presentation on 'Paying Living Wages: A Reality or Mirage?,' delivered at a colloquium organised by the Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KRC) Consortium, Panafric Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya, 27-28 November 2014.