Industrial Regeneration and the Working Class Project

Hi Mal

Both. I am suggesting we increase our local primary industrial capability right now.

Perhaps. Industrialisation could certainly stand some acceleration. You’d be forgiven for thinking that it looks “not very likely”, but dwindling natural resources do not account for our industrial decline. You’ll notice that call centres are being relocated back in the UK, that’s for a complex set of reasons that predict a new late capitalist trajectory. One that plays into our hands, just as Marx predicted.

A mixed bag of points address this question.

1.

Cheap foreign labour will not be cheap forever. China is currently operating as a loss leader, trading on the poverty of it’s own working class and state payouts to foreign capitalist businesses. As the incomes of the Chinese working class rise, there will be more incentive to relocate “labour intensive” industry to poorer regions, such as areas in our own country.

2.

The most “labour intensive” occupations are those most prone to automation. This is increasingly a question of ownership of fixed capital. I would tentatively propose that cheap land was an important economic driver for off shoring. By increasing automation and subsidising fixed capital the means of production could be relocated locally.

3.

Economies that have too large a tertiary component are fragile. Failures in the complex financial juggling act required keeping them churning lead to economic insecurity, debt and bankruptcy, unhappiness and violence, authoritarianism and social conditioning. Taken to their logical conclusion, such economies represent a weak market for the goods whose production has been off shored. Direct wealth producing industry will relocate in order to provide incomes capable of sustaining a market.

4.

Economies that have too large a tertiary component are stagnant. When you offshore manufacturing, you offshore research, development and design. You turn the commercial infrastructure over to spivs who are talented only in sophistry and manipulation. In education, Maths and hard science are hopelessly under subscribed in recognition of the professional opportunities available to those who risk their undertaking. This is not a pleasant place for the human species to inhabit and smart people will encourage change.

5.

Off shoring was politically contrived as much as economically motivated. What looks like "laissez faire" global markets are really subject to heavy intervention. Deindustrialisation is a method of frustrating the working class project, either by accident or design. The programme of deindustrialisation, the decay and poverty we see around us today, has its roots in the monetarist policies introduced by Healy, toeing the IMF’s line in 1976. Now our accounts with the IMF are settled, I can’t tell whether the current political establishment’s industrial strategy is ineffective, misguided or misanthropic.

But these arguments are all for nought if we want different things in the first place. What do you think the problem with Capitalism is? Do you agree that our problem is economic insecurity and ineffective political representation? If you disagree, then it may be in my best interests for you to continue to hold your existing position.

Love

LR

Hi

Pedantic point, and also arguable. IT help desks, service centres, advice bureaux etc are necessary components of industrial infrastructure. However, even if I concede to your point, it still illustrates the willingness to relocate activity away from so called “cheap labour economies” for a set of complex tensions and pressures. What do you make of recently reintroduced restrictions on Chinese clothing imports to Europe?

Cheap natural resources in foreign countries do not account for our industrial decline. The “price” of these things has more to do with the nuances of international finance and state subsidy than it has to do with availability or ease of extraction. For what it’s worth, I understand that we are one of the most productive coal producers in the world.

You could look at it like that, but no more than you and I compete for the same air. You’d be better off seeing yourself as a benign pace maker for the working class project. Do you think there is such a thing?

Yes, capitalism is bad. Economic insecurity and ineffective political representation are the order of the day. The above statement is as true of commerce generally at home and abroad and is an argument for direct democracy in firms.

Industrialisation and pollution are not synonymous. We’d use technology to make it clean.

Office jobs are as manual as traditional blue collar jobs and in many cases worse with little opportunity for promotion on experience or skill. Industrialisation increases wealth, rather than creates boring jobs. I’m more interested in the impact on the scientific, technical and creative sectors. The inflammatory “herding” imagery you invoke sounds like the chauvinism employed by the bourgeoisie in the early 80’s to soften us up for increasing the alienation of the proletariat from the means of production.

But these points just chip away at the detail. If you prefer living in a deindustrialised locale, then step aside. We have work to do. I ask you again, what do you think the problem with Capitalism is? Pollution? Or do you agree that the reason for working class revolution is to rid ourselves of economic alienation and political disenfranchisement? Set out your stall, political passports please!

Love

Chris

Hi

Indeed. So it’s “capitalism’s plans” that are the problem? Capitalism is not sentient and cannot plan. These “plans” of which you speak are nothing more than the aggregation of bourgeois desire, the activities and aspirations of the incumbent elite. The plans of individual bourgeois can be foiled, and often are.

So you’re on side after all! Why waste my time with arguments? Let those who would stand against industrialisation set out their case.

Luckily enough for you, a combination of internal tensions within capitalist ranks, the natural dynamics of markets, consumer/producer preference and economic necessity will see your efforts are eventually rewarded my friend. Moreover, industrial regeneration has a crucial part to play in expediting the working class project, not just for us here in the UK, but also for our comrades abroad.

Love

Chris

Hi

Indeed. “Localisation of staple food production” is certainly a component of what I envisage, and practically doable. Perhaps “Industrialisation” is the wrong word for what I’m trying to convey, but we’ll certainly need more tractors and combine harvesters, plus engineers to design them and mechanics to maintain them.

Again, I can’t argue with you. We’ll need to build power stations. What you’re suggesting here is a robust infrastructure, that provides us with a safe level of economic self-sufficiency.

An example of what I’m after would be to turn over derelict plant to a hydrogen fuel cell development programmes, say.

Spoilsport, your programme is even more focused on primary industry than mine.

Lots of love

Chris

Hi

By regenerating primary industry I mean giving ourselves some useful means of production to direct. I’m not too sure about all the specialised Marxist vocabulary about “commodity production”, but I wouldn’t have too many objections to ramping up production of novelty toothbrushes if it suited the purposes of the autonomous working class in transition.

Anyway I was wondering, what if you regenerate primary industry as part of a transitionary programme? Would our resources not be useful to comrades abroad, increasing the chances of their own revolt?

Love

LR