In appropriate furtherance of the open letter from propertyless workers in America, or proletarians as we are defined, to the victorious political administration following the 2012 United States General Election:
After now effectively demonstrating in theory, the proletarian thesis which concludes a vacancy of popular democratic choice in so far as the economic mode of production is tabulated and ultimately determined in the contemporary American political process, due to the respective vacancy of political representation on behalf of propertyless workers and the designated set of property relations which theoretically serves their contemporary interests and prosperity in its fullest terms, we now proceed. That is, proceed with literary establishment and diagnostics of the victorious political administration’s theoretical platform in so far as the rudimentary political issue of the day is concerned. The rudimentary political issue of the day, as expressed in the administration’s own position as previously stated, the American economy; i.e. the economic mode of production and the necessity to bring modification to it in the interest of the American citizenry.
It must be stated: From the theoretical vantage point of modern proletarians in a highly developed, industrialized commonwealth such as the United States of America, the rhetorical substance available for constructive economic criticism is virtually endless given the existing set of property relations and material relations of production currently operating under and facilitating a commodity producing society. A commodity producing society, in which pursuit of surplus appropriation and the self expansion of existing values in fact translates to the commoditization of propertyless workers themselves. A commodity producing society, as an ongoing dialectical consequence, exhibiting proliferating disparity of material wealth between a social class of propertyless workers with nothing to sell but their own labor power and their antipode, a propertied class of individuals commoditizing the former by means of capital. We can establish the victorious political administration’s endorsement of this special, historically defined social relationship of production by underlining its categorical advocation of private economic relations and private property relations in the United States of America and the world moreover.
Now, unlike the previously written segment of this cumulative dissertation which seeks to anatomize the cause and effect relationship of the recently culminated general election from the theoretical vantage point of the American proletarian, this particular segment is unique in that no cross-examination, counterpoint or antithesis must be repudiated in order to theoretically proceed with proletarian rationale. The initial theoretical position of the American proletarian, while anything but disproven in praxis by the procession of existing formal democratic procedure, for all pragmatic purposes is evidently for the time being, a moot point. After all, the general election is now finalized and it would appear at least through the popular scope of political participation and aftermath, that the formal democratic procedure can be validated as democratic in fact. Nevertheless, a plethora of additional proletarian theses immediately materialize in juxtaposition with the victorious political administration’s own theoretical platform and ostensible course of action in relating to the economic mode of production in the United States of America. A course of action presumably spanning the course of the next four calendar years and perhaps beyond. In comradely consideration of the reader’s time, please allow us demonstrate in singularity.
The victorious political administration’s theoretical platform, generally speaking, can be surmised as such: The continuity of the free markets(free trade) in essentially dictating the course of economic prosperity/growth in an all-inclusive fashion regarding the individual states comprising the nation as a whole. The continuity of central banking in the form of the Federal Reserve System, incidentally at the moment, artificially printing and injecting an additional forty billion dollars currency into the U.S. economy every calendar month in the ongoing domestic struggle against what appears to be additionally recessive, social economic circumstances in the not so distant future. The continuity of social welfare programs and progressive income taxation in their uniquely American form, with undersized modifications directed toward both former and latter in the interest of the preservation of the commodity producing society its present form. In so far as the latter is to be slightly revised, tis precisely here where the victorious administration not only effectively contrasts itself with the political administration finishing second in the general election, but furthermore attempts to define the theoretical platform of the administration itself: Equal opportunity for economic prosperity for all American citizens independent of immediate status in social economic class. This particular platform, entirely theoretical at best as it must be emphasized, can be corroborated by the victorious candidate’s political platitude throughout the course of the general election cycle. In the incumbent’s own words at the political rostrum, prophetically uttered in repetition bordering on obsessive compulsive tendency.
“…the promise that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; that everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, D.C.” (B. Obama; President of the United States of America; Democratic National Convention, 09/06/2012)
This political platitude, accompanied of course by the theoretical platform that the victorious political administration is currently operating from and governing through, reveals the grandest of theoretical contradictions in so far as American propertyless workers are concerned. Theoretical contradictions, dialectically corroborated in praxis by the historical truths of class struggle in the United States and about. Theoretical contradictions which contendingly equate to theoretical mythology provided of course: the existing set of property relations and material relations of production remain in place. An additional proletarian thesis is thus defined: Without the radical rupturing and subsequent revolutionizing of the existing set of private property relations and material relations of production, American propertyless workers in general, a certifiable portion and in fact numerical preponderance of the domestic population, i.e. a majority portion of “everyone”; can not, does not and will not, no matter their level of commitment or dedication to provide labor power to the material process of production(the sole material component available to them to sell), “get a fair shot, do their fair share or play by the same rules” when accounting for the material existence of the propertied class that commoditizes them.
Please allow the existing set of private property relations and material relations of production themselves, the set of which the victorious political administration upholds and asserts will manifest its own political platitude defied by the proletarian thesis, to instead support the respective proletarian thesis:
While private economic relations and private property relations, generally speaking, pose astronomical obstacles for propertyless workers in operating on equal material playing fields about the commodity producing society with the propertied classes in the present tense, the tense that postures them as having little or no choice but to agreeably sell their labor power to the private owners of the means of the production on the material basis of a lesser quantity of wages in exchange for a greater quantity of production, the mechanical genesis of private profit or capital; for purposes of condensing the dissertation while still incontrovertibly validating the proletarian thesis, the simple matter of genealogy can and will suffice.
Without further a due. a rhetorical juxtaposition not to be applied to individual circumstances; but instead a mass, or average or social phenomenon. This is of course the same intended demographic that the victorious political administration is targeting with both its platform and respective platitude:
1.) A propertyless worker and their companion(equally proletarian), without possession of fiscal wealth: land, property or means of production; without capital(the fundamental prerequisite of free trade in the 21st century), wish to build a family. They procreate accordingly, and a child is born. This is no ordinary child, let alone an average person as the masses are led to believe in the ‘land of the free where all men are created equal’. The terminology ‘average person’ is not only fallacious, it is offensive and sacrilegious in so far as all that is purely human. Each and every person is unique. Each with their own distinctive mental and physical faculties. Each with an inherent desire to develop and in turn exercise their respective abilities in their real, individual life. However this newly birthed child, special in every sense of the word, is invariably compelled to carry with them through absolutely no fault or wrongdoing of their own outside of the material circumstances of their own inexplicable genealogy, a most certain title. A class title. For this is a proletarian child. Or a child, that along with the assistance of good fortune, will grow into manhood and commence their adult life with nothing to sell but their own labor power. For this proletarian child, was in fact, birthed with absolutely no rights of inheritance other than their own physiological abilities that must ultimately engage themselves directly in process of commodity production. Labor power in exchange for their own subsistence. For the sake of course, of the self expansion of existing values which they did not, do not and generally speaking, will not possess through no consequence of their own. More often than not, and dialectically growing: Commoditization from birth.
(It must be noted, generally speaking, that pursuit of undergraduate education; bachelors and masters degrees in any particular field would likely increase the casualty of the biological offspring in ultimately bettering their material conditions of life or in some cases, becoming a future owner of the means of production which may ultimately define them as a productive beneficiary versus a productive benefactor in the specific economic mode of production in operation. This being said, after accepting the quite substantial, escalating costs of private tuition at either state or community colleges in the 21st century, the proletarian would consequently begin his professional career in considerable economic debt, irrespective of return on educational investment in the free market about. In pertinence to this social reality, it should be noted that in 2012, fifty-three percent of college graduates living in the United States are currently unemployed in the confines on these same free markets. Logic would seem to dictate, should something not change of course, that ultimately these young men and women will be required to resort to proletarian labor outside their particular field of study in order to provide their own subsistence; bearing the debts of their previous collegiate studies all the while.)
2.) A member of the propertied class and their companion(either propertied or propertyless), with possession of fiscal wealth: land, property or means of production; with some potential form of capital, wish to start a family. They procreate accordingly and a child is born, as in the preceding example. This child is deserved of the same exceptional characteristic traits as expounded upon in the preceding example; they are equally distinct in their own right. Only this child as in most traditional cases, as offspring of any historical propertied class, through rights of inheritance often by means of parental life and surely by means of parental departure, through no overly deserved social accomplishment of their own, ultimately become members of the propertied classes like their biological parents which preceded them. Upon maturation, they acquire the material means to employ the wage labor of their antipode, propertyless workers, for the purpose of the self expansion of existing values of the property or means of production they tenure(capital). In many cases, relatively speaking, they are not so much as required to directly engage their own productive abilities in the process of production alongside the compulsory proletarian form of labor, while still emerging as the prominent beneficiaries of material wealth due to the existing property relations and material relations of production that allow such a social relationship of production to persist. Aside from the process of production, biological offspring of the propertied classes are far more likely to inherit property in the form of housing for purposes of either residence or rent-income; both of which are material products they receive as anything but the fruits of their own labor.
(It must be equally noted, should the biological offspring of the propertied classes choose to enroll in collegiate studies of their own, chances are, upon completion of these respective studies, they are far more likely to have comparatively diminutive economic debts versus the proletarian students as cited above. Due of course to the available economic assistance of their biological parents, members of the propertied classes.)
We may perhaps conclude:
When accounting for the economic mode of production of the immediate, of which the American commonwealth is uniformly subjected to, free trade; private economic relations and private property relations and the free markets that reside within them in the United States of America, the proletarian thesis would seem to be validated. We speak here of the last remaining vestige of serfdom in spite of the violent, historical bourgeois revolutions that progressively brought such property relations to a general end. The permissible rights of inheritance under the existing set of private property relations are but one material embryo and conduit of what can be defined as, for all intents and purposes, contemporary feudal enterprises. A really full democracy by definition even in ’The Land of the Free’, cannot coexist side by side with this vestigial, social relationship of production. Needless to state, nor can the victorious political administration’s theoretical platform and widely sophistical platitude.
In so far as the preceding rhetorical juxtaposition is presented, we humbly inquire of the victorious political administration’s celebrated incumbent: Materially speaking, what on Earth could these two children possibly have in common? How could they possibly embark upon a material course in equilibrium, with “a fair shot, doing their fair share, playing by the same rules”? Political posturing aside, the answer be it a rational one, is the same as the modern proletarian’s:
Little or nothing; They could not. Cannot. And therefore do not.
It would seem therefore from a fully democratic point of view, that the victorious political administration’s theoretical platform is not only inherently flawed, but powerless to explore, let alone reveal the legitimately populist solution that a transparently exhausted, broken nation is desperate to espouse for the sake of not only the prosperity of its people…but the prosperity of their kin.
Meanwhile, there is another theoretical solution to the socioeconomic rigors that a growing number of Americans are facing. These same rigors can be found in all corners of the world, only with infinitely worse ramifications for those inhabitants personified in such a struggle.
All proletarian democracy is asking for, is the legitimate social and political opportunity to present it. According to the dialectic in place, it must not be long before such an inquiry, is appropriately replaced by a demand.