Introduction
I thought it appropriate to inquire into whether there are (or rather were) capitalist corporations in Palestine that exploit their workers since the left here in Toronto tend to idealize Palestine. Of course, even if there are capitalist corporations, they may be somewhat indirectly controlled by other than Palestinian capitalists; I leave that issue for others to determine.
Of course, Palestinian workers are probably superexploited by Israeli capitalists–allthough it may be difficult to separate out Palestinian workers from other workers. If that is the case, then exploitation and nationalism are linked, with Israeli workers less exploited than Palestinian workers. (I may inquire into the rate of exploitation of workers of Israeli companies in the future).
Toronto leftists sympathetic to Palestine under the current situation generally fall in the category of Marxists who define the conflict between Palestine and Israel mainly in political terms, where the main conflict or contradiction is just that conflict,without regard to the issue of exploitation and capitalism (except as a sort of afterthought by referring to imperialism and capitalism without any further consideration of the issue).
I do wonder what this one-sided focus on Palestine at the expense of the issue of, on the one hand, exploitation and the consequences of capitalism, on the other hand, and the issue of the creation of a society without a class of employers–a socialist society.
Many among the left now use the slogan ““From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” But how does that link to the creation of a socialist society? Or should leftists not try to connect the slogan to the creation of a socialist society? Should they fly from one crisis to another without trying to connect up a critique of such a crisis with the working and living conditions of regular people? How, for example, might Canadian workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers interpret the slogan? Apart from the issue of the two-state versus one state solution in the area, most I suspect would interpret it as some variant of a capitalist society, with employers hiring workers, with civil liberties in one form or another and an elected government every few years. Such a slogan does nothing to enlighten them about the nature of their own country and society and to organize them into a fighting group capable of challenging the power of the class of employers.
Outrage over the killing of children in Palestine is certainly justified–but then why the silence about the daily silent killing of children through unnecessary malnutrition because of capitalist production and exchange relations? From Robert Albritton (2009), Let Them Eat Junk: How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity, page 80 (quoting several authors):
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that … some 3 billion people, suffer from malnutrition of one form or another …. Hunger afflicts at least 1.1 billion people, while another 1.1 billion consume more than they need …. Hunger, overeating, and micronutrient deficiencies, for example, account for an estimated half or more of the world’s
burden of disease …. More than 5 million children die of hunger-related diseases each year, while survivors are often physically or mentally stunted …. Meanwhile millions of people in wealthy countries spend years or even decades late in life crippled with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or other diseases attributable at least in part to overeating.1It is an outrage that in the twenty-first century one child under the age of five will die every five seconds from hunger-related diseases …. Hunger will kill more people than all the wars fought this year. Yet where is the fight against hunger?
If one child under five dies from hunger-related diseases every five seconds, then 17, 280 children under five-years old die from hunger-related diseases a day ((1,440 minutes in a day x 60 seconds /5 seconds-17,280). Between October 8 until December 21 inclusive, then, 777,600 children under five have died from hunger-related diseases. There is, however, little protest over this fact–a fact that would not exist if we lived, not in a capitalist society, but rather in a rational socialist society since there is sufficient food for everyone on this planet. From Albritton, pages 87-88:
It has often been noted that we can produce enough food to provide a healthful diet to everyone in the world without damage to the environment. Since good diet is the basis of human health, and since providing food in ways that are environmentally friendly is
crucially important ecologically, a rational economic system would take these goals as the highest priority. Judged by such criteria our economic system is a miserable failure.
The left here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere) draw little connection between fighting against the genocide that has occurred in Gaza and the West Bank and the fight for a socialist society. It seems, rather, that the left react to crises without aiming for anything other than stopping the immediate crisis (recently, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, now the Israeli genocide against Palestinians). There is no distinction between strategy (aiming for a socialist society) and tactics (addressing immediate needs and problems). (For such a distinction, see the post The Idealization of International Law by the Social-Democratic or Social-Reformist Left: The Case of the Genocide of the Palestinians by the Israeli Government).
Indeed, the focus seems to be exclusively on “Palestine” against “Israel” and the United States (although, of course, the United States is one of the major opponents to the creation of a socialist society).
The focus on countries rather than the wider social issues should not lead to one-sided analyses of the situation in Palestine and Israel. Two such one-sides analyses are Marxisms that focus mainly on the conlict between the two, and Marxisms that relegate that conflict to a minor issue when compared to the capitalist nature of the countries.
As Oded Nir (2020) has written, in “Israel’s Two Marxisms,” in 231-256, New Understanding of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, pages 245-246:
The first approach (arguing for the primacy of the economic) begins by asserting capitalism as the totalizing force: more and more parts of reality becoming structured by capitalism, either in the external limitations put on them, or in their very structure. The organization of the world in a totality here, as it is for Georg Lukács (Lukács 1971,
90), not some methodological first principle or belief, but the result of a historical development – the expansion of capitalism. That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, in the last analysis, of the same order as capitalism’s contradiction, is a way of articulating in thought this totalizing process in reality.
Nadir characterizes the first approach as the more subjectivist approach whereas the second approach is the more objectivist approach. Neither approach is sufficient to characterize the Palestinian and Israel conflict, he implies, and he suggests that what is needed is a synthesis of the two. Pages 251-252:
It should be clear by now that it is not the case that one of the two variants of thinking discussed in this article is the true Israeli Marxism, while the other is fake or misleading. For it can be asserted that a fully-fledged Marxism is precisely one that can somehow
unite the two, in a specific context – the political project and the different understanding of all of reality that it implies coinciding in some original and productive way with the analysis of the objective system of capitalism and its contradictions. The invention of this
unity – always ephemeral and stubbornly depending on sheer belief just as much as facts – is precisely the temporary solution for the gap between the two kinds of “Marxism.” And so the final point of this essay is the following: that, perhaps surprisingly, it is not the case that there is already in existence some correct position of Israeli Marxism, waiting to be taken up by parties, organizers, and the masses. No: this Marxist position is still waiting to be invented, coinciding completely neither with the objective description of the system, nor with a subjective structuring of all reality in the name of achieving a goal.
Although the focus on the conflict between Palestine and Israel may not be reducible to capitalist economic relations, the tendency of the left to idealize Palestine while throwing in here and there the words “imperialist” (related to the United States) and “capitalist” without in any way linking this to the daily lives of those in Canada who are exploited and oppressed by employers hardly enlightens workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers about the nature of exploitation and oppression in Canada; indeed, I suspect that many who support Palestine and oppose Israeli’s genocidal efforts are social democrats or reformers who do not consider working for an employer to require a radical change by creating a socialist society without a class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures.
Marxists need to engage in a critique of capitalist exploitation and oppression wherever it occurs and in whatever form–but you would not know that such exploitation and oppression has occurred in Palestine (apart from Israeli exploitation and oppression of Palestinians).
The following thus has a political purpose: to inquire into the extent to which Palestinian PADICO Holding workers are exploited by PADICO Holding (Palestine Development and Investment, Ltd.).
What is PADICO Holding? I use two sources for characterizing it. Firstly, from Adam Hanieh (2015), Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States, pages 162-163:
The Masri family, along with a handful of other Palestinians closely linked to accumulation in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council], dominates the economy of the PA-controlled areas in the West Bank.16 In addition to direct ownership of companies in the West Bank, Masri founded and is the key private investor in the Palestine Development and Investment Company (PADICO), a massive holding company that is the most important economic entity in the Palestinian territories—controlling the major companies in the sectors of real estate, industry, hotels, and telecommunications. PADICO holds 80 percent of the Palestinian Stock Exchange, as well as a large share of the first Palestinian telecommunications company, Paltel. The chair of PADICO is Munib al Masri, with Sabih al Masri also sitting on the company’s board. Other signifi cant investors in PADICO include Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Group and the Arab Bank.
Many of the subsidiaries of PADICO are, moreover, closely linked to other GCC capital. The Kuwaiti private equity company, Global Investment House, for example, has two seats on the board (including vice-chair) of the Palestine Real Estate Investment Company (PRICO), the most important real estate company in the West Bank. The Jordan Kuwait Bank (a subsidiary of Kuwait’s Burgan Bank) and the Housing Bank for Trade and Finance (see Table 6.1) are both represented on the board of the Palestine Industrial Estate Development Company, a PADICO subsidiary responsible for building industrial zones in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding is a major investor in PADICO’s Jerusalem Development and Investment Co. (JEDICO), a major real estate developer in Jerusalem. These patterns are replicated throughout most of PADICO’s subsidiaries.
But PADICO and the Masri family are more than just investors in the West Bank—they have also played a central role in Palestinian economic development strategy. Maher Masri, a member of the Masri family and former General Manager of one of PADICO’s subsidiaries, was the Palestinian Minister of Economy and Trade from 1996–2005. In this
position, Masri was a strong advocate of free-market policies and directed the Palestinian Industrial Estates and Free Zones Area, which sought to establish industrial zones at the edges of Palestinian towns and villages. This trajectory of Palestinian economic development continued after Masri left the ministry, and is best encapsulated in the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan for 2008–2010 (PRDP), which became the
official PA economic strategy in November 2007 following the extensive efforts of the
World Bank and other international fi nancial institutions. The PRDP promotes an aggressive neoliberal policy, aimed at private-sector-driven economic growth and cutting back the social expenditure of the PA (Hanieh 2008). PADICO has played a major role in supporting the plan, with subsidiaries such as the Palestine Industrial Estate Development Company launching industrial zones in line with its development component. In addition, PADICO was a principal organizer of a major international conference convened in Bethlehem in May 2008 to promote the PRDP and attract foreign support and investment.
Secondly, from the PADICO Holding 2019 annual report:
Palestine Development and Investment, Ltd. (PADICO Holding) was established in 1993 as a public shareholding company with limited liability, and listed in the Palestinian Exchange (PEX). The company has since been dedicated to contributing to the development and enhancement of the Palestinian economy, alongside both the public and private sectors by aiming its investments at vital economic sectors.
Over the past 25 years, PADICO Holding has continued to achieve great strides in the
Palestinian economy and prove its ability to engage large-scale investment projects, despite operating under challenging political and economic circumstances. The company boasts a Board of Directors filled with experts in their fields, which has contributed to the enhancement of the company’s vision and the development of a more flexible strategy in accordance with local, regional and international standards.
The Nature of the Rate of Exploitation
But what is the rate of exploitation? And why not use the usual rate of profit or the rate of return? The rate of profit is calculated as profit divided by investment. Since employers purchase both the means for work–buildings, computers, office supplies, raw material–and hire workers–we can classify investment into two categories: c, meaning constant capital, or the capital invested in commodities other than workers; and v, or variable capital, the capital invested in the hiring of workers for a certain period of time (wages, salaries and benefits).
The purpose of investment in a capitalist economy is to obtain more money (see The Money Circuit of Capital), and the additional money is surplus value when it is related to its source: workers working for more time than what they cost to produce themselves. The relation between surplus value and variable capital (or wages and salaries) is the rate of surplus value or the rate of exploitation, expressed as a ratio: s/v.
When the surplus is related to both c and v and expressed as a ratio, it is the rate of profit: s/(c+v).
In Marxian economics, you cannot simply use the economic classifications provided by employers and governments since such classifications often hide the nature of the social world in which we live. The rate of profit underestimates the rate of exploitation since the surplus value is related to total investment and not just to the workers. Furthermore, it makes the surplus value appear to derive from both constant capital and variable capital.
I decided to look at the annual report of some of the largest private companies (if they are available) in order to calculate the rate of exploitation at a more micro level than aggregate rates of surplus value at the national or international level. Politically, this is necessary since social democrats here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere) vaguely may refer to exploitation–while simultaneously and contradictorily referring to “decent work” and “fair contracts.” Calculating even approximately the rate of exploitation at a more micro level thus has political relevance.
Conclusions First
As usual, I start with the conclusion in order to make readily accessible the results of the calculations for those who are more interested in the results than in how to obtain them.
The Rate of Exploitation of PADICO Holding Workers
To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Final Adjusted Surplus value (s)” (34,697) by “Variable capital (v) (16,216).
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular PADICO worker receives, PADICO receives $2.14 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a PADICO worker works 2 hours 8 minutes for free for PADICO. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 19 minutes and works for free for 41 minutes for PADICO.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 1 hour 55 minutes (115 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 5 minutes (245 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 14 minutes (134 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 46 minutes (286 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 33 minutes (153 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 5 hours 27 minutes (327 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 52 minutes (172 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 8 minutes (368 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 3 hours 11 minutes (191 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 49 minutes (409 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 3 hours 49 minutes (229 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 8 hours 11 minutes (491 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
PADICO Holding workers, as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong), do not belong to a union. Would their becoming unionized turn their situation into one where they had a “fair contract” and “decent work?” I think not. Unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop collective organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized? If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
More generally, should not the issue of how Palestinian workers are exploited or superexploited on a daily basis be addressed, whether by national capitalists or foreign capitalists? And should not all issues be linked to a struggle for a society without a class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures?
Data on Which the Calculation Is Based
The calculation of the rate of exploitation is undoubtedly imperfect, and I invite the reader to correct its gaps. Nonetheless, the lack of any attempt to determine the rate of exploitation at the city level has undoubtedly reinforced social-reformist tendencies.
Surplus Value (Profit)
Revenue
Revenues from contracts with customers 80,337
PADICO’s share of associates’ results of operations (note 10) 32,913
Gains from financial assets portfolio 28 1,741
Rent revenues 6,448
121,439 [80,337+32,913+1,741=121,439]
Expenses
Operating costs and expenses 29 (64,132)
General and administrative expenses (30) (15,016)
Finance costs (14,669)
Depreciation and amortization 32 (10,150)
17,472 [121,439-64,132-15,016-14,669-10,150=17,472]
Other provisions and expenses, net 33) (1,256)
Profit before income tax 16,216 [17,472-1,256=16,216]
Adjustments of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
In Marxian economics, it is necessary to make certain adjustments since some categories that an annual report uses do not reflect accurately the amount of surplus value (profit) and variable capital (wages/salaries and benefits) the specific capitalist produces or obtains. I will also exclude some categories from adjustments when appropriate and will explain why I do so.
I will address some of the items in the above account in order, with the exception of “General and administrative expenses,” which I will address in the section on variable capital (wages/salaries and benefits).
First Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
PADICO’s share of associates’ results of operations
This category refers to joint ventures, where PADICO jointly exploits workers in combination with other capitalist companies. Only if PADICO participated only on a very limited level in the exploitaiton of workers in such joint ventures should such a category and its corresponding amounts be omitted from the calculation of the exploitation of its workers.
Note 10 has the following to say about the two least controlled companies:
Although PADICO’s ownership percentage in Golden Wheat Mills Company and Jordan
Vegetable Oil Industry Company is less than 20%, PADICO has representation in these
associates’ board of directors that can influence the financial and operating policies of
these companies. Accordingly, PADICO investments in these companies are classified as
investment in associates.
No adjustment is thus required for this category.
Finance costs (14,669)
In Marxian theory, it is necessary to question whether some expenses are expenses for both the individual employer and for the class of employers (and fractions of their class, such as those who live on interest). When they are expenses at the macro level of the class of employers and not just at the micro level of the particular employer, the expense is deducted from total revenue. On the other hand, there are expenses that are expenses for the individual employer but are not expenses when looked at from the point of view of the class of employers; in such an instance, they are paid out from the surplus value produced or obtained by workers and are to be included in income before taxes.
Accordingly, this needs to be added to “Profit before income tax”:
First Temporarily Adjusted Surplus Value (s) or Profit (before income tax) 30,885
Second Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
To determine the second and subsequent adjustments of surplus value or profit, it is necessary take into account the category “General and Administrative Expenses” and its subcategories, which also have to do with the calculation of variable capital or v (wages/salaries and benefits).
Note 30 has the following subcategories for the category “General and Administrative Expenses”:
Salaries and related benefits 6,001
Selling, advertising and public relations expenses 2,685
Consultancy and professional fees 1,188
Subscriptions, fees and licenses 911
Board of directors’ fees and expenses 592
Rent and general services 1,415
Travel and transportation 669
Insurances 368
Telephone, fax and courier 208
Donations and sponsorships 167
Conferences, meetings and hospitality 158
Stationery and printings 82
Others 572
15,016 [6,001+2,685+1,188+911+592+1,415+669+368+208+167+158+82+572=15,016]
Selling, advertising and public relations expenses 2,685
Expenses associated with the transfer of already produced commodities is a deduction from the total surplus value produced from the class or aggregate point of view. From the individual capitalist’s point of view, of course, such expenses are indeed a cost, but it is necessary to treat the category from the macro or class point of view and not the distorted micro point of view of the individual capitalist. Accordingly:
Second Temporarily Adjusted Surplus Value (s) or Profit (before income tax) 33,570 [30,885+2,685=33,570]
Third Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Board of directors’ fees and expenses 592
The reasoning for including these expenses as part of surplus value is that this compensation is not mainly for the coordination of the work of others but for the exploitation of others–it is pure surplus value. Accordingly:
Third Temporarily Adjusted Surplus Value (s) or Profit (before income tax) 34,162 [33,570+592=34,162]
Fourth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Insurances 368
Like individual insurance policies, insurance paid by a capitalist firm is a cost–but it is really a mere transfering of wealth from the profit of one capitalist firm to another one. Accordingly:
Fourth Temporarily Adjusted Surplus Value (s) or Profit (before income tax) 34,530 [34,162+368=34,530]
Fifth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Donations and sponsorships 167
Capitalist firms often want to appear to be “socially responsible” and, after exploiting workers, use part of the surplus value for that purpose for philanthropical purposes–to which this subcategory attests. Accordingly, it is necessary to add the amount:
Fifth and Final Adjusted Surplus Value (s) or Profit (before income tax) 34,697 [34,530+167=34,697]
Conferences, meetings and hospitality 158
It is not clear to me whether this subcategory should be included as a real expense or funded through surplus value. Since it is not clear, I will not change the calcuation based on this subcategory.
Variable Capital (v) or Wages/salaries and benefits
Profit before income tax 16,216
The Rate of Exploitation of PADICO Holding Workers
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=34,697/16,216=214%.
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular PADICO worker receives, PADICO receives $2.14 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a PADICO worker works 2 hours 8 minutes for free for PADICO. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 19 minutes and works for free for 41 minutes for PADICO.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
I have been unable to find any specific references to the number of hours PADICO workers work per day. I will assume a variable working day of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 hours.
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 1 hour 55 minutes (115 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 5 minutes (245 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 14 minutes (134 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 46 minutes (286 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 33 minutes (153 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 5 hours 27 minutes (327 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 2 hours 52 minutes (172 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 8 minutes (368 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 3 hours 11 minutes (191 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 49 minutes (409 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, an individual PADICO worker spends 3 hours 49 minutes (229 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 8 hours 11 minutes (491 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for PADICO.
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
PADICO Holding workers, as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong), do not belong to a union. Would their becoming unionized turn their situation into one where they had a “fair contract” and “decent work?” I think not. Unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop collective organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized? If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
More generally, should not the issue of how Palestinian workers are exploited or superexploited on a daily basis be addressed, whether by national capitalists or foreign capitalists? And should not all issues be linked to a struggle for a society without a class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures?
The Abolitionary 