Ask A Red: The IVth International

[aelf]

The robber thing is just an analogy with some history.

Being self-employed may be a solution, yes, but whether or not it's a sustainable one for a lot of people depends on what you mean by that.

 

[Borachio]

I suppose by self-employed I mean what is conventionally meant.

Isn't it someone who doesn't have an "employer" who pays their wage and takes a cut from what they produce? (In your terms, I assume.)

So, a self-employed person is someone who finds their own work as a builder, hairdresser, garage mechanic, plumber etc. by advertising their services and establishing a more or less informal/formal contract with their customer.

Another alternative to working for the robbers of industry, is to work for a workers cooperative. Or maybe some other non-profit organization, like the NHS, or any other government-run enterprise, or a charity (though I expect many of those could be said to make a profit anyway).

I'm not sure seeing the world in binary terms of exploiter and exploited is particularly helpful, and, for me, it wouldn't be healthy either.

But I expect I'm overlooking something.

 

[aelf]

No, more like you're looking for stuff you think exists but don't.

I'm not sure where you're getting the vision of "the world in binary terms of exploiter and exploited". The robber analogy to your statement? I'm pretty sure all Marxists would agree that there are plenty of other kinds of relationships between people.

Self-employed could be seen in narrow conventional terms. But you could also be considered self-employed if you co-own, say, a factory with other people. Seriously, I have to say you seem to be suffering from a lack of imagination if all you can do is conceive of things in the way they are normally conceived today. "Oh, but if capitalists can't earn profits who would employ all those workers?" This thread is not really for answering stuff like that. There's the Tavern for that.

Is that your only question?

 

[Borachio]

Seriously, I have to say you seem to be suffering from a lack of imagination if all you can do is conceive of things in the way they are normally conceived today.

Good grief. I can imagine things in all sorts of unconventional ways, I believe. But conversations generally progress along some kind of shared meanings.

What you seem to be saying is that everyone who is not employed is self-employed. Is that correct? Or can you be unemployed? Is the Queen unemployed, for instance?

Is that your only question?

No, indeed. I have thousands hundreds a few questions. I'm just trying to pick my way through it all.

But if you don't think you can handle it, just say so and I'll keep quiet.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Borachio: if I may assist. The relationship of worker to Capital is the question, I believe. Marxists have a weltanshauung that sees Sides: the primary contradiction being labour versus capital -- or, rather, the class conscious detachment of labour (the proletariat, who does not privately own the means of production, nor does it hope to) versus the bourgeoisie.

The shopkeeper has no closer relationship to owning the means of production than the factory worker. And until each sees this relationship, they usually don't think od themselves being in the same boat, even though the shop keeper is self-employed.

No matter how you lok at it, the boureoisie extract surplus value at every transaction. Look at my student loan example above.


The only alternative for Marxist is to choose a side - that is, if you want to work for the bourgeosie, you do so on the proviso that you attach to that work what you hope to accomplish through that work.

If you choose to withdraw your labour power from the bourgeoisie, as I have done, you build your own system. That is why Communists seek to change the existing social order -- so that the means of production are socially owned.

I hope this helps.



Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[aelf]

Good grief. I can imagine things in all sorts of unconventional ways, I believe. But conversations generally progress along some kind of shared meanings.

What you seem to be saying is that everyone who is not employed is self-employed. Is that correct? Or can you be unemployed? Is the Queen unemployed, for instance?

No. Again, I'm not sure where you're reading this. This conversation, as you call it, is really weird. You keep going off in some random direction and it's kind of atypical, even for the conversations I have over here.

All I was saying is that to work for yourself, you don't necessarily have to be some kind of entrepreneur or a petit bourgeoisie. Joining a cooperative, for example, may be one way of doing so (though I'm no expert on labour organisation myself so I couldn't write you a thesis on that).

No, indeed. I have thousands hundreds a few questions. I'm just trying to pick my way through it all.

But if you don't think you can handle it, just say so and I'll keep quiet.

Oh, so now it becomes a matter of my being unable to handle your level of conversation. Perhaps. As typical of whenever self-assured enquirers come into this thread, it turns out the Marxists just aren't as smart as them.

It's okay, you should seek your satisfaction elsewhere.

 

[Borachio]

@Borachio: if I may assist. The relationship of worker to Capital is the question, I believe. Marxists have a weltanshauung that sees Sides: the primary contradiction being labour versus capital -- or, rather, the class conscious detachment of labour (the proletariat, who does not privately own the means of production, nor does it hope to) versus the bourgeoisie.

The shopkeeper has no closer relationship to owning the means of production than the factory worker. And until each sees this relationship, they usually don't think od themselves being in the same boat, even though the shop keeper is self-employed.

I'm not sure I agree. Isn't the shopkeeper the archetypical petit bourgeois? If he owns the shop, he owns the means of production. If he has an outstanding mortgage on the shop, then the bank owns the means of production, but the shopkeeper is an aspiring capitalist. No?

No matter how you lok at it, the boureoisie extract surplus value at every transaction. Look at my student loan example above.

I agree that capitalism is based on making a profit. Unless its state capitalism, I suppose.

The only alternative for Marxist is to choose a side - that is, if you want to work for the bourgeosie, you do so on the proviso that you attach to that work what you hope to accomplish through that work.

I can see that Marxists think you have to choose your side of the class conflict. (If that's what you saying).

I don't understand what you mean by "if you want to work for the bourgeoise (you mean if you want to be employed?), you do so on the proviso that you attach to that work what you hope to accomplish through that work" (the hope of making a living? nonono you can't mean that, I'm guessing).

If you choose to withdraw your labour power from the bourgeoisie, as I have done, you build your own system. That is why Communists seek to change the existing social order -- so that the means of production are socially owned.

Yes, I can see that you think that. I'm not sure you really have done so, though. But that might be a little hard for me to explain. Especially without exasperating aelf.

@aelf.
Not the for the first time have you misinterpreted what I've said! I meant if you couldn't manage to "talk down" to my level, then you should say so. You must surely appreciate, by now, that I'm in no position to consider myself anyone's intellectual superior.

It seems to be a feature of Marxism to use a lot of jargon - which can be impenetrable, imo. I'm not sure why this is so. Perhaps it's because Marx was a C19th German.

I suppose why I'm concentrating on the employed/self-employed dichotomy (if indeed it's valid to do so, and I'm not sure it is), is that it seems a rather crucial point.

And possibly the reason why I seem to be going off on tangents here and there is perhaps because it isn't entirely clear to me how this in fact operates. Of course I can see that people seem to be divided this way, but, to reiterate, I'm not absolutely sure that they are.

Fundamentally, all there is is human effort to take certain items (like rocks) they find in the world and turn them to some human purpose. This is the age-old activity, and it's been organized collectively in various ways, of which the capitalist system is one. And I'm not sure that capital isn't a commodity just like any other.

 

[aelf]

It seems to be a feature of Marxism to use a lot of jargon

What jargon have I been using?

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure you have.

You must understand I don't have some ready formed critique of Marxism which I can present to you. So I'm just writing stuff down as it comes into my head.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I'm not sure I agree. Isn't the shopkeeper the archetypical petit bourgeois? If he owns the shop, he owns the means of production. If he has an outstanding mortgage on the shop, then the bank owns the means of production, but the shopkeeper is an aspiring capitalist. No?

Yes, and what I was saying is that the material relationship to Capital is similar, regardless of the aspiration. This is the notion of historic self interest. The shopkeeper depends on income from people like the factory worker. Their interests are tied together.

A shop is not the means of production, more like a means of distribution. CONTROL of the MEANS of production, which have shifted more to finance capital versus magnate/ industrial capital, is way out of reach for 99.9% of the population

I agree that capitalism is based on making a profit. Unless its state capitalism, I suppose.

State capitalism still relies on the profit motive, though. Socialism relies on a similar motive - the more you work the more you get -- the differeence is in who is in control of the work. Workers under socialiam cab actually live on what they will earn, and surplus value will go for the commin good versus private gain.

To me, Cuba is a shininh example of thid: they have gone through every crisis you can think of and prevailed: simulated "peak oil" when the USSR dissolved; food and education deficits; lack of doctors -- and because they made the problem socisl, society banded together to fix it.

I can see that Marxists think you have to choose your side of the class conflict. (If that's what you saying).

I don't understand what you mean by "if you want to work for the bourgeoise (you mean if you want to be employed?), you do so on the proviso that you attach to that work what you hope to accomplish through that work" (the hope of making a living? nonono you can't mean that, I'm guessing).

My example not clear? I had a job for 5-1/2 years that paid $25,000 a year in 1987 and all I thought of it was that it paid for the things I wanted to do. No job = no life.

More to come...


Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[Takhisis]

Oh come on, the only real aim of the Cuban government is to keep the Adidas-wearing Castros in power with a police state and widespread corruption, such a regime can only exist by being on an island.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Oh come on, the only real aim of the Cuban government is to keep the Adidas-wearing Castros in power with a police state and widespread corruption, such a regime can only exist by being on an island.

I beg to differ. It is perhaps the freest country in the Western Hemisphere.

Careful, this is a Q & A thread Takh.

Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[ArneHD]

How would you define capitalism? I thought about it and suddenly could not think of a good answer.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

How would you define capitalism? I thought about it and suddenly could not think of a good answer.

Right. Good question. Marx spent 40 years defining an critiqueing capitalism, and wrote thousands o pages explaining it, but here goes:

Capitalism (or,as Adam Smith called it "the natural order") is the sytemic of economy where the means of production (as in consumable and durable goods) are privately owned and control of the means of production (i.e. Capital) is in the hands of a class known as the bourgoisie -- which by nature are few. Under capitalism, those possessing control
Of capital invest in commodities which they oversee production and sales of the surplus value of which they retain fo personal profit.
It is the nature of capitalism that capital concentrates itself into fewer and fewer hands, asit is in the interests of the bourgeoisie to buy low, sell high and keep wages down - which leads to many problems, like lack of a consumer base.

I could go on, but that's it in a nutshell.

Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[Traitorfish]

How would you define capitalism? I thought about it and suddenly could not think of a good answer.

In a sentence,

The organisation of social labour as value.

Which isn't very helpful, I'll grant you, but that's why Marx had to spend a thousand-plus pages explaining what that means.

 

[Tahuti]

To me, Cuba is a shininh example of thid: they have gone through every crisis you can think of and prevailed: simulated "peak oil" when the USSR dissolved; food and education deficits; lack of doctors -- and because they made the problem socisl, society banded together to fix it.

Don't you think that making problems social cause risks sacrificing individual accountability?

Capitalism (or,as Adam Smith called it "the natural order") is the sytemic of economy where the means of production (as in consumable and durable goods) are privately owned and control of the means of production (i.e. Capital) is in the hands of a class known as the bourgoisie -- which by nature are few.

Why are the bourgoisie by nature few? If taken as synonym for middle class - sorry If I'm totally wrong here - then it seems that in the West, the bourgoisie have overtaken the working classes, in numbers. Apparently, the working classes have "joined" the bourgoisie. Don't you think that has serious implication for Marxian predictions?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Bourgeoisie" is only a synonym for "middle class" if you died before 1850.

 

[Lone Wolf]

High-paid, non-'manager position' workers are still working class, yeah. What about the petty-bourgeois, though?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Don't you think that making problems social cause risks sacrificing individual accountability?

No, because it's in everyone's self-interest to solve the problem. Individual respinsibility and collective action. My organizations work like that. You give your inout and we come to consensus and everyone does what they can.

Why are the bourgoisie by nature few? If taken as synonym for middle class - sorry If I'm totally wrong here - then it seems that in the West, the bourgoisie have overtaken the working classes, in numbers. Apparently, the working classes have "joined" the bourgoisie. Don't you think that has serious implication for Marxian predictions?

The bourgeoisie are not yhe middle class anymore, as TF points out. They are the ruling class. They are few because they keep eating up the smaller concerns. Then they come after the workers.


Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[Traitorfish]

High-paid, non-'manager position' workers are still working class, yeah. What about the petty-bourgeois, though?

On the issue of class, I tend to follow E.P.Thompson in thinking that social classes can't be defined abstractly, as permanent institutions of which any given individual is merely an expression. Social classes in this sense are found already-existing and only then propelled into motion, they are formed through collective practice, through social conflict that in producing and exposing certain fissures within society takes on the character of a conflict of classes. Where the artisan, the small-trader or the small farmer finds himself in this conflict, whether he realises himself as a poorly-integrated worker or as a petty-boss, can only be discovered historically, from where these people actually fall in the real struggle, and not deduced from our abstract categories.

In short, it remains to be seen.