Income-based class vs Marxist (Production) based class

[Invincible Summer]

So we all know how in the mainstream parlance, class distinctions are usually based around income. Marxists/some Anarchists would posit that this is incorrect, all those who do not own the means of production are working class, etc.


But if we think about class character, then production ownership aside, what does the person making $60,000/year as a computer analyst or something have in common with the person who makes $20,000/year doing an equally non-capitalist (in terms of production ownership) job?

Their lifestyles, what they value, etc, may very well be different due to their income. How are they supposed to feel solidarity when they don't even seem to be able to share anything other than some definition of what they are by some German guy in the 1800s?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I think all workers have class consciousness, even if they earn a goodie, we know that we are exploited. You can see that in for example pilots, whos has a far more higher salary than the average proletarian, yet they tend to go out on strike (along with stewards and other air-line workers) when they face cuts in material ore saleries, shitier working conditions and so on, because still of theire salary, this actions shows how the relationship towards the production is essential and that people in this position tend to be aware of it and why marxs theories is right, once again no matter how high theire salary is they are exploited.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think all workers have class consciousness, even if they earn a goodie, we know that we are exploited. You can see that in for example pilots, whos has a far more higher salary than the average proletarian, yet they tend to go out on strike (along with stewards and other air-line workers) when they face cuts in material ore saleries, shitier working conditions and so on, because still of theire salary, this actions shows how the relationship towards the production is essential and that people in this position tend to be aware of it and why marxs theories is right, once again no matter how high theire salary is they are exploited.
But this example has nothing to do with the problem outlined by OP. What about inter-sector solidarity, between let's say pilots and teachers?

[bailey_187]

I think two workers with differing salaries have more common interests than a owner of a small business who makes as much profit as an average worker is paid.

The business owner would favour flexible labour laws, so they can hire and fire as they wish, while workers in all income brackets want to have job security. The business owner would favour business tax cuts because it would increase their profits, the workers would not as it is likley to be paid for by increase in tax on them or cuts in services they use. There are many similar policies, which, for reasons of self-interest, workers of differing pay brackets and a business owner would have very differnet views on, even if the small business owner was drawing in similar profit to what a worker earns in wages

[Widerstand]

God how I hated all those three thousand different models of how to define "classes" in school. In fact so much, that, when first exposed to the Marxist definition, I instinctively rejected it as "more of that bullshit".

We were introduced to a number of models of German society. The so-called "House model" by Rainer Geißler, in which "social layers" are defined by income, education, status of residence (foreigners or domestics) and "power" (I think, as in, influence over political decisions, however he measured that, I don't know).
Then we had two "social context" models, the "Sinus Mileus", which describes different social environments according to Material status (income, I suppose), and political views, and the "agis Mileus", which more or less does the same thing, but with "political influence" instead of material status, I believe.

Personally I think they are utterly useless for anything other than giving sociologists an excuse to do tons of research and polls, give them a good reason to mentally jerk each other off in debates over the nature of the individual layers/contexts, and give politicians some pretty images to talk about on national TV. Well, rant off.



But if we think about class character, then production ownership aside, what does the person making $60,000/year as a computer analyst or something have in common with the person who makes $20,000/year doing an equally non-capitalist (in terms of production ownership) job?

Their lifestyles, what they value, etc, may very well be different due to their income. How are they supposed to feel solidarity when they don't even seem to be able to share anything other than some definition of what they are by some German guy in the 1800s?

They have something in common, namely what the German guy in the 1800s defined: They don't own the means of production. They are, however, both dependent on the means of production. Sure, some are far better off than others. For instance, a worker in the USA is better off than a sweatshop worker in China. In the same sense, a computer analyst surely is better off than a slaughterhouse worker. But, aren't they still both wage slaves? Does it really matter if one's chain is elastic and stretches while the other one's is spiked?

About different values, lifestyles, political views, etc. Are those EVER uniform? They differ from McDonalds worker to McDonalds employee already! Does it matter that they differ? Well, of course, but does that mean that the McDonalds employees are not essentially in the same class?

We need to find a way to make people realize, that, despite their social differences (values, lifestyles, political views, etc.), they are on the same side of capitalism: They are all wage slaves the same as each other. That is what should create solidarity, not some social/mental constructs like bourgeois politics, lifestyles or morals.

[syndicat]

when you point out that workers who have different incomes share some important conditions in common, you're sort of getting at why a non-income approach to class makes sense. if class is a form of oppression, of domination, then this creates an antagonistic division, between boses and workers. what we see here is that class is a relation between groups.

class is not the only thing that determines income share in the economy but it is a major cause of this. other things include organizational power (of managers, judges etc), skills and education (if they're in demand), recent level of worker unity and organization (whether you have a union or not), also racial and sexual inequality, but the ownership of business assets is the biggest division in terms of income and power in the system.

the basic subordination of workers is due to the capitalists' monopoly of ownership of assets for production. but then there is also a bureaucratic control layer, managers and the like, who the capitalists need to control workers and have power over us, bigger incomes etc. so a relative monopoly over decision-making power & expertise in running firms or state is another basis of class division.

so, looking at class as a relation of domination, this leads me to say there are basicallly 3 classes, the capitalists, the bureaucratic class, and the working class. looking at class as a relation of domination also helps to indicate both why it makes exploitation possible and also why the system is unjust.

[Invincible Summer]

God how I hated all those three thousand different models of how to define "classes" in school. In fact so much, that, when first exposed to the Marxist definition, I instinctively rejected it as "more of that bullshit".

We were introduced to a number of models of German society. The so-called "House model" by Rainer Geißler, in which "social layers" are defined by income, education, status of residence (foreigners or domestics) and "power" (I think, as in, influence over political decisions, however he measured that, I don't know).
Then we had two "social context" models, the "Sinus Mileus", which describes different social environments according to Material status (income, I suppose), and political views, and the "agis Mileus", which more or less does the same thing, but with "political influence" instead of material status, I believe.

Personally I think they are utterly useless for anything other than giving sociologists an excuse to do tons of research and polls, give them a good reason to mentally jerk each other off in debates over the nature of the individual layers/contexts, and give politicians some pretty images to talk about on national TV. Well, rant off.

Yes I know exactly what you mean... I'm one of those sociologists :lol:. Well, a sociology major anyway.




They have something in common, namely what the German guy in the 1800s defined: They don't own the means of productionYeah, that's what I meant, but said it in a flippant, tongue-in-cheek way.


But, aren't they still both wage slaves? Does it really matter if one's chain is elastic and stretches while the other one's is spiked?True, but I'm sure to most people who haven't even touched a book on class struggle, it does make a world of a difference, and that's what I'm trying to get at. In what ways can we expose capitalism as rotten, but overcome this muddled-up, fairly antique conception of "class?"


About different values, lifestyles, political views, etc. Are those EVER uniform? They differ from McDonalds worker to McDonalds employee already! Does it matter that they differ? Well, of course, but does that mean that the McDonalds employees are not essentially in the same class?I mean in a broader scheme. Someone who works at McDonald's is probably not going to be able to do things that give them status, whereas an airplane pilot may be able to.


We need to find a way to make people realize, that, despite their social differences (values, lifestyles, political views, etc.), they are on the same side of capitalism: They are all wage slaves the same as each other. That is what should create solidarity, not some social/mental constructs like bourgeois politics, lifestyles or morals.Yes, this is what I'm trying to get at. I think the concept of "wage slavery" is much more effective in this day and age than Marxian concepts of "class," especially since it has been blurred and confused by various sociological schools and mainstream institutions.





so, looking at class as a relation of domination, this leads me to say there are basicallly 3 classes, the capitalists, the bureaucratic class, and the working class. looking at class as a relation of domination also helps to indicate both why it makes exploitation possible and also why the system is unjust.

I very much agree.

[Widerstand]

Yes I know exactly what you mean... I'm one of those sociologists :lol:. Well, a sociology major anyway.

Actually I thought about studying Sociology, but Psychology just seems way more interesting to me right now. I'm considering Social Psychology/Sociology joint courses, though.

Well, I sure enjoyed having semi-irrelevant discussions with my politics teacher. Trolling my cconomic liberalist teacher by suggesting to abolish the German army was just about the best thing ever. She got so desperate when her two best students at that point (some leftist reformist girl and me) were arguing against her ;D



True, but I'm sure to most people who haven't even touched a book on class struggle, it does make a world of a difference, and that's what I'm trying to get at. In what ways can we expose capitalism as rotten, but overcome this muddled-up, fairly antique conception of "class?"

Yes, this is what I'm trying to get at. I think the concept of "wage slavery" is much more effective in this day and age than Marxian concepts of "class," especially since it has been blurred and confused by various sociological schools and mainstream institutions.

Ah, yes, I definitely agree. Pretty much all leftist school of thoughts and concepts have been slaughtered for years in mainstream media. This reflects a greater issue though: The revolutionary left is in dire need of repairing their image.

Just looking at the basic assumptions that float around in the big pot of mainstream public opinion makes me somewhat rage: Anarchism is equated with rebellious teens setting stuff on fire; Communism is pretty much used as a synonym for fascism; etc.

And yes, people can easily attain the illusion of status and influence, despite still being wage slaves, and probably having the exact same psychological conditions (depression, eg.), and material dependencies as the ones of "lower" status. Our society does a good deal to divide the working class, and the reinterpretation of the term "working class" as something of "low social status", thereby creating a negative connotation, certainly adds to that.

Well, as I said, we need an image makeover. Both in aesthetics (seriously, a lot of people think of Punks, Hippies or 80yos stuck-in-the-UDSSR when you talk about any tendency of the revolutionary left; there was this picture comparing a Black Bloc to an Anarcho-Syndicalist union strike of the early 20th Century, where everyone wore suits; I think we need to get a more serious appearance if we want to be taken serious), and in semantics: If you would tell people about class struggle and communism replacing all the now-loaded words such as "working class", "bourgeois", "revolution", "means of production", "communism", "socialism", etc., I think they'd be much more open to it and sympathetic of it.

[anticap]

Any and all class bases are valid in the sense that a class is simply a group that is divided from everything else. The question is whether they tell us anything useful.

[Kiev Communard]

I have found an interesting article by prominent Analytical Marxist sociologist Eric Olin Wright on the problem of class distinctions and class definition, and I hope this will be of some use in discussing this issue:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Understanding%20Classs%20--%20NLR%2060.pdf

[Dunk]

I think our relations to the means of production most clearly determine our class, although there are gray areas that become difficult to explain. I think there's also a cultural aspect that can help to more accurately identify a person's class, which could be thought of as prestige, or maybe even your relations to the ruling class.

The following is a real-life example. If a woman is a member of a History department at a prominent university, she carriers with her the status and authority to meet power with power. She has no control over a means of production, yet she can challenge other authority figures on an equal basis because of her accreditation and position at the university, yet her income may be no more that 55K a year. Say her younger brother is a skilled laborer who drills holes in quarries and fills them with explosives with no college education, and his income may exceed 65K a year. The younger brother has a higher income, but this doesn't elevate him into another class simply because he has more purchasing power than his sister. In my view, the woman is a member of the petite bourgeoisie, and the younger brother a member of the working class.

Then again, the relations of the means of production and class distinctions become hazy when stock ownership is concerned. A wage laborer may own a small portion of stock in a very profitable company, sells it, and then owns an immense amount of financial capital. If he or she chooses to consume with the financial capital rather than to purchase the labor-power of workers in order to profit from their unpaid labor, he or she never truly makes the jump from working to capitalist class. He or she would simply be an immensely wealthy member of the working class, especially if he or she chose to continue working. Ownership of a means of production is power in this capitalist wilderness. If you do not own, you're just another consumer.

[fa2991]

I think the fact that Marxism generally doesn't take income into consideration, but only relations of production, is one of its great failures, because it leads a lot of people to make absurdly stupid definitions of "proletariat."

Did anyone else follow that retarded four-issue debate in the Industrial Worker over whether or not NFL football players were proletarian? That was ridiculous.

[NecroCommie]

First of all, high-income "workers" are rarely "pure" workers in the marxist sense. Marx was very careful about reminding that class is linear (did I use the correct english word?). Most of high-income labourers hold some sort of control over means of production. This is mostly in a manner of management and/or budget decisions and such. This observation alone dispells the need for the term "middle-class", as middle class is just an unstable hybrid between hostile capitalist and working class interests. A state or a corporation reliant on "middle-class" is completely dependant on the exploitation of outside systems to upkeep it's own impossible needs. These needs are to both give expanding priviledges to the wealthy (Shared by the middle class and the capitalists), and at the same time grant security and power to wage labourers (an interest shared by the workers and the middle class).

This sick dependance on outside capital manifests itself as imperialism, and more thorough exploitation of the diminishing "pure" working class.

While talking about a wage labourers marginal control over capital, one must remember that knowledge and education are both capital. This is also acknowledged by bourgeoisie economists. And if someone still contests this, let him build a TV station without anyone educated in electricity. As capital, education too has a market price. A worker must pay this price to gain this capital, and the capitalist must pay in order to hire, not only the worker, but the educational and skill-capital attached. However, as shown by the situation in nordic countries, eduaction too can have a dramatic decrease in value. It is therefor imperative to understand that middle-class is not those who have control over capital, but those who have control over more capital than the rest of their wage-labour population. (after all, don't all the workers hold some degree of skill?)

[Dunk]

Hmm. What do you mean by "pure"?

I was under the impression that a "worker" was a person who did not own the means of production and sold his labor-power for a wage. Do you mean anything else by "pure"?

I understand what you mean when you say that knowledge and education is also capital. Perhaps there is no need for another lens beyond Marx's to draw a clearer distinction between classes. :marx:

[La Comédie Noire]

Labor is like any commodity in a market, it gets a high price when it's scarce and low one when it's over supplied. The majority of professions are like this. Just because you make $80,000.00 today doesn't mean you'll make it tomorrow.

It's kind of interesting when you think about it. highly paid workers organize just the same as regular workers, but it's usually to reinforce their privilege in the current social order. Like Doctors, every so often they get together to discuss what should be required of medical students and what should be ethical/ unethical. While they are assuring the quality of doctors in any given country they are also throwing up barriers to make it a real pain in the ass to become a doctor. They're trying to preserve a standard of living, just like any other worker.

Of course, we all know how vicious the market can be.


Today I read a report that inflation adjusted doctors' income has declined by 25% between 1996 and 2006. http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2010/02/doctors-income-and-doctors-hours-worked.html

Pretty good post by a Doctor, seems even workers at the top of the wage ladder have complaints.

[NecroCommie]

Hmm. What do you mean by "pure"?

I was under the impression that a "worker" was a person who did not own the means of production and sold his labor-power for a wage. Do you mean anything else by "pure"?
You understand correct, but then you must also understand that most people usually own some trivial forms of capital. For example an apartment (or at least the right to rent one forwards), or a car. Both are capital in the sense that they can be transformed to income. Apartment by renting it and in relevant jobs a car can rise your income. By "pure" working class I am referring to working class that holds no capital whatsoever. People who can transform nothing into income, except their own physical labour.

[NecroCommie]

Labor is like any commodity in a market, it gets a high price when it's scarce and low one when it's over supplied. The majority of professions are like this. Just because you make $80,000.00 today doesn't mean you'll make it tomorrow.

It's kind of interesting when you think about it. highly paid workers organize just the same as regular workers, but it's usually to reinforce their privilege in the current social order. Like Doctors, every so often they get together to discuss what should be required of medical students and what should be ethical/ unethical. While they are assuring the quality of doctors in any given country they are also throwing up barriers to make it a real pain in the ass to become a doctor. They're trying to preserve a standard of living, just like any other worker.

Of course, we all know how vicious the market can be.
When doctors are discussing prerequisites for expertise their work is necessary and does not create class distinctions by themselves, nor does it have any such intentions. Doctors are priviledged because
1) the market that treats them as capital dictates that they should have higher wage
2) The capitalists make obstacles to become a doctor, like expensive education.

Doctors do fight for their interests, but they are not threatened by the wellfare of others. Capitalists are, and that is why it is capitalists who create obstacles in our society.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

You understand correct, but then you must also understand that most people usually own some trivial forms of capital. For example an apartment (or at least the right to rent one forwards), or a car. Both are capital in the sense that they can be transformed to income. Apartment by renting it and in relevant jobs a car can rise your income. By "pure" working class I am referring to working class that holds no capital whatsoever. People who can transform nothing into income, except their own physical labour.

I cant really see that the appartment and the car counts as capital, since (if we are considering that the owner is a worker) they are directlie connected towards the owners incomme and therefor also with his position in the production. We all know that we proletarians tend to live a more insecure life, we can be fired and unemployed whenever the bosses wants to, so wen this worker with his appartment and car gets fired he has to sell them ( if twe consider that the current appartment is not the cheapest one). Therefor this items arnt capital in the same sence as a yuppies massive stock-pile, they are still connected to the owners postion in the production.

[Dean]

You understand correct, but then you must also understand that most people usually own some trivial forms of capital. For example an apartment (or at least the right to rent one forwards), or a car. Both are capital in the sense that they can be transformed to income. Apartment by renting it and in relevant jobs a car can rise your income. By "pure" working class I am referring to working class that holds no capital whatsoever. People who can transform nothing into income, except their own physical labour.

That's precisely why relying on the capitalist conception of capital is misleading and wrong.

However, the above have to individually account for $5,000 worth of capital value to be considered capital.

What if it only had to amount to $100? Well, my computer, video game console and bed could each be considered capital. Basically, any durable good which can provide for repeated economic function can be considered capital so long as it meets the threshold.

And that threshold is arbitrary. What matters is employment of capital and the viability of said employment - for instance, I can rent out a room in my house, at a profit, and the exploitative character of the system will be evident. But if one of a number of conditions are met, this exploitative act can in fact be trivial or even serve to balance wealth rather than accumulate it.

This is because the lessee could be far wealthier than me and in extracting surplus value, and indisputably capitalist act can actually serve to equalize wealth.

This rarely happens. What often happens is that working class individuals are in possession of marginal capital which is often unemployed. This possession is unique from the Marxist conceptualization of capital accumulation because it doesn't serve the accumulative function well (or often at all) and provides little to no real economic leverage in the sense that wholesale production and financial systems do.

[Invincible Summer]

I have found an interesting article by prominent Analytical Marxist sociologist Eric Olin Wright on the problem of class distinctions and class definition, and I hope this will be of some use in discussing this issue:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Understanding%20Classs%20--%20NLR%2060.pdf (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/%7Ewright/Published%20writing/Understanding%20Classs%20--%20NLR%2060.pdf)

Yeah that's what came to mind when I made this thread. I didn't read the article, but IIRC, Wright is the one that talks about variances in authority/skill within classes? E.g. Skilled manager vs unskilled manager, skilled worker vs unskilled worker, etc?

I think that just makes things more unnecessarily complicated.

[Kotze]

A Scan from Erik Olin Wright's entire book "Class Structure and Income Determination" (1979) is available on his site (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/%7Ewright/selected-published-writings.htm#SCID). Alternatively, you can download scans from single chapters here (http://realutopias.org/class-structure-and-income-determination).

From the foreword:
[Wright] finds, for example, that even a crude measure of class explains at least as much of the variance in income as the more elaborate Duncan occupational status scale. Similarly, he finds that when class position is held constant, the commonly reported differential returns to education between blacks and whites and between men and women virtually disappear.

[S.Artesian]

That's precisely why relying on the capitalist conception of capital is misleading and wrong.

However, the above have to individually account for $5,000 worth of capital value to be considered capital.

What if it only had to amount to $100? Well, my computer, video game console and bed could each be considered capital. Basically, any durable good which can provide for repeated economic function can be considered capital so long as it meets the threshold.

And that threshold is arbitrary. What matters is employment of capital and the viability of said employment - for instance, I can rent out a room in my house, at a profit, and the exploitative character of the system will be evident. But if one of a number of conditions are met, this exploitative act can in fact be trivial or even serve to balance wealth rather than accumulate it.

This is because the lessee could be far wealthier than me and in extracting surplus value, and indisputably capitalist act can actually serve to equalize wealth.

This rarely happens. What often happens is that working class individuals are in possession of marginal capital which is often unemployed. This possession is unique from the Marxist conceptualization of capital accumulation because it doesn't serve the accumulative function well (or often at all) and provides little to no real economic leverage in the sense that wholesale production and financial systems do.

It's not the ownership, nor the market price, that determines its status as capital, it's the social relation. So unless the worker uses the car, or the apartment, to command the labor of others to produce commodities, no capital.

[cenv]

I think part of the problem here is our tradition of abstracting this question into a theoretical issue (ie. concerning ourselves with definition instead of engaging these definitions on a concrete and personal level). The heart of this issue isn't about deducing some categorical formula -- it has to do with the fundamental content of people's day-to-day lives.

Ultimately, proletarians are people who passively sit by as the content of their lives is processed and structured in terms of economic efficiency by the machinery of capitalism. They are denied the right to create and interact with the world around them that comes with owning property.

Classes in Marxism transcend the sociological constructs that spring to mind when most people hear the term "class." This is why it's so important that when presenting Marxism, we explain how things like alienation are integral to our understanding of social reality.

Capitalism constantly draws people's attention to quantifiable and superficial aspects of social existence -- like money. Our responsibility as Marxists is to inspire people to look beyond this and see the underlying, qualitative patterns that determine the structure of our lives, hopes, failures, possibilities, and so on.

[Dean]

It's not the ownership, nor the market price, that determines its status as capital, it's the social relation. So unless the worker uses the car, or the apartment, to command the labor of others to produce commodities, no capital.

I don't think that's accurate enough. In that concept, goods can be phased in and out of the "capital" section by simple nature of its employment or lack thereof. In other words, an economic downturn can transfer significant portions of capital to "non-capital" simply because its not being used.

However, this transfer says little to nothing in terms of economic capacity or the particular social character of the ownership of the capital, except that it is no longer being actively used in Marx's system of exploitation.

[S.Artesian]

I don't think that's accurate enough. In that concept, goods can be phased in and out of the "capital" section by simple nature of its employment or lack thereof. In other words, an economic downturn can transfer significant portions of capital to "non-capital" simply because its not being used.

However, this transfer says little to nothing in terms of economic capacity or the particular social character of the ownership of the capital, except that it is no longer being actively used in Marx's system of exploitation.

Exactly right. That's exactly one of the ways and economic downturn is an offsetting factor to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. At one time, about 30% of US railcar fleet, 14% of commercial airliners, and 10% of the maritime container fleet were in storage.. in sidings and yards, in the desert, or at anchor outside Singapore's, Malyasia', and China's container ports. Those means of production/transportation were no longer capital, were not functioning as capital, were not expanding the value of capital.

Doesn't mean there weren't expenses associated with their sequestering, does mean to be capital, the object/commodity has to function as capital, has to operate in the effort to realize expanded value.

Marx explains this in some detail in his Economic Manuscripts in vols 33 and 34 of the MEGA-- and in other places. No exchange with wage labor, no extraction of surplus value. No surplus value, no valorisation. No valorisation, no capital.

[Dean]

Exactly right. That's exactly one of the ways and economic downturn is an offsetting factor to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. At one time, about 30% of US railcar fleet, 14% of commercial airliners, and 10% of the maritime container fleet were in storage.. in sidings and yards, in the desert, or at anchor outside Singapore's, Malyasia', and China's container ports. Those means of production/transportation were no longer capital, were not functioning as capital, were not expanding the value of capital.

Doesn't mean there weren't expenses associated with their sequestering, does mean to be capital, the object/commodity has to function as capital, has to operate in the effort to realize expanded value.
Apparently, you're right about the specific point that capital only exists as such when it is employed but I still think that notion is unnecessarily restrictive.


Marx explains this in some detail in his Economic Manuscripts in vols 33 and 34 of the MEGA-- and in other places. No exchange with wage labor, no extraction of surplus value. No surplus value, no valorisation. No valorisation, no capital.
This is where you differ from Marx. For him (and others) capital is not only that capital which can valorize, but any realizable/realized capital.

He describes the accumulative process of capital via this method, but I don't think he discounts non-valorized capital as "non-capital."

[S.Artesian]

Apparently, you're right about the specific point that capital only exists as such when it is employed but I still think that notion is unnecessarily restrictive.


This is where you differ from Marx. For him (and others) capital is not only that capital which can valorize, but any realizable/realized capital.

He describes the accumulative process of capital via this method, but I don't think he discounts non-valorized capital as "non-capital."


In all of Marx's economic manuscripts,and Marx is clear, capital is capital only to the extent that it can command the labor of others, only to the extent that it accumulates, that it increases value through the aggrandizement of surplus value; through the exchange of the objective and objectified conditions of labor-- the means of production and raw materials-- with labor. It, capital, can only do this if the objectified conditions of labor are organized as private property, and labor itself is organized as wage-labor, i.e. has no use value for its "owner" save its value in this process of exchange.

Realized capital is valorized capital. That's what realization means, realizing the increased value gained through the extraction of surplus value.

Now aggrandizing labor does not automatically mean that the capital will be realized. That's where the market comes in. But without that aggrandizing, there's no capital to begin with, to move to the market. And in fact, if the realization doesn't occur, then the commodity capital ceases to exist as capital. It cannot make its transition to money, to reengage in the circuit of production to engender another round of accumulation. It becomes worthless, non-capital.


If we have 30 percent of the rail freight car fleet in storage, they are not functioning as capital. If we depreciate them to zero, then we offset a fall in the rate of profit. If we don't depreciate them, well then we still have them on the books, and we're still liable for the debt accrued in the purchase thereof, unless we have special covenants governing the cessation of payment of such fixed investment.

The point is capital to be capital has to accumulate; it can only do that through the exchange with living labor.

[Dean]

Realized capital is valorized capital. That's what realization means, realizing the increased value gained through the extraction of surplus value.
Not so. Valorization is a distinct process in that it is realization which expands the capital of capital, not merely produces a profit.

This is why its important: I can extract surplus value by renting out my home for 150% of my total expenses of maintaining the property. But my actual stock of capital doesn't necessarily expand. This is important because it describes the difference between "petty capitalists" and real, bona fide capitalist accumulation of wealth.

[S.Artesian]

Not so. Valorization is a distinct process in that it is realization which expands the capital of capital, not merely produces a profit.

This is why its important: I can extract surplus value by renting out my home for 150% of my total expenses of maintaining the property. But my actual stock of capital doesn't necessarily expand. This is important because it describes the difference between "petty capitalists" and real, bona fide capitalist accumulation of wealth.

You can claim a portion of the total, socially available surplus, you can claim part of someone's wages, you can claim revenue, but you are neither participating in a valorisation process, nor the realization process. You are not extracting surplus value, a surplus labor time. Rent, as Marx investigates it is a claim on the surplus value produced, or aggrandized, by others.

What exactly is valorisation? It is the "self-expansion" of capital. It is precisely the expansion of value through the command over labor-power.

In one of his draft versions of Capital [vol 28 of MECW] Marx writes: "Capital has so far been considered under the aspect of its physical matter as simple process of production. But this process is, under the aspect of its formal determination, a process of self-valorisation. Self-valorization includes both the preservation of the original value and its multiplication."

Your house is not organized as a condition of labor, a component of the labor process and therefore cannot be part of the valorisation process. Valorisation requires that labor process in a specific social configuration.

Realization is just that-- realization of the multiplied, expanded value embedded by the labor process in the commodities. It is the realization in the markets, the "confirmation" through a universe of exchanges, of the claim to a portion of the total socially available surplus value made by each particular capital through valorisation.

The original point is made over and over by Marx in his economic manuscripts-- without engagement of the objective conditions of labor, the means of production as property, with living labor as wage labor -- no valorisation. Without valorisation, no realization. Without realization, which is after all the realization of profit, no accumulation. Without accumulation, no expanded reproduction of capital, hence no preservation of the original value. Hence the loss of capital, its devaluation.

[Dean]

You can claim a portion of the total, socially available surplus, you can claim part of someone's wages, you can claim revenue, but you are neither participating in a valorisation process, nor the realization process. You are not extracting surplus value, a surplus labor time. Rent, as Marx investigates it is a claim on the surplus value produced, or aggrandized, by others.

What exactly is valorisation? It is the "self-expansion" of capital. It is precisely the expansion of value through the command over labor-power.

In one of his draft versions of Capital [vol 28 of MECW] Marx writes: "Capital has so far been considered under the aspect of its physical matter as simple process of production. But this process is, under the aspect of its formal determination, a process of self-valorisation. Self-valorization includes both the preservation of the original value and its multiplication."

Your house is not organized as a condition of labor, a component of the labor process and therefore cannot be part of the valorisation process. Valorisation requires that labor process in a specific social configuration.

Realization is just that-- realization of the multiplied, expanded value embedded by the labor process in the commodities. It is the realization in the markets, the "confirmation" through a universe of exchanges, of the claim to a portion of the total socially available surplus value made by each particular capital through valorisation.

The original point is made over and over by Marx in his economic manuscripts-- without engagement of the objective conditions of labor, the means of production as property, with living labor as wage labor -- no valorisation. Without valorisation, no realization. Without realization, which is after all the realization of profit, no accumulation. Without accumulation, no expanded reproduction of capital, hence no preservation of the original value. Hence the loss of capital, its devaluation.

The wikipedia article directly contradicts you here:

Valorisation of capital is for Marx not at all the same as the "realisation of capital". Value may be added in the production process, but this additional value may not be realised as an additional sum of money, unless the outputs are sold at a favourable price.
I haven't read the appropriate texts for years and the article is poorly cite (namely, not at all). But it looks like some facts are missing here.

Furthermore, it seems that Marx's description of rent in contradiction to capitalist production are in the furtherance of explaining the rent charged by landowners to those who produce or manage production on their land. In other words, he describes rent here as an outdated model for exploitation of production.

Do you think that Marx would have said that firms which specialize in the acquisition and rent of housing units was not involved in a capitalist model?

[S.Artesian]

The wikipedia article directly contradicts you here:

I haven't read the appropriate texts for years and the article is poorly cite (namely, not at all). But it looks like some facts are missing here.

Furthermore, it seems that Marx's description of rent in contradiction to capitalist production are in the furtherance of explaining the rent charged by landowners to those who produce or manage production on their land. In other words, he describes rent here as an outdated model for exploitation of production.

Do you think that Marx would have said that firms which specialize in the acquisition and rent of housing units was not involved in a capitalist model?

As I pointed valorization is the labor process by which capital aggrandizes surplus value and expands itself. Realization is just that, realization, the materialization as money of that valorized capital, that expanded value. Any or many or even all particular capitalists may realize some or none of the valorization, depending on market relations etc., but what they do realize is based on valorization that occurs in the labor process.

What would Marx say about renting housing? He would have said what he did say-- they are part of capital, of the distribution of surplus value. They are not part of the valorization process, nor do they realize the surplus value of commodity production.

[Dean]

What would Marx say about renting housing? He would have said what he did say-- they are part of capital, of the distribution of surplus value. They are not part of the valorization process, nor do they realize the surplus value of commodity production.
Ok, I agree with you then. Capital can be a surplus-value generating resource without engaging in valorization.

[Kiev Communard]

Actually Marx himself, as Eric Olin Wright noted, had never set forth the systematic criteria of the class definition. The Orthodox Marxist definition of the social classes was actually formulated by Vladimir Lenin.

"Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated by law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and their mode of acquiring it". (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning: Heroism of the Workers in the Rear: 'Communist Subbotniks' in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 421).

I think that this definition still holds true but that instead of classic petty bourgeoisie (small artisans and petty traders) that was either relegated to the status of "self-employed" (quite diverse transitional social group that does not consitute a socila group in itself and can be thought of, to a certain degree, as "fringe social strata" similar to Lumpens) or elevated to the lofty position of "small businessmen", which are just representatives of the lower strata of bourgeoisie itself. Therefore the traditional "leftish" accusation of "petty bourgeois" class character of any rival left-wing political groups and parties is simply without basis in current objective reality.

Instead of petty bourgeoisie, which was quite economically independent, even if suffering under the whims of the market and haute bourgeoisie economic pressure, the role of the "middle class" in modern Capitalist societies is played by the so-called "New Middle Class", as Anton Pannekoek put it, or, as Barbara and John Ehrenreich argued, the Professional/Managerial Class (the PMC). The PMC cannot be simply considered a certain "stratum" of a broader "working class" because its members are obviously in distinct relationships with both the industrial and services workers and employers/capitalists. And, unlike petty bourgeoisie, it is not a leftover of Absolutist simple commodity production economy of 16th - 18th centuries, it is a social class born out of the development of Late/Monopoly Capitalism itself and should be viewed as such - as intrinsic part of the modern class structure, not as a some kind of "residual" class that would eventually turn into members of the working class.

So, the PMC can be defined as "consisting of salaried mental workers who do not own the means of production and whose major function in the social division of labour may be described broadly as the reproduction of capitalist culture and capitalist class relations" (Ehrenreich, Barbara and John Ehrenreich. "The Professional-Managerial Class." In Between Labour and Capital. Ed. Pat Walker. Montreal: Black Rose P, 1979. - P. 12). So the PMC encompasses, on the one hand, specialists who are directly concerned with social control or propagation of ideology (teachers, social workers, entertainers, etc.), and, on the other hand, its members directly participate in the process of production - e.g., middle-level administrators and managers, engineers, supervisors, etc. as well as the scientists who, though not directly occupied in the process of production, facilitate it with their discoveries. For more reading, see this - http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=-LPgx62t86gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=-LPgx62t86gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)