The Worker-Class Party-Movement - One Perspective

[Victus Mortuum]

Updated 10/27/10

There must be, as Comrade Jacob Richter (Die Neue Zeit) has been arguing, the creation and maintenance of a class struggle and social labor (CSSL) organization. This organization must generate and maintain and be built around an entire alternative worker culture of sociopolitical organizations. That is, it must be a party-movement.

This is my reflection on how this will manifest itself, in real world terms.

The organization is to be Class Struggle-Social Labor, to start.

The Class Struggle aspect must be understood as advocating:
a) Transformation of the worker-class into a class for itself (via the Worker-Class Party-Movement)
b) Establishment of worker-class hegemony at the expense of bourgeois hegemony (via Social Labor)
c) Expropriation of ruling-class political power by the worker-class (via Social Labor)

The Social Labor aspect must be understood as:
a) The minimum worker-class independent ideology
b) The broadest pan-radical-left principles that can be organized around
c) The minimum means of establishing worker-class political power and hegemony

The “transformation of the worker-class into a class for itself” would be manifest in each organization through worker-class movement and radical democracy:

Worker-Class movement; that is, exclusion of all of the following:
1. Investor-Capitalists: Those who need not work to survive because of their ownership of companies/stocks
2. Small Business Employers: Those who need not work to survive because of their ownership of small businesses (small companies)
3. Coodinators: Those who have managerial authority over part of a corporation/business without radical-democratic worker control over the corporation/business and manager
4. State-Enforcers: Those who protect the oligarchic nature of the current government and corporations and the means by which it functions (politicians, judges, police, lawyers, "private" security, etc.)

Radical Democracy in the organizational structure:
1. Popular and easy initiative, referendum, and veto of organizational policy
2. All officials and boards selected by lottery
3. All positions subject to immediate recall from multiple avenues
4. All judicial decisions made exclusively by sovereign juries
5. All officials paid equal to or lower than that of skilled/professional workers

Social Labor would be manifest in each organization as the fundamentally accepted minimum principles for membership:

Social Labor as the minimum program of advocated change:
1. Organization of all governments according to the principles of radical democracy
2. The material separation of state government from regular socioeconomic government
3. Economic organizations must organize according to radical-democratic control and ownership
4. The radical-democratic government must act as the radical-democratic “investor”

Sociopolitical Organization:

The worker-class must create numerous sociopolitical organizations (food pantries, funerary services, community centers, workplace unions, existing worker cooperatives, student organizations, etc.) which uphold the above basic principles to create an alternative worker culture and inherently maintain active membership. Beyond the above described minimal requirements, each organization would have relative autonomy. Ideally, all of these organizations will operate according to the principles of Educate, Agitate, Organize! This would grow the number of class-conscious workers at an exponential rate, bringing true revolutionary change closer and closer. Quickly, a basic central organization of these independent organizations must be formed, turning the movement into a party-movement.

The Party-Movement:

All of these independent organizations would become member organizations of a basic central organization. All members of the member organizations would be equal members of the central organization. The central organization, like all of the smaller ones, would be organized as a worker-class movement and organized as a radical democracy and around social labor.

Ideally, the minimum role of the central organization would be to:
1. Organize large-scale demonstrations of all kinds
2. Provide a central place for large scale policy and strategy discussion (presumably by a web page and blogs and forums and networks on social network sites etc.)
3. Provide essential centralized resources for how to start organizations and organize local demonstrations (with the above mentioned resources)
4. Transnationalize the labor movement according to minimal pan-radical-leftist principles

So, there it is, a starting plan for creating a revolutionary organization to change the fundamental nature of the system. This must be worker-class, radical-democratic, social labor, sociopolitical syndicalism/councilism. That is, a Worker-Class Party-Movement!

But, this central revolutionary organization can obviously not begin to exist until there is a body of individual organizations that are aligned with these principles. The current goal is to start these radical organizations, or turn existing non-radical organizations into these organizations.

So go then, revolutionary, and Educate, Agitate, Organize!

[Paulappaul]

This organization must generate and maintain and be built around an entire alternative worker culture of sociopolitical organizations...

That is, it must be a party-movement.
Sounds pretty exclusive to other working class movements. I thought this “sociopolitical organization” is meant to be alternative to bourgeois culture? The Political Party, and with it the entire Parliament is a bourgeois creation to maintain their hegemony. 2 conceptions taught to the working class as the most stable form of democracy, and without either “communism” or “anarchy” would run amok.


Worker-Class movement; that is, exclusion of all of the following:
1. Investor-capitalists
2. Small business owners
3. Managers
Ah! Now this is interesting. The “Worker-Class” is those who A) Have no say in the means of Production B) No Capital whatsoever i.e. is not an artisan and C) is not an Investor.


Basically a very cliché worker.



Are Cooperative workers thus cut out? So should Unionists or Professional Revolutionaries be cut from the “Worker Class”? How about Artisans?


The Working Class doesn’t require your clear guidelines, to what it is and isn’t. Those in line with the views of the working class, organize themselves so. You won't see “investor-capitalists” organize themselves in a union with Workers striking for higher wages. You won't see Small Business owners in a picket line. No you see those in line with the Working class.



The radical-democratic government must act as the radical-democratic “investor”
Reminds me of the Gotha Programme…


The worker-class must create numerous sociopolitical organizations (food pantries, funerary services, community centers, workplace unions, existing worker cooperatives, student organizations, etc.) which uphold the above basic principles to create an alternative worker culture and inherently maintain active membership. Beyond the above described minimal requirements, each organization would have relative autonomy. Ideally, all of these organizations will operate according to the principles of Educate, Agitate, Organize! This would grow the number of class-conscious workers at an exponential rate, bringing true revolutionary change closer and closer. Sounds good :thumbup1:


The Party-Movement:

All of these independent organizations would become member organizations of a basic central organization. All members of the member organizations would be equal members of the central organization. The central organization, like all of the smaller ones, would be organized as a worker-class movement and organized as a radical democracy and around social labor.
Although it seems rather presumptive, it sounds good. I wouldn’t stress the centralization of it though. While a movement may be centralized, it’s important to recognize the autonomy of each organ to one another.



And on that note, legitimate counter culture is neither top down or bottom up, but equal. The equal obligation of every member of a party to its management thus ending the division between order givers and order takers i.e. Hierarchy in general.

[Victus Mortuum]

Sounds pretty exclusive to other working class movements. I thought this “sociopolitical organization” is meant to be alternative to bourgeois culture? The Political Party, and with it the entire Parliament is a bourgeois creation to maintain their hegemony. 2 conceptions taught to the working class as the most stable form of democracy, and without either “communism” or “anarchy” would run amok.

I don't understand what you are getting at here...Could you reword or elaborate more?


Ah! Now this is interesting. The “Worker-Class” is those who A) Have no say in the means of Production B) No Capital whatsoever i.e. is not an artisan and C) is not an Investor.

Basically a very cliché worker.

Are Cooperative workers thus cut out? So should Unionists or Professional Revolutionaries be cut from the “Worker Class”? How about Artisans?

The Working Class doesn’t require your clear guidelines, to what it is and isn’t. Those in line with the views of the working class, organize themselves so. You won't see “investor-capitalists” organize themselves in a union with Workers striking for higher wages. You won't see Small Business owners in a picket line. No you see those in line with the Working class.

Of course cooperative workers and unionized workers would be included. Those are your definitions, not mine. And I see no reason why artisans (the self-employed) wouldn't be included if they agree with the minimum program. However, the three groups that are excluded are those whose material interests are necessarily in direct opposition to the working-class' interests. Those who own and those who control capital/means of production undemocratically.

I consider:
a) Investor-capitalists and Small-business owners as those who own a large segment of shares in a corporation or own a whole business such that they would not be required to work because they make profit
b) Managers as those who are required to sell their labor in order to make money, to make a living; but who have managerial authority over part of a corporation/business without complete worker control over the corporation/business and manager


Reminds me of the Gotha Programme…

In which way? And given that it does, why is the part that you argue it resembles something that isn't a minimal demand?


Although it seems rather presumptive, it sounds good. I wouldn’t stress the centralization of it though. While a movement may be centralized, it’s important to recognize the autonomy of each organ to one another.

Of course. The hypothetical central organization by no means would abolish the individual organizations or take autonomy from the individual organizations.

Edit:

Perhaps the exclusion of "Small Business Owners" should be removed as this may evoke confusion (as there may be some SBO who are self-employed). I suppose an sbo who was of manager or investor-capitalist status would therefore fit within those categories. Does this seem reasonable?

[Die Neue Zeit]

And I see no reason why artisans (the self-employed) wouldn't be included if they agree with the minimum program.

The exclusion of small-business owners *and* self-employed service providers is a must. Again, the latter do not contribute to the development of society's labour power and capabilities, and their work is unproductive. This is the class that provided the impetus for fascist movements in the past. Further back, recall Kautsky's successful efforts to prevent the admission of self-employed farmers into the SPD.

What's with the Che avatar?

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) Lumpenproletariat, lumpenbourgeoisie, lumpen
2) Artisans, "self-employed" jocks, security guards, cops/lawyer/judge types
3) Proletariat
4) Coordinators
5) Petit-Bourgeoisie
6) Bourgeoisie (money-capitalists, functioning capitalists, and pluto-magnates)

[Victus Mortuum]

The exclusion of small-business owners *and* self-employed service providers is a must. Again, the latter do not contribute to the development of society's labour power and capabilities, and their work is unproductive. This is the class that provided the impetus for fascist movements in the past. Further back, recall Kautsky's successful efforts to prevent the admission of self-employed farmers into the SPD.

Why? A self-employed individual could totally support the minimum program of the organization with no significant risk to their material position. They could support the organization all the way through the revolutionary change. Why wouldn't, say, composers, authors, self-employed farmers (though those who are truly self-employed are almost non-existent in the US), woodworkers, etc. be allowed to join and fight? The exclusion of ICs and Ms makes sense because the organizations necessarily requires them to be stripped of their superior position and they therefore will likely betray the position when the ideas become a reality. I don't see the self-employed doing this.


What's with the Che avatar?

A funny little icon I found. It's the only picture of a historical "radical left" individual that was a good zombie picture. And given that my screen name means approximately "the living dead" in Latin, I figured a zombie leftist would be appropriate. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why? A self-employed individual could totally support the minimum program of the organization with no significant risk to their material position.

They can do so in some sort of class front or class coalition, but doing so within a single party would compromise politico-ideological independence for the working class (organizing of its own, by its own, for its own).

[Victus Mortuum]

They can do so in some sort of class front or class coalition, but doing so within a single party would compromise politico-ideological independence for the working class (organizing of its own, by its own, for its own).

The self-employed share most class characteristics with the worker-class. Necessity to work to survive, lack of control over others. They simply have control over their means of production and the product, in contrast to your usual worker who does not.

However, members of worker coops maintain the exact same class characteristics as the self-employed. Now that I think about it, I honestly don't see how the self-employed aren't members of the worker-class, if members of worker coops are considered members...

[Lolshevik]

I don't know, Jacob... I am going to count myself among the ranks of the self-employed fairly soon, as an author. I don't think authors are inherently opposed to the proletariat. Most of them are actually semi-proletarian as far as I figure it, they do labor, they create a product.

Besides, it would hurt my feelings if I wasn't allowed in the revolutionary party. :crying:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ultimately their work is not productive at all (whether Marx's definition of producing surplus value, my definition, Cockshott's definition (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf), or a mix of each). They may not hire labour for profit, but they can extract surpluses and rent from society at large. Many self-employed "professional organizations" exist so that they can extract these surpluses. The Teabagger Joe the Plumber is but one beneficiacy.

I'd like to see more discussion on this matter before the commitment to the program. For now, the exclusion of "small-business owners" alone should suffice.

Also, don't admit cops, lawyers, judges, security guards, and that riff-raff.

[Victus Mortuum]

However, I do think that the class exclusion needs to be changed, according to discussion so far, to:

1) Investor-Capitalists: Those who need not work to survive because of their ownership of companies/stocks
2) Small Business Employers: Those who need not work to survive because of their ownership of small businesses (small companies)
3) Managers: Those who have managerial authority over part of a corporation/business without radical-democratic worker control over the corporation/business and manager
4) State-Enforcers: Those who protect the oligarchic nature of the current government and corporations and the means by which it functions (politicians, judges, police, lawyers, "private" security, etc.)
5) Lumpen (better, more modern word?): how to express this?

Thoughts?

[Victus Mortuum]

Ultimately their work is not productive at all (whether Marx's definition of producing surplus value, my definition, Cockshott's definition (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf), or a mix of each). They may not hire labour for profit, but they can extract surpluses and rent from society at large. Many self-employed "professional organizations" exist so that they can extract these surpluses. The Teabagger Joe the Plumber is but one beneficiacy.

I'd like to see more discussion on this matter before the commitment to the program. For now, the exclusion of "small-business owners" alone should suffice.

Whose labor isn't productive? The labor of an author or a composer is definitely productive, as is the labor of a plumber or a woodworker. The labor of a cashier at wal-mart isn't productive, strictly speaking, but we wouldn't be expected to bar them from the organization. Also, how do you deal with the issue I raised about self-employed vs. members of worker coops?


Also, don't admit cops, lawyers, judges, security guards, and that riff-raff.

Right, I added that to my proposed addition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, I do think that the class exclusion needs to be changed, according to discussion so far, to:

[...]

3) State-Enforcers: Those who protect the autocratic nature of the current government and corporations and the means by which it functions (politicians, judges, police, lawyers, "private" security, etc.)

Say "plutocratic," "oligarchic," or if you're into Chomsky, "polyarchic," but not "autocratic."

Why did you take out small business owners? How about small business employers (since this addresses small-time gang lords as well)?


Perhaps the inclusion of the "lumpen" proper should be added? If so, how would that be stated?

Thoughts?

After you deal with the SB part, but that's a good question re. beggars.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whose labor isn't productive? The labor of an author or a composer is definitely productive, as is the labor of a plumber or a woodworker. The labor of a cashier at wal-mart isn't productive, strictly speaking, but we wouldn't be expected to bar them from the organization.

The question of the proletarii (to borrow from my PCSSR terminology on butlers, housemaids, factory workers in arms trade and luxury goods, etc.) is by far the finest membership question of them all. They aren't proletarians, but "proletocracy" can be flexible for all three "prole" classes (I'll work on this in my PCSSR Appendix).


Also, how do you deal with the issue I raised about self-employed vs. members of worker coops?

It depends on the line of work those worker coops are in. There's a fine line between a worker coop and a business partnership that doesn't hire anybody.

"You've got mail!" :D

[Victus Mortuum]

The question of the proletarii (to borrow from my PCSSR terminology on butlers, housemaids, factory workers in arms trade and luxury goods, etc.) is by far the finest membership question of them all. They aren't proletarians, but "proletocracy" can be flexible for all three "prole" classes (I'll work on this in my PCSSR Appendix).

I just don't see that as a very controversial question. They still share all of the same class characteristics as the rest of the worker-class. Just because they don't produce goods for specifically worker consumption doesn't mean that they aren't just as interested in changing the economic system. Whether or not they are "productive" in a worker consumption perspective has no effect on their interest in revolution or their class position (though it may change which "sub-class" they are a part of).


It depends on the line of work those worker coops are in. There's a fine line between a worker coop and a business partnership that doesn't hire anybody.
I'm specifically referring to factory worker coop types.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just don't see that as a very controversial question. They still share all of the same class characteristics as the rest of the worker-class. Just because they don't produce goods for specifically worker consumption doesn't mean that they aren't just as interested in changing the economic system.

Or "services," just to clarify the discussion. Productive goods and services vs. unproductive goods and services.

Your political point is correct, of course. But the proletarii are still in a different class from the self-employed.


I'm specifically referring to factory worker coop types.

But I don't see how a self-employed consultant, real estate or insurance broker/agent, mortgage broker, etc. has the same class interests as workers in factory coops (an obvious example of productive work). They have more in common with small-business employers (all those lovely tax deductions and "lower taxes" come to mind) than with factory coop workers. :confused:

[Victus Mortuum]

Your political point is correct, of course. But the proletarii are still in a different class from the self-employed.

But I don't see how a self-employed consultant has the same class interests as workers in factory coops (an obvious example of productive work). They have more in common with small-business employers (all those lovely tax deductions and "lower taxes" come to mind) than with factory coop workers. :confused:

I'm wondering if we are operating on different definitions of self-employed. When I think self-employed, I think of musicians and composers and blacksmiths and woodworkers and authors and such (and even to an extent, self-employed consultants, as far as they act as hired educators of sorts). These individuals (assuming they are wholly self-employed) can have and maintain a rather radical viewpoint. They "produce products" for consumption by society. My reasoning for their being a broad member of the worker-class (or at least highly similar and therefore inclusive in the organization) is:

Co-op Worker: Controls MoP, Controls Product, Must Work, No Oligarchic Control of Workers
Self-Employed Worker: Controls MoP, Controls Product, Must Work, No Oligarchic Control of Workers

The only dominant difference between these two individuals is the plural vs. singular nature of their work. It takes many workers to run a factory. It takes one worker to compose a piece for a movie.

[bcbm]

fap fap fap fap

[Zanthorus]

This is the class that provided the impetus for fascist movements in the past.

Not necessarily, according to British Fascism 1918-39: Parties, ideology and culture by Thomas Lineham, despite the stereotype of fascism as emananting from the middle-classes and such, "recent research on fascist mobilisations and membership profiles, inluding those in interwar Britain, have domonstated that fascism was not rooted in one specific social class."

I don't know about the self-employed not leading to the development of societies capabilities, I agree that their labour is unproductive from the standpoint of capital accumulation though (Apart from the false self-employed).

I do in fact think the artisan class was revolutionary back in the mid 1800's when they comprised the majority of the Communist League, and when their social position was teetering on the edge of becoming proletarianised. They were the ones making political demands as opposed to the politically pacified poor sections of the working-class who supported organisations like the Cologne Workers' Association led by Andreas Gottschalk which focused on economic as opposed to political struggle. Nowadays these elements would probably be more analogous to the skilled sections of the working-class though.

[Victus Mortuum]

I don't know about the self-employed not leading to the development of societies capabilities, I agree that their labour is unproductive from the standpoint of capital accumulation though (Apart from the false self-employed).

Ah, see that makes sense. They technically are unproductive, in the Marxist framework, because they don't produce surplus-value. But then, so too are workers in coops unproductive (even if they are making cars). That is not grounds for exclusion, broadly speaking.


Nowadays these elements would probably be more analogous to the skilled sections of the working-class though.

To be more precise, skilled and co-oped/collectivized sections of the worker-class.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah, see that makes sense. They technically are unproductive, in the Marxist framework, because they don't produce surplus-value. But then, so too are workers in coops unproductive (even if they are making cars). That is not grounds for exclusion, broadly speaking.
You must have been to some pretty strange co-ops. Perhaps check back on them, I suspect they'd have been driven out of competition by now, just like any other capitalist company which consistently produces no profits.

[Zanthorus]

But then, so too are workers in coops unproductive (even if they are making cars).

I think you missed the memo where co-operative factories do not eliminate the capital relationship but instead turn the associated labourers into their own collective capitalist.

[Victus Mortuum]

You must have been to some pretty strange co-ops. Perhaps check back on them, I suspect they'd have been driven out of competition by now, just like any other capitalist company which consistently produces no profits.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Worker cooperatives, though rare, (given that they most workers do not have the expendable cash to co-start a business) exist in numerous parts of the US and European countries. Why would the coop be driven out of business when it produces no profits, if there is no one that maintains the business expecting profits? Worker coops produce products at the same price as private corps. I think you are talking about something different.


I think you missed the memo where co-operative factories do not eliminate the capital relationship but instead turn the associated labourers into their own collective capitalist.

In the same way that a self-employed worker does not eliminate the capital relationship, but turns the individual laborer into his own particular capitalist?

The capital relation ceases to exist within in a worker cooperative, as the class distinction -within- the cooperative has ceased to exist.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Worker cooperatives, though rare, (given that they most workers do not have the expendable cash to co-start a business) exist in numerous parts of the US and European countries. Why would the coop be driven out of business when it produces no profits, if there is no one that maintains the business expecting profits? Worker coops produce products at the same price as private corps. I think you are talking about something different.
I see, so essentially they put a certain amount of money into production, and then end up with the exact same amount of money in the end, except now having to sell commodities? That sounds entirely rational, especially in the absence of funds for insurance, etc, as well as any money for accumulation.

On the other hand, it's questionable how they would not make profits selling at the same prices as private corps, unless they also paid a cost-price high enough to swallow up the entire value product, in which case they'd end up in the same situation as a capitalist who spent his entire revenue on wages, surviving on donations, and then got forced out of business due to never accumulating.


In the same way that a self-employed worker does not eliminate the capital relationship, but turns the individual laborer into his own particular capitalist?No, as the capital-relation exists only where labour is collective, and capitalism proper (ie. as a mode of production) only where it is carried out through co-operation.

As for the rest, I'll leave it to Zanthorus, because I'm rather tired of this debate, and he'd probably do better than me anyhow. I'll just note that within the co-operative, that is within the production process itself, the relations of production remain the same, and hence capital is still personified, only taking here the form of the associated labourers. All that changes in terms of relations of production is the faces in which capital, value in motion, is manifested. Hopefully you won't contest that co-operatives still involve value's motion and hence the cycle of capital.

[Victus Mortuum]

I see, so essentially they put a certain amount of money into production, and then end up with the exact same amount of money in the end, except now having to sell commodities? That sounds entirely rational, especially in the absence of funds for insurance, etc, as well as any money for accumulation.

On the other hand, it's questionable how they would not make profits selling at the same prices as private corps, unless they also paid a cost-price high enough to swallow up the entire value product, in which case they'd end up in the same situation as a capitalist who spent his entire revenue on wages, surviving on donations, and then got forced out of business due to never accumulating.

Okay, since you are not getting this, I'll try to explain a different way.

For a private corp:
Wages + Means of Production (both replaced and accumulated and other corporate costs) + Profit = Total Price of goods in a full cycle of MoP
How much of the total price gets distributed to each of those three is at the discretion of the private corp.

For a worker coop of the same type:
Wages + Means of Production (both replaced and accumulated and other corporate costs) = Total Price of goods in a full cycle of MoP
How much of the total price gets distributed to each of those two is at the discretion of the workers themselves.

In a worker coop, the money that would normally be allocated as profit to an investor-capitalist gets allocated elsewhere (either wages or MoP).

You are wrong, end of story. Worker coops do exist and they are "competitive" (that is, they can and do produce products at the same or lower prices than private firms).


No, as the capital-relation exists only where labour is collective, and capitalism proper (ie. as a mode of production) only where it is carried out through co-operation.

Within the coop, there is no more relationship between capital and labor than there is for a self-employed individual.

The workers a) have control over the MoP b) have ownership of the product and c) have control over their labor. All of the defining characteristics, in the marxist and the non-marxist sense, of capital's relation to labor have disappeared -within- the coop. They, just like the self-employed, are not in the traditional exploited position of the proletariat. Both members of worker coops and the self-employed can be radical without opposing their material position and they are both working and "productive" (not in the strict sense, but in the general sense) individuals.


As for the rest, I'll leave it to Zanthorus, because I'm rather tired of this debate, and he'd probably do better than me anyhow.

It's not about -doing better-. It's about discerning the truth and coming to a common conclusion about what that is and what the appropriate action to take is.


I'll just note that within the co-operative, that is within the production process itself, the relations of production remain the same, and hence capital is still personified, only taking here the form of the associated labourers. All that changes in terms of relations of production is the faces in which capital, value in motion, is manifested. Hopefully you won't contest that co-operatives still involve value's motion and hence the cycle of capital.

Sure. From a social standpoint, the worker coop is still a member of an economy where production is not centrally planned and where, therefore, money circulation is the general basis for production and distribution. (hence why members of worker coops and the self-employed are still generally members of the worker-class).

[Zanthorus]

In the same way that a self-employed worker does not eliminate the capital relationship, but turns the individual laborer into his own particular capitalist?

No, you see there is a qualitative difference between the self-employed and workers in a co-operative. Hopefully you're aware of the basic process by which capital's self-expansion occurs, the trade of money for commodities which produce new commodities which are sold at a higher value than the original amount, M - C...P...C' - M'. In the case of the self-employed worker he is merely hired out to perform a job, completes it, and is rewarded. He in no way participates in the self-expansion of capital.

In the case of the co-operative however, the co-operative acts as an independent entity which hires out workers and sets them to work producing goods which are then sold on for a profit. The workers participate in the self-expansion of capital.


The capital relation ceases to exist within in a worker cooperative, as the class distinction -within- the cooperative has ceased to exist.

No, the physical personage of the capitalist no longer exists, but instead the embodiment of capital transfers to the labourers as collective capitalist which exploits the individual labourers.

Within the coop, there is no more relationship between capital and labor than there is for a self-employed individual.


The workers a) have control over the MoP b) have ownership of the product and c) have control over their labor. All of the defining characteristics, in the marxist and the non-marxist sense, of capital's relation to labor have disappeared -within- the coop.

The defining characteristic of capitalism has nothing to do with control over the MoP, it's about the buying and selling of labour-power. The labour-power of the co-operative workers is still a marketable good which is bought by the co-operative.

[Ravachol]

The exclusion of small-business owners *and* self-employed service providers is a must.

So I'm going to be excluded because in my sector full-time employment is almost non-existant and everyone is forced into freelance jobs and 'flex-work' contracted by corporations to evade labour contracts and effective unionising?

In that case, I'd give up on your movement already because guess what, in the next few decades we're going to see a lot more desintegration of the classical fordist factory model and full-time employment only to have it replaced by pseudo self-controlled 'flex workers' and freelancers. Capital benefits from this because it means restrictions on the side of Capital disappear almost completely, no more set hours, contracts or long-term wage negotiations, only labour to be hired when necessary.

My relation to the means of production (which I don't control considering the means of production in my sector is mainly high-tech equipment together with pure investment capital and 'intellectual property') and the fact that I sell my labour and my labour alone to survive means I'm still part of the working class.

By your definition, a freelance carpenter who own nothing but his own hammer is petit-bourgeois :rolleyes:


Not necessarily, according to British Fascism 1918-39: Parties, ideology and culture by Thomas Lineham, despite the stereotype of fascism as emananting from the middle-classes and such, "recent research on fascist mobilisations and membership profiles, inluding those in interwar Britain, have domonstated that fascism was not rooted in one specific social class."


This is actually true. While Fascism is usually a typical product of petit-bourgeois aspirations Codreanu's Iron Guard, for example, was almost exclusively working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You're probably false "self-employed," though.


Not necessarily, according to British Fascism 1918-39: Parties, ideology and culture by Thomas Lineham, despite the stereotype of fascism as emananting from the middle-classes and such, "recent research on fascist mobilisations and membership profiles, inluding those in interwar Britain, have domonstated that fascism was not rooted in one specific social class."

I guess it depends on the country.

Right now my case rests with none other than the Teabaggers. I said to comrade Miles months ago that even sympathetic small business owners don't have the time to be active with the Teabagger scum. Since the bourgeoisie doesn't like populism, that leaves only one class to point fingers at.


I don't know about the self-employed not leading to the development of societies capabilities, I agree that their labour is unproductive from the standpoint of capital accumulation though (Apart from the false self-employed).

Cockshott said that their work also doesn't really sustain the workers' consumption bundle (so his take is on worker consumption, my take isn't defined in hard code, and Marx's take is on surplus value per se).


I do in fact think the artisan class was revolutionary back in the mid 1800's when they comprised the majority of the Communist League, and when their social position was teetering on the edge of becoming proletarianised. They were the ones making political demands as opposed to the politically pacified poor sections of the working-class who supported organisations like the Cologne Workers' Association led by Andreas Gottschalk which focused on economic as opposed to political struggle. Nowadays these elements would probably be more analogous to the skilled sections of the working-class though.

Professional workers (teachers, engineers, nurses, etc.) are still different from the more "progressive" elements of the self-employed, though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, see that makes sense. They technically are unproductive, in the Marxist framework, because they don't produce surplus-value. But then, so too are workers in coops unproductive (even if they are making cars). That is not grounds for exclusion, broadly speaking.

Please recall that there are three definitions of productive work mentioned in this thread. In all three cases, the self-employed do not qualify as productive.

OTOH, the workers in car-manufacturing coops are productive from Marx's standpoint (because they have to make enough profit to reinvest in factory maintenance, expansion, etc.), from Cockshott's standpoint (widespread consumption of cars, cars being a necessary good or service, etc.), and from mine (the process of cars replacing horses and becoming a necessary good or service).

[Weezer]

A funny little icon I found. It's the only picture of a historical "radical left" individual that was a good zombie picture. And given that my screen name means approximately "the living dead" in Latin, I figured a zombie leftist would be appropriate. ;)

Well, your username does mean 'the living dead,' but you set Mortuus in direct object form(Mortuum). I think it's more appropriate to set in subject form, Victus Mortuus. You also set 'Victus' in subject form, so the phrase is grammatical incorrect when you set it with 'Mortuum' which is in direct object form.

'Victum Mortuum'(direct object) or 'Victus Mortuus'(subject). You can get your username changed if you care enough.

[Victus Mortuum]

Well, your username does mean 'the living dead,' but you set Mortuus in direct object form(Mortuum). I think it's more appropriate to set in subject form, Victus Mortuus. You also set 'Victus' in subject form, so the phrase is grammatical incorrect when you set it with 'Mortuum' which is in direct object form.

'Victum Mortuum'(direct object) or 'Victus Mortuus'(subject). You can get your username changed if you care enough.

Haha, I know. I actually intentionally crossed the two because I liked the aesthetic sound of crossing more than having it technically correct. :)


Please recall that there are three definitions of productive work mentioned in this thread. In all three cases, the self-employed do not qualify as productive.

OTOH, the workers in car-manufacturing coops are productive from Marx's standpoint (because they have to make enough profit to reinvest in factory maintenance, expansion, etc.), from Cockshott's standpoint (widespread consumption of cars, cars being a necessary good or service, etc.), and from mine (the process of cars replacing horses and becoming a necessary good or service).

Yes, from Marx's definition of productive labor for the capitalist class/within the capitalist framework (which I assume is the POV taken in your and PC's definitions) worker coop labor is potentially productive, while most self-employed labor is not. It is important to remember that labor is only productive from the relative standpoint of a particular class/within a particular mode of production. Most self-employed labor is productive to the worker-class and would be considered productive in the minimal social labor mode of production. So I don't see why the self-employed, who do unproductive work from the POV of the capitalist, must be excluded when they likely do productive work from the POV of the worker.


No, you see there is a qualitative difference between the self-employed and workers in a co-operative. Hopefully you're aware of the basic process by which capital's self-expansion occurs, the trade of money for commodities which produce new commodities which are sold at a higher value than the original amount, M - C...P...C' - M'. In the case of the self-employed worker he is merely hired out to perform a job, completes it, and is rewarded. He in no way participates in the self-expansion of capital.

The woodworker certainly participates in that process (at least, in the same way that the worker coop does). Consider:

Worker Coop:

M - C (pays for MoP and labor (MoC of workers)) ...P... (the production process occurs) C' - M' (the new product is sold at a higher price than initial M input - for payment of wages and MoP)

Woodworker (self-employed):

M - C (pays for MoP and MoC) ...P... (the production process occurs) C' - M' (the new product is sold at a higher price than initial M input - for payment of MoC and MoP)

Insofar as either of these exists they do not have an explicit interest in the self-expansion of capital, per se. The motive of the self-employed or worker-coops to "grow" is nonexistent. Neither of them participate in the self-expansion of capital, but they both participate in the circulation of capital in general as the system of general profit making (by the use of money and commodity production).


In the case of the co-operative however, the co-operative acts as an independent entity which hires out workers and sets them to work producing goods which are then sold on for a profit. The workers participate in the self-expansion of capital.

In the case of a composer, he goes to work producing goods using his MoP that are sold on for profit, at least as far as that word has meaning to worker coops and composers.


No, the physical personage of the capitalist no longer exists, but instead the embodiment of capital transfers to the labourers as collective capitalist which exploits the individual labourers.

Mmhmm. So you are saying that the simple fact that it is plural vs singular is the reason why the self-employed are not similar members as worker coop workers? Because both the self-employed and the members of a worker coop have control over their labor and the production process in general and produce commodities for sale and operate with money and purchase circulating MoP. Perhaps you could offer the clear and distinct definition of "the capital relation", both on a local level and on a full economic level, that you are using, in order to clarify and show that you are being linguistically consistent. I'm perfectly willing to provide mine (though I believe I already did...?).


The defining characteristic of capitalism has nothing to do with control over the MoP, it's about the buying and selling of labour-power. The labour-power of the co-operative workers is still a marketable good which is bought by the co-operative.

Okay, this is something! The distinction you are offering is the same as the one offered by Comrade Richter. It lies in the capacity of the labor-power to be sold on the labor market (that is, for it to be "productive" labor from the POV of a capitalist). I still ask, why the exclusion of those who are not productive strictly from the capitalists' backwards economic perspective, if they are revolutionary and support the shift in perspective that would make their work productive?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, from Marx's definition of productive labor for the capitalist class/within the capitalist framework (which I assume is the POV taken in your and PC's definitions) worker coop labor is potentially productive, while most self-employed labor is not.

It is important to remember that labor is only productive from the relative standpoint of a particular class/within a particular mode of production.

Comrade, I do think there's a deviation from "for the capitalist class." Cockshott focuses on the "workers consumption bundle." Take, for example, the factory worker in arms trade. According to the capitalist class framework, his work is productive because it produces surplus value (Marx). According to Cockshott's POV, however, he isn't productive because his produce doesn't enter the "workers consumption bundle." Not all surplus-value-producing work is productive. According to my POV, it's only productive if and only if he's producing some military technology that will be used eventually by ordinary citizens.

[Victus Mortuum]

Comrade, I do think there's a deviation from "for the capitalist class." Cockshott focuses on the "workers consumption bundle." Take, for example, the factory worker in arms trade. According to the capitalist class framework, his work is productive because it produces surplus value (Marx). According to Cockshott's POV, however, he isn't productive because his produce doesn't enter the "workers consumption bundle." Not all surplus-value-producing work is productive. According to my POV, it's only productive if and only if he's producing some military technology that will be used eventually by ordinary citizens.

Okay, so by Cockshott's definition of "productive labor" (which seems to me to be labor that is productive from the POV of the worker-class?), wouldn't a movie that is viewed commonly in a theater be a product in this bundle? Isn't the self-employed labor of the composer for said movie therefore 'productive labor'? And I'm not sure if I understand how your perspective is distinct from his. Is this something you have addressed in your WIP that I am just not remembering?

Edit:

Also, assuming something akin to the above or maybe something different

Why is this grounds for exclusion from the organization/class movement?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You would have to ask him, but yes I would think that the self-employed or "self-employed" labour of the composer for said movie in the consumption bundle could be productive. The question is: is the composer really self-employed, or is he a coordinator?

[Victus Mortuum]

According to the definition of the parecon folk? Probably

But, I find their distinction of coordinator-class v. worker-class lacking and without a well-defined basis. I tend to consider the coordinator-class as those who have to work to survive but whose work implies their undemocratic control over other workers (alienating other workers from their work) - thus truly embodying coordination and managing, not some arbitrary definition of "empowering labor" vs "non-empowering labor".

So the composer, in the framework I tend to use would be a self-employed (i.e. singular production) member of the non-productive (from the cap. perspective) sub-class of the worker-class.

But, regardless of the titles and class-abstractions we decide to associate with this particular fellow, why would he be barred if he was radical in his thinking given that his position is not in danger of being lessened by the radical changes offered?

[Victus Mortuum]

5) Lumpen (better, more modern word?): how to express this?

Thoughts?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wish More Fire to the People, the comrade who suggested the three "lumpen" class divides, were here to post on that part. :(