Post industrial capitalism and social classes

[Cane Nero]

In our present time is occurring a large and growing number of changes within the capitalist mode of production, as the automation of production.

And this automation of production is also increasingly taking the identity of the workers as such. The proletariat is gradually becoming even less conscious of himself as a social class. (Which, in some way, kind sustain my position of the class consciousness as not necessarily being a predisposition for the revolution).

So, will it cause any significant change in the composition of classes and the capitalist social relations?

[scarletghoul]

The whole idea of "post-industrial capitalism" is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think the world ends at suburbia, and that all the commodities are just produced magically somehow and appear out of the sky..

Fact is, there is more exploitation than ever before. The difference is that the worst of it has shifted to countries like China and India, with the consolidation of global capitalism and the developed opulence of the imperialist countries (though the latter is starting to reverse now). But it's the same system, it is still the same industrial capitalism.

[ar734]

The whole idea of "post-industrial capitalism" is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think the world ends at suburbia, and that all the commodities are just produced magically somehow and appear out of the sky..

Fact is, there is more exploitation than ever before. The difference is that the worst of it has shifted to countries like China and India, with the consolidation of global capitalism and the developed opulence of the imperialist countries (though the latter is starting to reverse now). But it's the same system, it is still the same industrial capitalism.

Actually, I think we in the West already have moved beyond a post-industrial capitalist society into monopoly-finance capitalism. The economy doesn't produce anything any more, just debt. BMWs aren't even made in Germany; they are assembled from parts made in Mexico.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Actually, I think we in the West already have moved beyond a post-industrial capitalist society into monopoly-finance capitalism. The economy doesn't produce anything any more, just debt. BMWs aren't even made in Germany; they are assembled from parts made in Mexico.

There's still a fair bit of production in the United States and Europe, though, and finance capitalism is not at odds therewith. The most labour intensive and technologically less advanced production has been shifted to places with cheaper labour costs, but this is not everything there is.

[KC]

Actually, I think we in the West already have moved beyond a post-industrial capitalist society into monopoly-finance capitalism. The economy doesn't produce anything any more, just debt. BMWs aren't even made in Germany; they are assembled from parts made in Mexico.

The US is one of the largest producers, if not the largest, in the world.

[scarletghoul]

Thats not the point,, even in places where there is no production and the economy is mostly financial, it is only that way because the production has shifted geographically due to the unity of the world economy. No country can be called "post-industrial" as long as it runs on industrially produced goods. Whether they are produced in the US or China or Papua New Guinea is not the point. Have to see the whole picture..

[bcbm]

i agree that our (global) economy remains industrial, but i think "post-industrial" is an attempt to understand the changes that have taken place within it since say 1850 (or 1950) and that is important.

[scarletghoul]

i agree that our (global) economy remains industrial, but i think "post-industrial" is an attempt to understand the changes that have taken place within it since say 1850 (or 1950) and that is important.
Yeah I just think its a stupid term, and implies a neglect of the bigger picture.. "Late capitalism" is a better term.

[bcbm]

i think it is more important to understand what a term means than disagree with the term. there is probably a better way to describe it than "post-industrial" but that seems a pretty common term, so, better to deal with that and examine its consequences i think. it is true that the us is the largest manufacturer in the world but its also a tiny part of the economy and i think that means something different is happening here than in countries where manufacturing occupies a large part of the economy, for one example

[scarletghoul]

i think it is more important to understand what a term means than disagree with the term.
In general this is true, but the term itself has a huge impact on the meaning. It's impossible to understand contemporary society if you call it "post-industrial".. industry is still essential..

[bcbm]

i dunno i think terms are less important than what they signify, to describe us as "post industrial" because it is mostly not based in manufacturing makes sense in a certain way, it doesn't mean you can't call attention to the fact that global society is still very industrial

[Coggeh]

In our present time is occurring a large and growing number of changes within the capitalist mode of production, as the automation of production.

And this automation of production is also increasingly taking the identity of the workers as such. The proletariat is gradually becoming even less conscious of himself as a social class. (Which, in some way, kind sustain my position of the class consciousness as not necessarily being a predisposition for the revolution).

So, will it cause any significant change in the composition of classes and the capitalist social relations?
I don't think workers are becoming less conscious. To disregard details and to put it bluntly(?, i think thats the word i don't know) 2 things are needed for the raising of class consciousness and the workers movement. . That is an attack by the bourgeoisie on the working class as we are currently seeing, and political leadership from the trade unions or other sources.Not with the first case mentioned, that hasn't always been the case like in may68 in France, where was the recession? bad conditions don't necessarily mean workers struggle and good conditions don't necessarily mean no workers struggle but this is dependant on the second case, as in where is the political leadership, is it weak? is it strong etc I don't think capitalism as at a stage or will ever reach a stage where (because..its capitalism) that the workers struggle will be inept or impossible.

Class consciousness is a predisposition of the workers revolution. In fact its the most important thing, the self identification as labour inherently pitted against capital and to drive for a society where the workers control society, where classes and archaic social orders are done away with, only with a conscious proletariat can this be achieved.

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of the context of the last question. Post industrial meaning the finance capitalist we have now? I don't think it will, how could it ? capitalism is a system where classes are virtually divided into 2 groups, bourgeoisie and proletariat no development realistically in capitalism could change this, if such a development occurred where another class was to usurp power over the bourgeoisie that is not the working class then it wouldn't be capitalism in essence. Thats my understanding anyway, though I'm open to correction. Theoretics is not my strong suit by any means.

[Cane Nero]

The "Post industrial" term ( or whatever other term you prefer) doesn´t mean the end of the industrial economy and it can only be applied in countries where there is huge investments in new tecnologies of production. And above all, it has nothing to do with the decrease in explotation, but the testing of new forms of exploitation, domination and alienation by capital.


"This change is most obvious and most felt in the centres of advanced capitalism, but the logic of information technology and decentralised production now reaches what were once remote periferal areas, drawing them into an artificial communitarianism whose only real element is exploitation. In the “western world” the traditional worker, cornerstone of the authoritarian revolutionary thesis, and still a principle element in many anarchist ones, is being tossed out of the grey graveyards of docks, factories and mines, into the coloured graveyards of home-videos, brightly lit job-centres, community centres, multi-ethnic creches, etc, in the muraled ghettos. " The structure of domination has shifted from straightforward arbitrary rule to a relationship based on adjustment and compromise. This has led to a considerable increase in demand for services compared to such traditional demands as for durable consumer goods. The results have been an increase in those aspects of production based on information technology, the robotisation of the productive sector, and the pre-eminence of the services sector (commerce, tourism, transport, credit, insurance, public administration, etc) over industry and agriculture.
This does not mean that the industrial sector has disappeared or become insignificant; only that it will employ fewer and fewer workers while levels of production remain the same, or even improve. The same is true of agriculture, which will be greatly affected by the process of industrialisation, and distinguishable from industry in statistical rather than social terms.

Source: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__From_Riot_to_Insurrection__Ana lysis_for_an_anarchist_perspective_against_post-industrial_capitalism.html#toc3

[Cane Nero]

My point here is exactly the analysis of the current composition of classes.

The stereotypical old factory worker and the bloated industrial bourgeois is being replaced by a more "soft" new kind of Boss/Worker relation and the division of the social classes are becoming less clear, especially to the proletariat.

[the last donut of the night]

My point here is exactly the analysis of the current composition of classes.

The stereotypical old factory worker and the bloated industrial bourgeois is being replaced by a more "soft" new kind of Boss/Worker relation and the division of the social classes are becoming less clear, especially to the proletariat.

lol far from it

[La Comédie Noire]

I think our society going from rote factory labor to a service and high tech economy has allowed workers to expand their horizons. We now see ourselves more as human beings and this conception of ourselves comes into conflict with corporate power and our role as wage laborers all the time.

The ruling class has changed tactics accordingly by emphasizing our roles as "team members" and filling our leisure time with distractions. Things appear as if they are different, but leftists should know appearances are not everything. We lived for 50 years in a society that has promised everything and now that we are in the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the ruling elites have dropped all pretenses and given us the same old command "get back to work."

So yes, I agree, we are post industrial, but just as "green" means something different to corporations and activists, so does post industrial have two different meanings and functions for us and for them. We are post industrial in our aspirations and our possibilities, they use post industrial as an excuse for our continued exploitation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The United States is still the world's largest manufacturer. Some 20% of production in the world takes place here.

While there has certainly been outsourcing, there has also been an increase in the level of available technology. The means of production have been made much more efficient.

For example: The elimination of huge numbers of steel mills wasn't only about foreign competition or plant relocation. It was also due to advances that made it possible to produce more with less workers and work-hours. But this change in the composition of capital has also been a major source of problems. Part of the reason the bosses have been attacking workers and increasing the intensity of work and exploitation is that so much is invested in constant capital (factories, tools, technology) in relation to variable capital (cost to hire and pay workers). Factories don't create value. Workers do.

We can also look at rail. They've either ripped up or abandoned tons of tracks in the United States. But it's not because they're no longer using rail. It's because they've made rail transport more efficient. They're moving huge amounts of freight on single lines now.

[Kadir Ateş]

In our present time is occurring a large and growing number of changes within the capitalist mode of production, as the automation of production.

And this automation of production is also increasingly taking the identity of the workers as such. The proletariat is gradually becoming even less conscious of himself as a social class. (Which, in some way, kind sustain my position of the class consciousness as not necessarily being a predisposition for the revolution).

So, will it cause any significant change in the composition of classes and the capitalist social relations?

In the era of "deindustrialization" or what I think is better termed as the further increase in the real domination of labour to capital, the question of how this will affect social class is a real problem for many on the left to understand. I think this movement, in which living labour is being expelled by the millions from the production process due to automation, may express itself as the further disintegration of the working class. I mean this in the sense that those purged from production now become a burden for capital and as such they are no longer able to provide surplus value for the latter; they are rendered superfluous and they do not matter to capital.

I do not think this will change the social relations, but rather reinforce the general tendency for the immiseration of the proletariat. Because we have so many unemployed people, I think this provides a deadly opening for further radicalisation along nationalist and religious fundamentalist lines.

[RichardAWilson]

It should be remembered that even a service-based economy is a production-based economy in the sense that services are still commodities.

The working conditions for Western service and retail workers are often worse than for manufacturing workers in those countries and economies. Furthermore, incomes are often much lower and benefits are often unavailable for those working in service and retail sectors. Making matters worse: Job-Security is unknown and it’s common for employers to discharge Associates for minor infractions of Company-Policy.

Their (service worker) exploitation and the fact that they're often unorganized makes them a breeding ground for revolutionary struggle. The trade unions that are working to organize these disenfranchised workers are often more progressive than the traditional unions.

One Reason: Many working in the service and retail sectors are former manufacturing workers, computer programmers and construction workers that know that America has failed them.

The American Dream has become nothing more than a meaningless phrase that is uttered by those wishing to maintain the system.

Another Reason: We now have a situation where college graduates (who are often indebted) are graduating from college with degrees and are forced to take low paying jobs. They're pissed and disillusioned with capitalism, which has failed to deliver the goods and jobs they were promised.

[RichardAWilson]

What we're seeing in Athens, London and Madrid is the ultimate consequence of so-called "Post-Industrial Capitalism." We're even seeing it more and more here in the U.S. (Wisconsin).

[DragonDrop]

One of the biggest problems with what people call post-industrialism (class wise) is that in "first world countries" there are a lot of proles (largely white-collar) who would probably not benefit from an egalitarian society. This means that they will very often stand up for their exploiters. Also, the whole idea of proletariat/bourgeoisie is obscured by sub-divisions of the proletariat (lower class/middle class/upper class or sometimes even more detailed). People don't seem to realise that when socialists speak of capitalists, they aren't talking about the "upper class" they are talking about the shareholders that own everything, have more money than everyone else, and don't work at all. I'm not even sure if people realise that such people still exist. It's less clear than back in the days of a small, visible population of a half dozen property owners and then everyone else.

[Jose Gracchus]

In the era of "deindustrialization" or what I think is better termed as the further increase in the real domination of labour to capital, the question of how this will affect social class is a real problem for many on the left to understand. I think this movement, in which living labour is being expelled by the millions from the production process due to automation, may express itself as the further disintegration of the working class. I mean this in the sense that those purged from production now become a burden for capital and as such they are no longer able to provide surplus value for the latter; they are rendered superfluous and they do not matter to capital.

I do not think this will change the social relations, but rather reinforce the general tendency for the immiseration of the proletariat. Because we have so many unemployed people, I think this provides a deadly opening for further radicalisation along nationalist and religious fundamentalist lines.

Is there any hope for it opening, in your view, new lines of working-class struggle? Because this seems pretty pessimistic/fatalistic in my view, that capital has found a way to just pulverize and disintegrate the working-class as any having any realistic capacity to realize itself as a class for itself, then we might as well all hang up our hats and go home and await the barbarism.

[Cane Nero]

I do not think this will change the social relations, but rather reinforce the general tendency for the immiseration of the proletariat. Because we have so many unemployed people, I think this provides a deadly opening for further radicalisation along nationalist and religious fundamentalist lines.

I see this radicalization here in Brazil, for example. It´s having a sudden surge of nationalist groups doing various protests as a way to recruit militants for their causes and, along with it, violent racist actions against the immiserated strata of the proletariat, like homeless people and slum dwellers.

This really worries me ...

[bailey_187]

the idea that the third world is where all the industry is and the advanced economies are just full of the service sector is false. looking through The Economist's Pocket world in figures book, if a country has more industry than agriculture it has a large service sector. I mean, the UK has the same % of its economy employed in industry as Venezuela. Over a quarter of the EU is employed in manufacturing (and are therefore traditional proles, if such a thing exists), which is much more than Brazil and even slighlt more than China! Most countries with low argicultural sectors have about 60-70% of their economies engaged in the service sector, regardless of being part of the "third world" or imperialist countries.

More facts froma fred i made the other day and no one replied to :(. might be some repeats:

but flicking through The Economist pocket world in figures book, the majority of the economies of the world seem to be dominated by service industry, even in poor Latin American or South East Asian economies etc. For example Venezuela and Peru have roughly the same percentage of people working in the service industry as the USA does, while all three of these countries have more employed in the service industry (as a %) than Italy. On the whole though most of the economies of the world seem to dominated by the service sector, with it being about 50-70% of the economy, regardless of catagories of Third or First world etc. (Although the exceptions seem to be African economies, when there is information avaliable, as agriculture seems in many to be more dominant)

The UK actually produces more cars now than ever. There has been a relative shift, with the "third world" accounting more for production, but in real terms, more is produced in the advanced economies than ever before (maybe russia could be an exception if u class it with the advanced economies, im not sure)

[MarxSchmarx]

One of the biggest problems with what people call post-industrialism (class wise) is that in "first world countries" there are a lot of proles (largely white-collar) who would probably not benefit from an egalitarian society. This means that they will very often stand up for their exploiters. Also, the whole idea of proletariat/bourgeoisie is obscured by sub-divisions of the proletariat (lower class/middle class/upper class or sometimes even more detailed). People don't seem to realise that when socialists speak of capitalists, they aren't talking about the "upper class" they are talking about the shareholders that own everything, have more money than everyone else, and don't work at all. I'm not even sure if people realise that such people still exist. It's less clear than back in the days of a small, visible population of a half dozen property owners and then everyone else.

On the whole I think this is a good point. However, what is striking is how different the conclusions one should draw from this are. On the one hand, one can follow the line of many Maoists, for example, and realize that the majority of "workers" in the global north has collectively become the new bourgeoisie and that to the extent that the traditional class struggle exists it now operates on the majority of people in the global north + traditional capitalists versus the peasants, workers of the global south and the internally colonized people in the global north.

An alternative conclusions it that the traditional, exclusive emphasis on the class struggle is no longer applicable, at least as far as the global north is concerned. There are still concrete day to day actions, but by and large the class struggle as such has ceased to be the major driver of social change in the global north - or, to put it perhaps a tad more mildly, capitalism has found a way to continue apace without being challenged by the class contradictions. While out-sourcing has played a role, it still remains the case that the lion's share of developed countries major trade and capital transfer are with other developed countries (for example, if you add up Japan, Canada and EU's contribution to trade with America they are a solid majority of America's trade even though China is Ameica's single largest trading partner) I think technological development has played no small role in this, just as it has mitigated Malthus's analysis.

There is of course a third alternative of the rather patronizing "false consciousness" line. That analysis has a lot of merit, but I think is ultimately an insufficiently materialist explanation to be seriously entertained.

So what is one to do? On the whole, I think the left needs to articulate why it's vision is so compelling beyond addressing the plight of the mass urban proletariat. Instead of saying "we are being exploited in our crummy jobs" true tho it is, the left needs to go beyond a critique of capitalism focused on the shortcomings of people's material realities (an analysis that was developed and which matured in the late 19th century) to a critique of capitalism focused on it's inability to fulfill people's aspirations.

Hence, at least in the global north the left has been like an ostrich with its head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that most at least white collar workers in the global north have been in a very real sense "bought off" with unparalleled material comfort. This renders appeals to "bread and butter" issues alone inadequate. From time to time the capitalists over play their hand, as they did in the Lehman shock. When they do, economic security can be a potent tool the left utilizes.

I hasten to add that even within the "global north" there are countries where a focus on purely economic insecurity has considerable relevance. In particular, in the United States, southern europe, and south korea, where there are still very inadequate social welfare and where the working class is considerably more vulnerable, I think some of the traditional leftist critiques still resonate deeply.

but on the whole the social contract esp. in places like Germany and Scandinavia remains where capitalism continues to work out quite agreeably for enough people to keep the risk of social upheaval minimal. Only by highlighting still statistically anomolous examples of extreme poverty and insecurity experienced by denizens of the first world has the left been able to stay at all relevant in the global north.

[Jose Gracchus]

the idea that the third world is where all the industry is and the advanced economies are just full of the service sector is false. looking through The Economist's Pocket world in figures book, if a country has more industry than agriculture it has a large service sector. I mean, the UK has the same % of its economy employed in industry as Venezuela. Over a quarter of the EU is employed in manufacturing (and are therefore traditional proles, if such a thing exists), which is much more than Brazil and even slighlt more than China! Most countries with low argicultural sectors have about 60-70% of their economies engaged in the service sector, regardless of being part of the "third world" or imperialist countries.

More facts froma fred i made the other day and no one replied to :(. might be some repeats:


The UK actually produces more cars now than ever. There has been a relative shift, with the "third world" accounting more for production, but in real terms, more is produced in the advanced economies than ever before (maybe russia could be an exception if u class it with the advanced economies, im not sure)

Thank you for actually doing your homework and defeating the vulgar neoliberal "white ppl make duh brownies build everything and just ship it in" rhetoric out there, which leads to dead-end politics and just a hop-skip-and-a-jump to Third Worldism.

[Lucretia]

As machines assume more production, the organic composition of capital rises and fewer people are involved in industrial labor. It also means business are less able to extract the profits they need to grow and make capitalism sustainable. That's why I prefer the term "late capitalism" versus "post-industrialism." That, and there are still people involved in industrial labor. :)

[Rocky Rococo]

The whole idea of "post-industrial capitalism" is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think the world ends at suburbia, and that all the commodities are just produced magically somehow and appear out of the sky..

Fact is, there is more exploitation than ever before. The difference is that the worst of it has shifted to countries like China and India, with the consolidation of global capitalism and the developed opulence of the imperialist countries (though the latter is starting to reverse now). But it's the same system, it is still the same industrial capitalism.

Our western rulers are happy to agree that with this shift of production to third world/developing countries, that there are no working classes left in the west, that we're all fat and happy "middle class" consumers now.

Until revolutionary left doctrine stops clinging to a nineteenth century image of what a worker is, what the working class is, and grasps the context and character of the 21st century working class existence in the advanced as well as the developing regions, I'm afraid we will continue to be a dwindling, less and less relevant political current.