What do marxist have to say about digital employees?

[Riveraxis]

I do not doubt the validity of Marx's work in the present day. I think it's just as relevant now as it ever was.
But of course, Marx didn't live in the modern world and didn't seem to anticipate the rise of certain industries.

Such as those who's workers are almost entirely computer-oriented. I mean call centers, and tech support, and the like. Now I don't mean to be condescending. But those types of jobs are not labor. they may be mentally exhausting and redundant, but they aren't labor. And I say that with no disrespect towards anyone who has such a job. I'm not saying they aren't important jobs.

What I'm asking is where do they fit in? It seems to me that the digital workers (for lack of a better term) have less reason to revolt than nearly anybody else. Because their jobs are relatively autonomous and they don't create any kind of attachment to your work.
But they make up so much of the modern work force that they're an important factor still.

What can a socialist preach to a customer service agent?
"I believe you should own your own means of production. Including your work computer and your office phone."
To which they might reply,
"Well I've got a computer at home. Thanks though."

I can see why masses of warehouse laborers, farmers, etc would get behind that notion. But not a digital worker. A digital worker comes to work, turns on autopilot for the day, then goes home. I say that with confidence because I was one for a long time. It's a primal survival instinct to "shut off" when you're preparing for 8-9 hours of total bullshit.
I don't think many of them have ambitions to seize their call centers and reform their labor policies.

/At least, in my perspective. I'm interested in hearing yours.

[Conscript]

Like all workers, either they are productive laborers or perform a non-value producing but socially necessary role, like support, cashiers, and maintenance.

Also, I 'shut off' at my jobs. It's pretty natural, you turn into nothing but a rented body.

[Riveraxis]

Well, sure, you could break down who is productive and who is not.
I'm sure many call centers- particularly the ones devote to scams, advertising, telemarketing, or whatever else- don't really have a practical place in society.

My main point, tho, was that when the manifesto was written, the concept of a "worker" was much different than it is now. Now we have these digital workers rather than masses and masses of oppressed steel-millers. I won't say that they aren't oppressed, I mean we're all oppressed, but not nearly to the point it would take to spark a change.
Rallying 500 sweaty, bored, struggling steel-millers together might be a lot easier than 500 hipsters and middle-aged phone employees.

[Red Commissar]

I don't know where it said that when it comes to a "worker" it necessarily always has to be intensive labor. When Marx and co. were around it was in a time when such jobs were almost always labor-intensive, but the overall purpose behind the work is the same. You are selling your services/labor for some sort of payment over a span of time- be it a wage, salary, onetime job, what ever. The person who manages all these employees is profiting off their work, so the end result is the same even if they aren't doing physical labor. Exploitation contines regardless of whether you are selling physical or mental services. The fact that a lot of these corporations do what they can to minimize labor costs while overworking these employees, or hiring them in areas with more lax labor laws, underscores this.

That being said the organization of these kinds of office work have been incredibly hard to unionize not because they are "hipsters" or middle-aged, but because the work environment encourages individual work rather than group work. Steelworkers are going to be inevitably working with others- in some desk jobs its possible for employees to be cooped up in their one place, or even working from home, with little interaction beyond a weekly/montly meeting, lunch, watercooler small talk, etc. In the kind of jobs where they do have a lot of collaborations, these tend to be higher paying but for a limited amount of spots for the lower rungs to aspire to in advancements, so the drive to unionize isn't as pronounced. Instead it's replaced by a really idiotic fight justified as competition.

Plus it doesn't help when even in industries where unions have traditionally been the strongest have had difficulties operating and fighting back against businesses and government in cuts and firings, so to go and tell people in a field that has never had a serious union to do so will likely draw little energy.

As for "turning off" and going into a routine, even physical workers do that. This is alienation.

[Riveraxis]

I don't know where it said that when it comes to a "worker" it necessarily always has to be intensive labor.

I don't know that anyone specifically proclaimed that- I'm not proclaiming that- but I do see it as an important factor.

Humans adapt. We've done it forever. We adapted to capitalism. There is a difference between adapting and capitulating.
An intensive worker is much less likely to capitulate, because their labor is a measure of their oppression. Its a constant reminder.
The digital employee is not in this situation. If there is a measure of their oppression, it is simply the years they've spent on someone else's benefit. But that is not apparent day by day. That is not a sharp pain digging into their backs day after day or a callous on their heels. That is the kind of thing that, if they are already accustomed to "turning off", they can entirely ignore.

I ask this question not because of some disdain for digital employees, but because I think they're important, like any worker, and in a very difficult situation.

[o well this is ok I guess]

What can a socialist preach to a customer service agent? "Imagine a society where people didn't have work 8 hours a day doing nothing of value".

[Blake's Baby]

Well, sure, you could break down who is productive and who is not.
I'm sure many call centers- particularly the ones devote to scams, advertising, telemarketing, or whatever else- don't really have a practical place in society...

I think you misunderstand what 'productive' means here.

Something can be 'productive' for capital without in any way being useful or 'practical' outside of capitalism. Without property laws, buying and selling, why would need 99% of the police's functions, armies, security guards, the Inland Revenue, advertising, the entire banking and financial sector, the patent office or intellectual property protection departments? All of these things are 'productive' for capital (they help turn labour into cash) but they're unnecessary in a non-capitalist framework.

Telemarketing is a way of turning labour (work; physical time spent by humans doing stuff, whether pushing buttons or battering pieces of molten steel with hammers) into cash. Therefore, productive for capital.


...
My main point, tho, was that when the manifesto was written, the concept of a "worker" was much different than it is now. Now we have these digital workers rather than masses and masses of oppressed steel-millers. I won't say that they aren't oppressed, I mean we're all oppressed, but not nearly to the point it would take to spark a change.
Rallying 500 sweaty, bored, struggling steel-millers together might be a lot easier than 500 hipsters and middle-aged phone employees.

Marx was a journalist. Did you think that he was a coal-miner? I think he was aware of distinctions between what we'd think of as 'factory'/'office' or 'blue-collar'/'white collar' jobs.

He regarded office workers as wage slaves too - I'm sure there's some line about the cage being a bit more gilded, but it's a cage nevertheless.



On your original point, the aim of the revolution surely is not to merely socialise capitalism and keep everything else the same. 80% of the 'work' we do is pointless or positively counter-productive. For someone who works in a call-centre now, the point of the revolution is not to seize the computer and phone that they work with, but to take back their life and to begin to meaningfully contribute to society.

[Q]

Such as those who's workers are almost entirely computer-oriented. I mean call centers, and tech support, and the like. Now I don't mean to be condescending. But those types of jobs are not labor. they may be mentally exhausting and redundant, but they aren't labor. And I say that with no disrespect towards anyone who has such a job. I'm not saying they aren't important jobs.
I think the first question that should be asked then is what you understand to be "labor"?


What can a socialist preach to a customer service agent?
"I believe you should own your own means of production. Including your work computer and your office phone."
To which they might reply,
"Well I've got a computer at home. Thanks though."
Owning the means of production is a precondition to human liberation. It is not the endgoal.


I can see why masses of warehouse laborers, farmers, etc would get behind that notion. But not a digital worker. A digital worker comes to work, turns on autopilot for the day, then goes home. I say that with confidence because I was one for a long time. It's a primal survival instinct to "shut off" when you're preparing for 8-9 hours of total bullshit.
Work under capitalism in general is total bullshit from you're shutting off and you do on autopilot. This is what Marx referred to as alienation.

Note: I'm working for Apple tech support myself and I consider myself to be very much exploited in the Marxist sense of the word.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, I work as a part-time programmer for a websolutions company. I'm not sure how it would be much different from other wage-slavery jobs, though.

I can't really decide what to work on myself. My boss has the last say in whatever he wants me to work on, no matter how mind-numbing it may be. Of course, my boss isn't a bad guy per se, but if I wouldn't be prepared to do that, I would be useless to him.

Yes, I got my own computer ('means of production') at home, but I can't suddenly decide to utilize it as such. I don't have the connections nor the self-confidence to work 'self-employed', which would still be not much different from what I do now, because I would still have 'customers' telling me what to make.

[Blake's Baby]

All that would happen if you did would be moving from an employee with a wage in a capitalist environment to an idependent producer in a capitalist environment. From capitalist commodity production (working for a boss who sells your 'product' to clients) to simple commodity production (selling your own 'product' to clients).

It's grim, I've done it and it's not fun (as a freelance designer rather thn a programmer but there are obviously parallels), though you have more control over process. Less certainty about when you're next going to get paid though.

In the end you're still functioning inside of capitalism even if you remove the worker/boss relationship. Which, maybe, mitigates some of the 'alienation' that Q mentions (though in the end there's much more to alienation than boredom).

[RedMaterialist]

I can see why masses of warehouse laborers, farmers, etc would get behind that notion. But not a digital worker. A digital worker comes to work, turns on autopilot for the day, then goes home. I say that with confidence because I was one for a long time. It's a primal survival instinct to "shut off" when you're preparing for 8-9 hours of total bullshit.
I don't think many of them have ambitions to seize their call centers and reform their labor policies.



Marx from the Manifesto:

"Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him."

That pretty much describes the "auto-pilot...bullshit" work you experienced. As far as call-center work not being labor, most production today is "services." A clerk at a Wal-Mart, a teacher, nurse, firefighter, etc., don't produce things, they produce services. These services are necessary for the community and are extremely profitable for the corporate owners of the means of production/services. I think it is a mistake to say the work is not labor; in the 17th century a group of economists, the Physiocrats, argued that only agricultural work was "productive" and that factory work was unproductive. Then came Adam Smith and the industrial revolution. Marx even talked about how services were, in effect, the distribution of products. (I'm not sure where.)

Call center workers are a fairly new part of the labor force and may not have had time to develop the kind of consciousness needed to even think about forming unions and striking for better wages.

The means of production call center workers would have to seize are a vast, global network of computers, cell-phone towers, massive data bases, impossibly complex computer software. In order for workers to seize all that they would have to be organized on a global scale, just like the companies are. Which brings in Marx and global socialist revolution.

[RedMaterialist]

.
Rallying 500 sweaty, bored, struggling steel-millers together might be a lot easier than 500 hipsters and middle-aged phone employees.

The Communications Workers of America represent a lot of call-center workers. Maybe you should contact them about organizing a local.

[Riveraxis]

I think the first question that should be asked then is what you understand to be "labor"?

Technically any job is labor. I suppose a better way to phrase this is that they are not "physical laborers". But don't hang on the words so much- I was really just meaning to compare and contrast the two. Because the warehouse worker and white collar worker are in different positions.



Owning the means of production is a precondition to human liberation. It is not the endgoal.
Good point. I was considering it backwards.

[Riveraxis]

The means of production call center workers would have to seize are a vast, global network of computers, cell-phone towers, massive data bases, impossibly complex computer software. In order for workers to seize all that they would have to be organized on a global scale, just like the companies are. Which brings in Marx and global socialist revolution.

As it would be with anything, right? In that case it does not necessarily come down to call center employees to make that happen. I agree with the global revolution- but I think more people than call center operators stand to gain something by seizing those global networks and such.
We'll need those networks- or networks like those- to be used for different purposes. Organizational purposes, perhaps.

[Blake's Baby]

Sure. But that's the same as any 'service'-type industry. Collectivisation of the railways doesn't mean railway workers just travel on trains all day for the hell of it and don't let anyone else on. Working in healthcare doesn't mean every nurse gets to to inject themselves with diamorphine and play with bandages all day.

Economies are inter-realted things. Differrent sectors need each other to work. Yes, we'll need telecommunications infrastructure. No, we won't need 'direct sales teams'.

[Luís Henrique]

I think you misunderstand what 'productive' means here.

Something can be 'productive' for capital without in any way being useful or 'practical' outside of capitalism. Without property laws, buying and selling, why would need 99% of the police's functions, armies, security guards, the Inland Revenue, advertising, the entire banking and financial sector, the patent office or intellectual property protection departments? All of these things are 'productive' for capital (they help turn labour into cash) but they're unnecessary in a non-capitalist framework.

I think you misunderstand what "productive" means. Those things are necessary for capital; they are not "productive", they don't produce value if they don't produce commodities that can be bought and sold. But the trick is, value is not necessary to "society"; it is only necessary to capital. Value is not wealth - value is only the form wealth takes in a society dominated by market.

On the other side, even in a capitalist society, production is not everything, and not even all of the economy - which requires circulation and distribution - ; non-economic activities are very much necessary, albeit completely unproductive.

Luís Henrique

[WelCom]

I think in modern day capitalism the digital workforce (programmers, digital marketing folk, etc.) is highly important but it is, I believe, often ignored by left-wing movements.

Today a very big share of economy is run by these digital people, for example, effective banking transactions wouldn't be possible without constant IT support. Also there is a huge growth in e-commerce sector. Whole business, whole planet are being connected in one network. Forget an industrial age, we came to a digital age.

Digital people are owning their most important mean of production - their knowledge. From my experience these people are usually open minded, well educated and progressive. However, they are quite well paid, they like what they do more or less, so they wont revolt only for "bread". Also they dont have a collective conscious.

I think one of the missions of left-wing in the 21st century is to take those guys on their side. They are the major workforce of the 21 century as were factory workers in 19-20 century.

P.S. also there is a blog which tries to discuss about the digital stuff and contemporary culture I think in modern day capitalism the digital workforce (programmers, digital marketing folk, etc.) is highly important but it is, I believe, often ignored by left-wing movements.

Today a very big share of economy is run by these digital people, for example, effective banking transactions wouldn't be possible without constant IT support. Also there is a huge growth in e-commerce sector. Whole business, whole planet are being connected in one network. Forget an industrial age, we came to a digital age.

Digital people are owning their most important mean of production - their knowledge. From my experience these people are usually open minded, well educated and progressive. However, they are quite well paid, they like what they do more or less and they dont have a collective conscious.

I think one of the missions of left-wing in the 21st century is to take those guys on their side. They are the major workforce of the 21 century as were factory workers in 19-20 century.

P.S. there is a blog which tries to discuss about the digital stuff and contemporary culture - cultureanddigital.blogspot.com