Capitalism or employism?

[bropasaran]

One topic of pure theorizing.

Should the system we live in be called capitalism, and are we living in capital-ism? Marxist tradition (most of it) identifies capitalism not only with wage relations of alienation of labor, but also with all market relations, Proudhonian libertarian socialist tradition identifies capitalism with wage relations and with rentiering market relations (meaning basically renting anything). Should that be the case? Slavery and feudalism are identified only on the basis of production relations, that is- alienation of labor happening there, not with any relations in the sphere of economical circulation. With regards to that, wouldn't it not be more logical to likewise identify the system we live in on the basis of just relations of production, seeing it then not as capital-ism, but as employ-ism, refering to the dichotomy of the employer and employee. There is nothing impossible in e.g. abolishing just wage labor, but leaving virtually everything else in the system intact, even the ownership relations. That would mean that "employism" would be abolished, but capitalism would still exist, both according to marxian and proudhonian views. E.g. capitalist wouldn't be able to employ workers in his factory, but could sell or rent it to a group of workers (constituting a company/ coop).

It seems like those two notions have always been conflated, I don't know if anyone has been idle to a degree I obviously was so as to think about this :rolleyes: but isn't it inconsistent to talk about slavery and feudalism only in terms of production relations, but about capitalism in terms of both production relations and relations outside production?

[Thirsty Crow]

O With regards to that, wouldn't it not be more logical to likewise identify the system we live in on the basis of just relations of production, seeing it then not as capital-ism, but as employ-ism, refering to the dichotomy of the employer and employee.
Weren't you the one claiming that Marxist class analysis is fundamentally confused? Odd that.

The dichotomy between the employer and the employee is universal to class societies as such; it is an empty notion if you wish to bring out the specific mechanisms of exploitation and domination in specific kind of society. Furthermore, it's really unclear who exactly is accused here of speaking of feudalism and slavery only with reference to the relations of production; for instance, you can check out Perry Anderson's work here (just to offer one source). And far from it that such an analysis simply disregards the spheres of distribution and exchange; all it does is argue that the latter two take specific forms due to the relations in production.

The relations of production which function as the basis of wider social relations and structure life nowadays are correctly encompassed under the category of capitalism so I can't really see the point of this exercise, apart from:


There is nothing impossible in e.g. abolishing just wage labor, but leaving virtually everything else in the system intact, even the ownership relations. That would mean that "employism" would be abolished, but capitalism would still exist, both according to marxian and proudhonian views....which is reminiscent of the rotten old mantra of management as the sole crucial practice in the transformation of society, with fairy tales such as workers' control over and management of capital etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

With regards to that, wouldn't it not be more logical to likewise identify the system we live in on the basis of just relations of production, seeing it then not as capital-ism, but as employ-ism, refering to the dichotomy of the employer and employee.

Slave and Feudal systems still had waged employees, but in a general sense you could say that, I guess. Slave systems are identified by who did the bulk of producing, who were exploited. But the "employment" in capitalism is not some isolated phenomena that can be removed like a Jenga peg. It's not employment in general, it's the employment to create profit, emplyment under conditions where privite property means that workers have to sell their labor power. It's the commodification of labor power, the political necissities to order society in a certain way to keep capital circulating, etc.

But you could say it's a system of "wage-slavery", but it seems like nedless unless it's some kind of rehtorical point to make unless it was some attempt to rehtorically reframe some of the concepts around understanding the system... oh...


There is nothing impossible in e.g. abolishing just wage labor, but leaving virtually everything else in the system intact, even the ownership relations. That would mean that "employism" would be abolished, but capitalism would still exist, both according to marxian and proudhonian views. E.g. capitalist wouldn't be able to employ workers in his factory, but could sell or rent it to a group of workers (constituting a company/ coop).

Well I don't think this would work. Like I tried to say above, these things are all interconnected: the way work is, is because of previous devlopments of capitalism and production. This argument seems (sorry if I'm mis-interpreting here) like a desire to return work to a craft-like arrangement: an owner has a shop and some supplies and contracts some crafts-people who then use the space and bring their own tools and skilled knowledge. But craft-people didn't just suddenly become employees: as capitalists concentrated their wealth and production they found it more profitable if they could coerce workers to work for loger periods, they found that if they developed their own craft-practices (industrial) then they could hire unskilled workers to do produce more cheaply than craft workers. Artisans and craft-workers fought this, but the broader rules of capitalism that you seem to think could be accomodated to a non-exploitive arrangement, displaced and de-skilled those artisans... the logic of captialism produced "employeeism".

[Die Neue Zeit]

One topic of pure theorizing.

At least it's an admission.


There is nothing impossible in e.g. abolishing just wage labor, but leaving virtually everything else in the system intact, even the ownership relations. That would mean that "employism" would be abolished, but capitalism would still exist, both according to marxian and proudhonian views. E.g. capitalist wouldn't be able to employ workers in his factory, but could sell or rent it to a group of workers (constituting a company/ coop).

On this question of pure rentier-ism, why rent the physical or intellectual property to workers when robots could be used instead?

[bropasaran]

Weren't you the one claiming that Marxist class analysis is fundamentally confused?
It certainly is.


The dichotomy between the employer and the employee is universal to class societies as such
The dichotomy between the worker and the exploiter who alienates his labor certainly is, but the employer-employee relation is the relation of capitalism being the heir of feudalist-serf and slaveoenwer-slave relation.


Furthermore, it's really unclear who exactly is accused here of speaking of feudalism and slavery only with reference to the relations of production; for instance, you can check out Perry Anderson's work here (just to offer one source). And far from it that such an analysis simply disregards the spheres of distribution and exchange; all it does is argue that the latter two take specific forms due to the relations in production.
Offer some pdf link?


which is reminiscent of the rotten old mantra of management as the sole crucial practice in the transformation of society, with fairy tales such as workers' control over and management of capital etc.
This, besides being nonsensical in itself (being that workers' control means that means of production are not capital), doesn't relate to what I said, that is- to the possibility of exploitation in production to be abolished, but the exploitation in circulation to be untouched.


Slave and Feudal systems still had waged employees, but in a general sense you could say that, I guess. Slave systems are identified by who did the bulk of producing, who were exploited. But the "employment" in capitalism is not some isolated phenomena that can be removed like a Jenga peg.
The point is that we could in theory "remove" exploitation in production but leave exploitation in circulation, we abolish wage-labor but leave lending money on interest and rent of property. I guess the point that I'm raising here is that, being that wage-labor has always been considered the core of capitalism, it would seem to weird to call such a system capitalism, being that there would be wage-labor in it, but there would still be capital, i.e. the money that is lent on interest and the property that is rented.