Proletarianisation

[ProletariatPower]

I believe I understand the basics of what Proletarianisation is and why it occurs (with more petty-bourgeoisie loosing control of their wages due to power being concentrated in an increasingly smaller ruling class), but in arguing with a Capitalist recently I could not think of examples off the top of my head of it occurring in the modern world, would teachers wages decreasing perhaps count as an example? I'm not the most well-read Marxist ever so if anyone could explain some examples that would be useful.

[Dictator]

most of the supposed 'middle class jobs' are becoming Prole ones now, teachers being a good example - they'll be on min wage soon no doubt.............

[Ven0m]

all the wage slavery has been shifted to the third world

[Comrade #138672]

Proletarianization is about converting the previous "independent" classes, such as the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, etc., into proletarians, by disposing them of their property in one way or another, so that they are forced to sell their labor in order to sustain themselves. Lowering wages has nothing to do with proletarianization, but it does happen everywhere.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

An example would be a small business owner being forced to close up shop and return to the labor market in order to get a wage to survive, which happens all the time. Keep an eye on any grouping of storefronts and you can see this happen on a quarterly basis. Most small business owners probably only have the funds to take one or maybe two stabs at making it work before they are forced back into the labor pool, it's not as if the market can support every small business under the sun.

[ProletariatPower]

Thanks, that clarifies a lot for me :)

[BIXX]

all the wage slavery has been shifted to the third world

I'm sorry but you're fucking stupid if you believe this.

[ProletariatPower]

I would agree with him to be fair that a lot of the previous labouring jobs have been shifted to the third world by multi-national corporations from the first world, but wage slavery also remains in the first world as long as we depend on our labour for livelihood. What he said doesn't make him stupid it's just an over-simplification.

[Ven0m]

I'm sorry but you're fucking stupid if you believe this.

no offense but fuck off and read a book. the drift is towards deproletarianisation in the first world as it has become increasingly dependent on third world labour.

[#FF0000]

no offense but fuck off and read a book. the drift is towards deproletarianisation in the first world as it has become increasingly dependent on third world labour.

On what basis do you make that claim? First world workers are still very much exploited for their labor, and their wages have been stagnating and declining for decades now. Yeah, they might have a higher standard of living than third world workers, generally speaking, but what about the first world worker's relationship to the means of production has changed?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

no offense but fuck off and read a book. the drift is towards deproletarianisation in the first world as it has become increasingly dependent on third world labour.
First world workers still have the same relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange that they've always had.

[renalenin]

Proletarianisation is proceeding apace where I come from, Australia. A preccariat is growing due to casualisation of the workforce and the reserve army of labour has been pushing down wages since the 1980s. Inequality is rampant. I do understand that there are many places new to the industrial forces of production where the MNCs are ruthlessly harvesting extra surplus value, but in industrial countries the majority are still wage slaves or worse. We need social change and we need it now.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Comrade #138672]

no offense but fuck off and read a book. the drift is towards deproletarianisation in the first world as it has become increasingly dependent on third world labour.No. The drift is not towards deproletarianization in the First World. Although it is true that the First World has become increasingly dependent on Third World labor, it is not true to say that this causes deproletarianization in the First World. What it does cause is an increase in service work and unproductive labor in the First World, but the proletarians largely remain proletarians.

[Ven0m]

petit bourgeois is still bourgeois. take a look around you most people in the west have been deproletarianized as the instruments of production have become cheaper, cars, computers et cetera, or else they live from welfare extracted by the state from workers in the in the third world.

[#FF0000]

petit bourgeois is still bourgeois. take a look around you most people in the west have been deproletarianized as the instruments of production have become cheaper, cars, computers et cetera, or else they live from welfare extracted by the state from workers in the in the third world.

You believe cars and computers are the "means of production"?

[Dictator]

a computer can be nowadays - for sure

[Ven0m]

You believe cars and computers are the "means of production"?

obviously they are not "the" means of producction but they are a means of production. you should enter the 21st century instead of regurgitating the 19th century worldview.

[#FF0000]

does having a toolshed make y'all petit-bourgeois too?

[#FF0000]

obviously they are not "the" means of producction but they are a means of production. you should enter the 21st century instead of regurgitating the 19th century worldview.

Pretty defensive, for some reason. But yeah, owning a couple of instruments of labor doesn't make one petit-bourgeois. A guy can own some tools without being "petit-bourgeois".

[Ven0m]

does having a toolshed make y'all petit-bourgeois too?

it can do, most tradesmen and contractors do business with something close to that, some tools and a vehicle with a cargo tray.

[#FF0000]

How many screwdrivers can one have before being deproletarianized

[Ven0m]

, owning a couple of instruments of labor doesn't make one petit-bourgeois.

no but it makes you non-proletarian without necessarily being bourgeois. anybody who owns instruments of production is not proletarian by definition. if you are bourgeois or if you profit from them or not

[#FF0000]

no but it makes you non-proletarian without necessarily being bourgeois. anybody who owns instruments of production is not proletarian by definition. if you are bourgeois or if you profit from them or not

You realize almost everyone on the planet owns at least one sort of tool, right

[Kingfish]

Ven0m given that you view de-indsutrialisation as being synonymous with de-proletarianisation would it therefore be correct under your reasoning to say Margret Thatcher is a hero of the British working class?

[Comrade Dracula]

Whilst I have little intention of joining this discussion, I will note something that bugs me about Ven0m's arguments:
Can one really proclaim something a means of production if it does not produce? Whilst those objects posses capacity to become such, economy is a social affair - ergo it is the life activity of their owners that renders them means of production or otherwise.

[Ven0m]

Whilst I have little intention of joining this discussion, I will note something that bugs me about Ven0m's arguments:
Can one really proclaim something a means of production if it does not produce? Whilst those objects posses capacity to become such, economy is a social affair - ergo it is the life activity of their owners that renders them means of production or otherwise.

then i could own 20 hectares of land as long as i don't produce i'm still a proletarian. :laugh:

[Hit The North]

petit bourgeois is still bourgeois. take a look around you most people in the west have been deproletarianized as the instruments of production have become cheaper, cars, computers et cetera, or else they live from welfare extracted by the state from workers in the in the third world.

So now the welfare-dependent, those living on incomes below the minimum wage, are petite-bourgeois?

And please explain how the exploitation of third world workers by private corporations finds its way into the welfare coffers of Western capitalist states.

Frankly, your assertions are a joke.

[Ven0m]

You realize almost everyone on the planet owns at least one sort of tool, right

yes i would not myself consider a person who owns a screwdriver bourgoise. there's not black and white distinction. you have to apply some common sense. the reality is though that anyone who owns a computer is not a proletarian. if you think otherwize you're idiot who does not understand modern capitalism. it's nothing to get our panties in a twyst over but. especially since i love the pair i have on now ;) the point is merely that exploitation has shifted in the way that the first world is literally using the developing world as slave labour. western riches is predicated on third world exploitation. pure and simple. cry us a river for the poor exploited workers in the West. so many in the third world would kill to be exploited like you.

[Comrade Dracula]

then i could own 20 hectares of land as long as i don't produce i'm still a proletarian. :laugh:

As long as you do not produce using them and instead work for a wage, then yes. Your labour would still be exploited akin to the rest of the proletariat - that is, as long as you interacted with the rest of a society as a proletarian. It is merely than anyone owning twenty hectares of land is likely to operate them, whilst someone with a computer is not entirely likely to posses the knowledge needed to turn it into a (realistic) means of sustenance.

Class is defined in relations to the means of production, and means of production cannot exist outside of interaction with society, it would seem to me.

[Ven0m]

And please explain how the exploitation of third world workers by private corporations finds its way into the welfare coffers of Western capitalist states.



tax

[Hit The North]

tax

Levels of corporation tax in the West are at historical low levels - and this does not even account for the vast amount of corporate tax evasion.

Your scenario provides a very rosy picture whereby transnational corporations are willing to hand over their profits in order to fund unemployment in the West. On what rational economic basis would they want to do that?

[Ven0m]

Levels of corporation tax in the West are at historical low levels - and this does not even account for the vast amount of corporate tax evasion.

Your scenario provides a very rosy picture whereby transnational corporations are willing to hand over their profits in order to fund unemployment in the West. On what rational economic basis would they want to do that?

they have no rational basis to. we make them. dur. but we are still parasites living off third worlld exploitation. in no world is that picture 'rosy'.

[#FF0000]

As long as you do not produce using them and instead work for a wage, then yes.

Nnnaaaaah but at the same time suggesting that one who owns a personal computer is suddenly petit-bourgeois is absurd. I mean, people in the US have access to computers at public libraries.

[Comrade Dracula]

Nnnaaaaah but at the same time suggesting that one who owns a personal computer is suddenly petit-bourgeois is absurd. I mean, people in the US have access to computers at public libraries.

You are, of course, entirely correct. What was discussed in such a post is a mere pointless theoretical technicality with no actual connection to reality - There is a good reason why proletarians are rarely also wealthy.

[Hit The North]

they have no rational basis to. we make them. dur. but we are still parasites living off third worlld exploitation. in no world is that picture 'rosy'.

You might be a parasite, sunshine, but I've got a job and work fucking hard for a living.

Now, in order for you to prove that the West lives off the fat profits of the third world you will need to show that the third world produces more wealth than the first world. So show us the stats.

[Per Levy]

no but it makes you non-proletarian without necessarily being bourgeois. anybody who owns instruments of production is not proletarian by definition. if you are bourgeois or if you profit from them or not

we could go a step further and say that the human body, especially hands, are a tool with wich you can produce, so there are no workers at all in the world.


take a look around you most people in the west have been deproletarianized as the instruments of production have become cheaper, cars, computers et cetera

you still have to explain how "owning" a car or compu changes the relation of a worker to the means of production, how it changes the relationship between explotier and exploited. and some third worldist remarkes dont count for an argument.

[Ven0m]

we could go a step further and say that the human body, especially hands, are a tool with wich you can produce, so there are no workers at all in the world.

any fool knows that instimunts of production are external to human beings. otherwise their change couldn't influence social change. people have always had hand for marx's sake. :rolleyes:




[you still have to explain how "owning" a car or compu changes the relation of a worker to the means of production, how it changes the relationship between explotier and exploited. and some third worldist remarkes dont count for an argument.

most people own productive equipment in the West. they are not proletarian by definition. it's not very complicated. exploitative relations are global these days, first world exploiting third.

[Scheveningen]

most people own productive equipment in the West. To survive those people still need to sell their labour-power in exchange for a wage.
Their possession of productive equipment is not relevant when you describe the relations of production they enter into.
exploitative relations are global these days, first world exploiting third.
Exploitative relations are global because they happen everywhere, not because nations have replaced social classes.

[Ven0m]

To survive those people still need to sell their labour-power in exchange for a wage.

sometimes that is the case sometimes it is not. peole get rich all the time from their computers. i don't know what world you have been living in for the last 20 years but since it is obviously not this one, here is some news from planet earth for you: steve jobs and bill gates got rich from their computers. it is completely immaterial in any case. somebody owning something and knowing how to capitalize on it are two way different issues.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

obviously they are not "the" means of producction but they are a means of production. you should enter the 21st century instead of regurgitating the 19th century worldview.

Pens can be employed as an instrument of production as well, obviously anyone who has anything to write with is a member of the petite bourgeoisie.

Objects are not capital until they are employed as means of production within a system of capitalist production.

[Ven0m]

Pens can be employed as an instrument of production as well, obviously anyone who has anything to write with is a member of the petite bourgeoisie.

Objects are not capital until they are employed as means of production within a system of capitalist production.

so i could hoard acres of land or a factoory still be a proletarian.

[motion denied]

Ven0m, you're getting into a serious Zulu-esque argument (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2667764&postcount=67).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

so i could hoard acres of land or a factoory still be a proletarian.

Unless you use them to produce commodities, and if you're still forced to sell your labour-power, then yeah.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The thirdworldist position is ultimately a moral argument regarding wage discrepancy, which on it's own is fine. But when you try to cram that into a nice little Marxist box it always falls on its face. Owning a computer or a pen for that matter is not the same as hoarding acres of land or owning a factory. Wages do not determine whether one is a proletarian or bourgeoisie, you can make all the strawman arguments you want but it isn't going to change that. We've had a million threads about this just go read one of them.

[Ven0m]

The thirdworldist position is ultimately a moral argument regarding wage discrepancy, which on it's own is fine. But when you try to cram that into a nice little Marxist box it always falls on its face. Owning a computer or a pen for that matter is not the same as hoarding acres of land or owning a factory.

actually it is there. there is no sliding scale where something suddenly becomes a mean of production. either it is a potential instrimunt of production or it is not. anyhoo i could not care less. you can keep your confused and antiquated notions of what a means of production is. society does not care that you cannot keep up.

[Scheveningen]

sometimes that is the case sometimes it is not. peole get rich all the time from their computers. i don't know what world you have been living in for the last 20 years but since it is obviously not this one, here is some news from planet earth for you: steve jobs and bill gates got rich from their computers. it is completely immaterial in any case. somebody owning something and knowing how to capitalize on it are two way different issues. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't get rich 'from their computers'. They got rich because they started companies, employed people, sold products, etc. That's what matters when assessing what social class they belong(ed) to, not that they owned a computer.
Social class is defined by relations of production and someone's overall role in the economic system. Bill Gates and any random wage worker may both own computers, but that has nothing to do with their class status.

So, what are you even talking about?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

actually it is there. there is no sliding scale where something suddenly becomes a mean of production. either it is a potential instrimunt of production or it is not.

Anything is a potential instrument of production.


anyhoo i could not care less. you can keep your confused and antiquated notions of what a means of production is. society does not care that you cannot keep up.

Sure, sure, except of course both petty artisans who used pens in their work have existed for quite some time now, and proletarians have generally had pens. But according to you every proletarian who own a pen, from a secretary in New York to a plantation worker living on the outskirts of Siem Reap is a member of the petite bourgeoisie.

[BIXX]

petit bourgeois is still bourgeois. take a look around you most people in the west have been deproletarianized as the instruments of production have become cheaper, cars, computers et cetera, or else they live from welfare extracted by the state from workers in the in the third world.


No, you're fucking stupid. Office work isn't petty bourgeois, service work isn't petty bourgeois, etc... Which are the majority of jobs in the first world.

[BIXX]

Venom is either a troll or too stupid to understand anything, after reading more of the thread. I'm out.

[Црвена]

My dad is an accountant (but pretty low-down in the company he works for), which is a very bourgeois job, but I feel like even he and his colleagues are being proletarianised. Wages have been the same since before I was born, but they are having to work harder and harder, to the point at which I barely see my dad since he is either at work or asleep. Those who are in charge are taking their employees for granted due to the unemployment crisis causing workers to thank their lucky stars that they have jobs and go to desperate measures of obedience to avoid being sacked. This means that the bourgeois who are in charge have more power to exercise over their employers, exploiting people and giving less people the ability to truly say that they own the means of production - therefore, more people are proletarians.

[Comrade #138672]

Indeed. Ven0m is probably a troll who knows how to get Marxists all angry by simply asserting nonsense about the means of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My dad is an accountant (but pretty low-down in the company he works for), which is a very bourgeois job, but I feel like even he and his colleagues are being proletarianised.

Preteen, please reconsider your opinion of your father's occupation! Far more likely than not it is not a bourgeois job at all, not like that of investment fund management.