White collar workers: Human capital?

[JKP]

What do you think of this popular assertion?

In some respects, similarities can be drawn between capital and the white collar worker. But, the obvious differences remain. (Namely no exploitation of labor).

I'm expecting the assertion to be debunked, but it still leaves us with the question of what role white collar workers play.

Cheers.

[BobKKKindle$]

As you point out, thre are many similarities between White Collar Workers and Manual/Menail Labourers - they are both workers in that they do not have control over the means of produciton, and sell their labour power (albeit vastly different) labour as a commodity. I think it is also fair to say that, like blue collar workers, they are alienated from their species nature in that they cannot choose the type of work that they do freely due to the constraints of the Wage-labour system. However, White Collar Workers are likely to be less 'revolutionary' because they are subject to the Marxist Concept of Economism more than Blue Collar Workers - they have gained more from the Capitalist System in terms of income and their ability to purchase commodities, and so would be more likelyoppossed to the revolution. One might also choose to note (some more experienced theorists may want to contest this) that they are not subject to as much alienation as Blue Collars, because they do not produce commodities as such, and so cannot have the products of their labour taken from them (hence being alienated from their labour in marxist terms)

For me, the Change in MEDCs from primary and Secondary industry to tertiary (or white collar) industry represents a development of the forces of production, although not a change in the relations of production.

[Janus]

White collar workers are still technically workers though they do no physical labor and therefore do not actually produce a product. For example, a desk clerk still does work and is exploited yet produces no actual physical product. Due to the technological developments, there are an increasing amount of white collar workers, some may be considered petit bourgeois while others are not. I don't think that they should be totally ignored and that they also have many grievances similar to the proletariat.

[rebelworker]

Though from a blue collar family, my father spent much of his life as a white collar worker (paper pusher in a crown company).

When the cuts came through 6 years ago, he along with many of his coworkers were out of luck. He hasnt held a steady job since(noone wants to hire a low skill older man when they can get a younger one for the same money).

This is I think an important factor for many public employees, they will increasingly face layoffs under neoliberal economics and many, like my father, never made that much money in the first place so they own very little (my dad lives in a trailer park and owns only a car).

My father has returned to the working class proper, but many more public servants who still work may be good allies.

In canada public sector unions tend to be some of the most socially progressive, although this is often limited to simple liberalism, groups like the postal workers, many of whom are technicaly white collar, are some of the most radical.

as office work continues to get moe and more alienating(my father nearly killed himself over his job), so will the "proletarianisation" of this new "socio political grouping".

Call centers are one good example of this, I know of three recnt union drives in montreal where anarchist organisers found significant support in call centers.

not very complete, but these were just a few thoughts I had.

[YSR]

I think that white collar workers are definitely workers (as the name clearly indicates...) but I think that organizers will have a more difficult time getting them to support class struggle.

The problem with the "business world" is that it embraces an approach of inclusion and models of authority more complicated than that of worker vs. boss. There are numerous bosses, underbosses, promotions, all that kind of shit.

Removing the white collar worker from this tiered power structure in favor of class struggle has got to be a difficult process. Also, the highly competitive feeling between companies contributes to white collar workers participating in capitalist feuds rather than class consciousness. Bobkindles is totally right about white collar workers having gained more, which is also a challenge to promote consciousness.

I think in the States, where I'm from, the division between white collar and blue collar workers is very distinct and needs to be addressed by comrades. How can we organize two groups of people who don't respect each other? I think it will become easier as the US economy collapses more and white collar loses what they've gained because of participating in the capitalist game.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:22 AM
White collar workers are still technically workers though they do no physical labor and therefore do not actually produce a product. For example, a desk clerk still does work and is exploited yet produces no actual physical product. Due to the technological developments, there are an increasing amount of white collar workers, some may be considered petit bourgeois while others are not. I don't think that they should be totally ignored and that they also have many grievances similar to the proletariat.
I'm not sure that's exactly correct here.

"intellectual property" and the like has been increasingly commodified under capitalism. White collar workers cramped up in desks for 8 or more hours a day, programming on their computer are producing a commodity. Computer programs are "intellectual property", and are bought and sold on the market like other commodities.

And I'm not quite sure how you could consider a white collar "worker" to be petit-bourgeois; it seems to be a contradiction, wouldn't you say so?


In some respects, similarities can be drawn between capital and the white collar worker. But, the obvious differences remain. (Namely no exploitation of labor).

I fail to see how white collar workers do not produce capital. White collar workers are exploited like every other worker, hence the qualification of "worker". They are forced to sell their labour-power to a capitalist, in exchange for a commodity (money). In turn they produce a commodity, which is then sold by the capitalist for a rate much higher than the worker was compensated for.

That's exploitation, whether you're out shoveling a ditch, or cramped up in an office programming a computer.

[Janus]

I'm not sure that's exactly correct here.

"intellectual property" and the like has been increasingly commodified under capitalism. White collar workers cramped up in desks for 8 or more hours a day, programming on their computer are producing a commodity. Computer programs are "intellectual property", and are bought and sold on the market like other commodities.

And I'm not quite sure how you could consider a white collar "worker" to be petit-bourgeois; it seems to be a contradiction, wouldn't you say so?
I could agree with that. Like I said, they do produce a product but it's not an actual physical one. They are still hiring out their labor. Furthermore, not all white collar workers produce a commodity or something such as intellectual property.

I was using worker in its most general definition as in someone who does work. Therefore a white collar worker like a lawyer or store owner would be considered petit bourgeois.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:06 PM
I could agree with that. Like I said, they do produce a product but it's not an actual physical one. They are still hiring out their labor. Furthermore, not all white collar workers produce a commodity or something such as intellectual property.


I can't think of a white collar worker that would not produce a product.. but I'm sure you can name one.. perhaps it has slipped my mind.


I was using worker in its most general definition as in someone who does work. Therefore a white collar worker like a lawyer or store owner would be considered petit bourgeois.
Ok, well in that case.. then yes. But I've not heard the word "white-collar" applied to a lawyer, or store owner, but perhaps I don't get out enough.

When I use the term "white-collar worker", I am strictly speaking about proletariat who do not exert themselves in a meaningful physical manner.

[Janus]

When I use the term "white-collar worker", I am strictly speaking about proletariat who do not exert themselves in a meaningful physical manner.
Oh. I guess we are simply misunderstanding each other then. Usually any one who does no physical labor but still works is put into the category of white collar worker. That includes desk clerks, doctors, and lawyers. Technically, they sell their labor or expertise to an employer. It could be considered a product though not an actual physical one.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Janus+Jun 5 2006, 03:28 PM--> (Janus @ Jun 5 2006, 03:28 PM)
When I use the term "white-collar worker", I am strictly speaking about proletariat who do not exert themselves in a meaningful physical manner.
Oh. I guess we are simply misunderstanding each other then. Usually any one who does no physical labor but still works is put into the category of white collar worker. That includes desk clerks, doctors, and lawyers. Technically, they sell their labor or expertise to an employer. It could be considered a product though not an actual physical one. [/b]
I would argue that doctors without a private practice are indeed proletariat.. despite their obvious pay advantage. "Health" seems to be a commodity in late capitalism... I pay for x-rays.. and various operations..

However, I hear many doctors are heavily involved in the "housing market", since they make so much money, yet work so many hours.

Lawyers are petit-bourgeois because of their relationship with state machinery I should think.

As for clerks, they too are proletariat, as services are commodities. Marx makes this clear in Chapter I of Capital, Vol I


"http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#015"
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production. ...

Therefore it seems clear to me that a "service" is indeed a commodity, because it satisfies some sort of human want or need. Keep in mind that this need/want need not be for the sole purpose of survival, but can also include a mere comestic improvement, simple pleasure, et al.

[Janus]

Therefore it seems clear to me that a "service" is indeed a commodity, because it satisfies some sort of human want or need.
I agree.

Once again, I don't consider all white collar workers to be members of the proletariat. Some are and some aren't. But what is certain is that they do not own the means of production.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:55 PM

Therefore it seems clear to me that a "service" is indeed a commodity, because it satisfies some sort of human want or need.
I agree.

Once again, I don't consider all white collar workers to be members of the proletariat. Some are and some aren't. But what is certain is that they do not own the means of production.
What pray tell them do white collar workers do then, if they do not produce commodities?

[Entrails Konfetti]

This brings another question, how do we get the proletarian white collar workers to understand they relate to the means of production in the same way that the blue-collar workers do?

Also I think it's interesting that in the USA no one ever acknowledges fast-food workers, some of them are actually producers. Theres some who aren't teenagers but actually go from one fast-food job to another one. I know it would be hard to form a union around fast food joints, because few people ever stay with those places. There needs to be some form of propaganda relating to them, something to raise consciousness.

[Janus]

Some white-collar workers are considered petit-bourgeois. I think that some white collar workers are similar to the proletariat in that they also sell their labor. But for example, take a desk clerk, she performs a service but there is really no physical quantifiable product. But if you still consider that a commodity then that's fine by me.

I agree with you that they are also part of the working class and that all of them render some type of service. Furthermore, I agree that labor power could be considered a commodity in certain respects.

[EusebioScrib]

The theory you're using to determine wether one is proles or not is archaic. Marx only used such a definition because most workers were just that in his time. It was the most dominant form. Today capitalism has expanded it's exploitation into a different factory: the social factory.

Let me ask you this: Is a housewife not a worker because she doesn't produce a product? What of students and the unemployed? There are many holes in your theory.

The unwaged play a role in the production of capital.

What makes someone a "worker" is that whatever they "do" helps produce and reproduce capital. Not wether or not someone makes a fucking chair.

White collar workers play a role in the reproduction of capital. Their paper work or counting or whatever it may be, helps reproduce capital.

As a busboy myself I will use my situation as an example:

I do not produce any food at my work place. Therefore I don't produce the actual value, yet my labor inhances and increases the value of the food. How? Because I make everything look nice and pretty for the customer so they are satisfied and will return later. I clear tables so more food may be sold etc.

Therefore I am proletarian and I help reproduce capital.

Everyone in society plays a role in the reproduction of capital, except those who "refuse."

Paying someone "above their value" does not exist in capitalism. Some may be paid more than others but none are fully paid for their labor, otherwise no profit could be made.

And why would the capitalists pay millions of white collar workers in N. America and Europe and Asia without making a profit off them? It doesn't make sense.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

White collar workers are still workers and like blue collar workers, have sucky jobs that opress them. But instead of the jobs being hard manual labor they are pyschotic cubical spreadsheet tpes of jobs.

[kurt]

Although I don't think this was addressed at me, I believe I have a few important things to note.


Let me ask you this: Is a housewife not a worker because she doesn't produce a product? What of students and the unemployed? There are many holes in your theory.

A house-wife strikes me as more of domestic servant to their husband, rather than a proletariat. They have no relation with the means of production, nor the production of capital(asides from perhaps "ensuring" her husband is fed so that he can go to work; a very trivial, and negligable role).

Most college students are proletariat, but this is not because of their qualification as a student, it is because of the fact that they usually work for a wage! If you're speaking of younger children in grade school, their class should most likely be determined by their parent's class.

Unemployed persons are usually members of the working class, as capitalism must always have an "industrial reserve army" (to paraphrase marx) to pushes wages down. However, those who are unemployed and engage in petty-crime are lumpen-proletariat, and therefore not a worker.


I do not produce any food at my work place. Therefore I don't produce the actual value, yet my labor inhances and increases the value of the food. How? Because I make everything look nice and pretty for the customer so they are satisfied and will return later. I clear tables so more food may be sold etc.

I'd just like to say that is is a good analysis of this type of work. As I said, "services" are part of commodity exchange in capitalism.

[barista.marxista]

Here's an old post of mine from another forum against somebody arguing the MIM line that there are no proletarians in the first world, specifically white-collar workers, etc.:

You're one of these Maoists who thinks that all, or at least most, first-world workers are overpaid, and thus are "labour aristocrats" who are ultimately bourgeois. While you are right that capitalism does extract mass amounts of value from the third-world, you're being reductionist in the conclusions you draw.

First of all, Marx clearly states that the value of labour is the cost of reproducing the labourer for his or her next day of work. This cost is not determined by one boss, but rather the social cost necessary for reproduction. This goes without saying, then, that where capitalism defines the first-world, the costs of living are higher. Commodities are bought and sold for more, prices for normal items are higher, and the costs of necessities is amplified. Now, this is so for two main reasons: one, if capitalists are to perpetuate the myth of capitalism's justice, then the world where they've accumulated their power must live by higher standards in order to ease discontent: two, in a trend we see starting in the Fordist era, one way of dealing with capitalist crisis is paying workers more in order to encourage consumption. Obviously the capitalists cannot mass-produce if there is not a base of people ready to mass-consume. Obviously this base of people cannot mass-consume if they're not paid more than just the price of their house, clothes, and food. And obviously if one group of people are to be chosen for this, then the workers of the capitalist nations are of prime canidacy. Thus, the higher wages of the FW workers are again of twofold necessity. These workers are not to blame -- these necessities are out of their control. Again, they have no control of this system, and as such are ultimately victims of it. Therefore, the capitalist class does not include the workers of the FW, but the capitalists of the entire world.

We see the necessity of paying the workers this high wage in order to perpetuate consumption and to reproduce the worker. Now, how has capitalism come to evolve as such? This method of paying the worker more in order to consume more began to be around the 1930s, with the start of the Fordist era. Combined with the Keynsian state-spending, and encouraged through WWII, this ultimately is responsible for the continuing of capitalism after the Depression. The post-WWII era, of approximately 1945-1973, saw this cycle increase more. More workers were paid more, it encouraged more support from the first world, and things were dandy. Now, here's the kicker: the massive exploitation of the third-world didn't exist then as it does now! Yes, imperialists preyed on the thirdworld, but the subcontracting of production to the third-world was non-existant. Production remained exclusively within the industrialized nations. But obviously with Fordism, this system couldn't reproduce itself forever. Recessions began around 1966 (eased through inflationary moves by the governments), and in 1973, triggered mostly by the oil crisis, it crashed. Since then, you start to see the outsourcing of production to the third-world. The expropriation of value from the third-world came as a necessity of the capitalist crisis created by Fordism-Keynesianism. It's not a trait inherent to capitalism, but rather was adopted as capitalism's resolution to its own internal conflicts. This flexible system of accumulation, again, is not the fault of the first-world workers, and they themselves have no control over it. Their interest is not in this capitalist system, because as can be seen over the last five years, this system is entering crisis again, and their jobs and benefits are the first institutions being attacked.

So we see the reason for the embursement of the first-world workers, and we also see that the exploitation of the third-world is a recent and still passing effort of capitalism to postpone crisis. Now, you may say, "But they're being paid so much! They want to keep being paid this much!" Yes, they do. But this current system cannot continue working as it is -- that's the thing about capitalism: it's always falling into crisis. The system of exploitation of the third-world is a transitory phase -- a temporary polishing of a system that was already failing. So, is this really where the FW workers interests are? This is why Marx stated so explicitly that it doesn't matter how much you're paid, that your class is determined by your relation to the means of production. Your stance on the labour aristocracy is wrong for one reason: it assumes the perpetuation of this appropriation of surplus-value, instead of realizing that capitalism will always degenerate into crisis, and violently attempt to absorb and disperse the overaccumulation of capital in new ways. This exploitation of the third-world is only a transitory resolution of capitalism, and the workers of all worlds, first or third, are still fucked in the end.

Read David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity for a more elaborated on explanation of this, including many sources of data.
==========================================

I wrote this months ago, and if I weren't so lazy, I'd include stuff about accumulation by dispossession, and the attempts of capitalism to absorb overaccumulation through dispersion in the third world. Or you could read The New Imperialism yourself. Harvey rocks! Word up son.

[EusebioScrib]

Although I don't think this was addressed at me, I believe I have a few important things to note.

It was addressed to everyone generally. I didn't wish to go through every post etc. But it's open to all to respond.


A house-wife strikes me as more of domestic servant to their husband, rather than a proletariat. They have no relation with the means of production, nor the production of capital(asides from perhaps "ensuring" her husband is fed so that he can go to work; a very trivial, and negligable role).


You're very wrong. House-wives play big roles in the repoduction of capital. You mentioned "feeding" her husband. She repoduces the worker so that he may go to work. After 8 hours most are too tired to do anything and the return home and expect to be fed and cared for. Just think what would happen if that didn't happen. They also play the role in producing more workers for further production of value. So the role of the house-wife is far more than "trivial."


Most college students are proletariat, but this is not because of their qualification as a student, it is because of the fact that they usually work for a wage! If you're speaking of younger children in grade school, their class should most likely be determined by their parent's class.

All students play a role in the reproduction of capital. Them going to school produces more skilled labor so that they may work with more developed means of production. It has more to do than working for a wage. The unwaged are workers as well.


Unemployed persons are usually members of the working class, as capitalism must always have an "industrial reserve army" (to paraphrase marx) to pushes wages down. However, those who are unemployed and engage in petty-crime are lumpen-proletariat, and therefore not a worker.

Ah yes, bcause the workers are too noble to commit "petty-crimes" *laughs*

The unemployed are very much apart of the working class. How must an unemployed person survive? By selling their labor power. Most are generally out of work "temporarily" as they see it. They see themselves back in a job at some point.


I'd just like to say that is is a good analysis of this type of work. As I said, "services" are part of commodity exchange in capitalism.

I have nothing better to do while vaccuming the floor then think of how my labor is reproducing capital :P

[kurt]

You're very wrong. House-wives play big roles in the repoduction of capital. You mentioned "feeding" her husband. She repoduces the worker so that he may go to work. After 8 hours most are too tired to do anything and the return home and expect to be fed and cared for. Just think what would happen if that didn't happen. They also play the role in producing more workers for further production of value. So the role of the house-wife is far more than "trivial."

Doesn't it strike you as domestic servitude when the wife is "expected" to care for and feed her husband? If this didn't happen, the male might actually have to make his own food, horrors!

I also enjoyed how you pulled my word "trivial" completely out of context. The role of house-wife in the production of capital is trivial, not the work she does. In fact, the work of a house-wife has become increasingly more and more socialized in the past 20 years.


All students play a role in the reproduction of capital. Them going to school produces more skilled labor so that they may work with more developed means of production. It has more to do than working for a wage.
You have a rather odd view on the "reproduction of capital". Yes, many students may well become proletariat (if they already aren't) upon completition of their degree, but this does not immediately qualify them as proletariat, as many students are going to school for buisness administration, criminology (to become cops) etc.

Or are small buisness owners proletariat too?


Ah yes, bcause the workers are too noble to commit "petty-crimes" *laughs*

I do not recall ever mentioning such a thing. (That's because you made it up)


The unemployed are very much apart of the working class. How must an unemployed person survive? By selling their labor power. Most are generally out of work "temporarily" as they see it. They see themselves back in a job at some point.

As I said.. most of the unemployed are proletariat, as they are part of the "industrial reserve army", and will be back to work in a short matter of time.

However, there is such a class as lumpen-proletariat. Marx used the term on several occassions. Marx referred to them as "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society". In short, they are the homeless, beggars, etc, who are not active within the wage-labour system.


I have nothing better to do while vaccuming the floor then think of how my labor is reproducing capital :P
Heh, I do the same while digging ditches :\

[EusebioScrib]

Doesn't it strike you as domestic servitude when the wife is "expected" to care for and feed her husband? If this didn't happen, the male might actually have to make his own food, horrors!

Yes, I don't recall claiming otherwise. I'm merely discussing the way things are, not encouraging them.


I also enjoyed how you pulled my word "trivial" completely out of context. The role of house-wife in the production of capital is trivial, not the work she does. In fact, the work of a house-wife has become increasingly more and more socialized in the past 20 years.

No, I took it in the only possible context and I rebuttled it as it should have been. Their role is far from trivial as I demonstrated.


You have a rather odd view on the "reproduction of capital". Yes, many students may well become proletariat (if they already aren't) upon completition of their degree, but this does not immediately qualify them as proletariat, as many students are going to school for buisness administration, criminology (to become cops) etc.

Or are small buisness owners proletariat too?

Oh yes "many" students go to college for business admin or criminology. Because those are the only two majors they add. In reality most students go to college in the sectors of engineering, medicine, or computer science. All those seem like regualar waged labor to me.

It doesn't matter "what" they go to college for, but that they go to make their labor capable of producing more value.


I do not recall ever mentioning such a thing. (That's because you made it up)

WTF? I don't think so, bucko. I don't "make shit up." I don't have to, unlike some Lennies out there.


However, those who are unemployed and engage in petty-crime are lumpen-proletariat, and therefore not a worker.

Did you not say that? Sounds like your saying that those who commit crimes aren't workers. Yes because workers would never think of breaking bourgeois laws.

[Entrails Konfetti]

What is interesting is that students are in a sense commodities to the school, they have to meet requirements like comodities so that they will be able to produce labour in the future, otherwize the school loses funding (this is more prominent with private schools, though the funding usually comes from students or guardians). The schools are in competition for funding like businesses are, and when a school loses funding they cease to make useful commodities. This doesn't make a highschool, grade school, or community college teacher a member of the petty-bourgeois because they produce commodities (students). The school president, or school board members are the bourgeoisie, they try to direct the flow of funding.

I'll admit my analyses could be wrong, if it is please point it out.

Another thing I wonder is seeing how there are sub-classes of workers, is it possible to get a decent analyses of how class-consciousness will come about particular to the professions?

[kurt]

No, I took it in the only possible context and I rebuttled it as it should have been. Their role is far from trivial as I demonstrated.

I already explained the proper context; if you choose to ignore this, then so be it.


Originally posted by "Marxists internet archives"+--> ("Marxists internet archives")Likewise, if a woman produces a meal for the consumption of her loved-ones, as part of a domestic contract, whether made before God, before the law or out of simple love, she produces not a commodity, but labour directly to meet the needs of another person, but not just so as to satisfy her own needs, not for payment.[/b]
-emphasis added

Commodity exchange is an integral feature to capitalism, if there is no exchange of commodities, then there is no capitalist activity. House-wives are not proletariat, as they are not involved in the exchange of commodities.

I suggest you actually read some marxist economics, or at least acknowledge the fact that your "theory" is not marxist.


Oh yes "many" students go to college for business admin or criminology. Because those are the only two majors they add. In reality most students go to college in the sectors of engineering, medicine, or computer science. All those seem like regualar waged labor to me.

You applied an absolute categorization to students(proletariat), and I offered a situation which contradicts your categorization. There's a hole in your logic my friend.



It doesn't matter "what" they go to college for, but that they go to make their labor capable of producing more value.
I don't think that has anything to do with marxist economics. I think you just made it up, again.



WTF? I don't think so, bucko. I don't "make shit up." I don't have to, unlike some Lennies out there.
First off, I'm not a "lennie" as so considerably would like to believe. Also, I did not say "make shit up", so once again you have attributed a false quote to me.

I never said anything about workers being too noble to committ a petty-crime.


Did you not say that? Sounds like your saying that those who commit crimes aren't workers. Yes because workers would never think of breaking bourgeois laws.

It was a poorly worded phrase, I admit. Perhaps I could put it better.

The lumpen-proletariat are not part of the "industrial reserve army", and therefore not workers. See my above definition of this class.


"EL KABLAMO"
What is interesting is that students are in a sense commodities to the school, they have to meet requirements like comodities so that they will be able to produce labour in the future, otherwize the school loses funding (this is more prominent with private schools, though the funding usually comes from students or guardians). The schools are in competition for funding like businesses are, and when a school loses funding they cease to make useful commodities. This doesn't make a highschool, grade school, or community college teacher a member of the petty-bourgeois because they produce commodities (students). The school president, or school board members are the bourgeoisie, they try to direct the flow of funding.

I believe students would be consumers, rather than commodities themselves (people cannot be commodities, only their labour-power). The students purchase the commodity which is education, and use this commodity to increase their knowledge. Just like someone would purchase the commodity of cheese in order to eat. Both commodities are being used by the consumer for some sort of benefit.