Class Isn't Just About Status

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I just got done reading Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253) and the conclusion is that class is more about behavior and consumption rather than social standing, authority, money or relations to the means of production.

A school teacher probably makes less money than the aviation mechanic, but class is more than just about money. The teacher has a college degree

Agree or disagree with the following below?

* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.

* Legible clothing is low class. As clothing increases in class, the words become smaller, then are replaced by symbols (like the polo pony), and finally at the top end there are no symbols at all, as with J. McLaughlin. You mean you never heard of J. McLaughlin? This demonstrates how there’s a whole level of clothing above Polo by Ralph Lauren that middle class with pretensions of being upper middle class have never even heard of.

* Upper classes like old stuff.

* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

* Proles like to collect stuff stupid stuff, such as limited edition plates.

* The middle class think they’ve accomplished something by just going to college, the upper middle class know that if it’s not Ivy it’s not good. (And if you’re upper class, it’s also important to “prep” at the right place.)

* The upper class “summer” in place like Nantuckett and the Hamptons. The upper middle class are too busy working to do that. The real top upper class summer in places like Dark Harbor. You mean you never heard of Dark Harbor? There’s a whole level of summering spots that the upper middle class with pretensions of being upper class never even heard of. And that’s what Fussell means by “out-of-site.” Regular people might stumble upon the upper class in the Hamptons, but you won’t see the top out-of-site summering.

* Bowling is very low class. “If the upper class have yachts, what do proles have? Bowling. If you want to maintain upper status, it’s important that you never, never go bowling.”

[Pirate Utopian]

Is that ment seriously, or just a joke/parody?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That was just a brief summation of what the book states.

So yeah, I was being serious.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well, start by defining middle class, upper class or higher class so we know what you are saying.

A note of caution though, with the type of class analysis you seem to be talking about. it is subject to massive generalisations, and like all generalisations, will often be untrue in some cases.

so its likely your definitions of classes will ever actually be accurate.

good luck though ;)

[Janus]

and the conclusion is that class is more about behavior and consumption rather than social standing, authority, money or relations to the means of production.
And where does this behavior and consumption come from if not from their social standing and material wealth? So if a lower class worker were to start acting upper-class/bourgeois, that would immediately make him/her a member of that class?

Behavior is nothing more than a manifestation of one's social hierarchy and asides from rare exceptions, they usually go hand in hand. Behavior only seems to be more important because of its superficial nature and quality. Thus, any attempts to generalize based on this appearance remain ultimately flawed and idealistic in nature.

[JazzRemington]

Basing class on behavior and consumption patterns is faulty and will probably lead to contradicting, and nonsensical, results. Also, as Janus said, behavior and consumption patterns are more or less influenced by material conditions and one's standing in the economic structure.

The notes presented in Capitalist Lawyer's post high light just how silly this is. All of the above mentioned consumption patterns can be shared by ANYONE. The only thing stopping them is the limits placed upon them by the relation to the means of production.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:19 pm
I just got done reading Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253) and the conclusion is that class is more about behavior and consumption rather than social standing, authority, money or relations to the means of production.
I'm afraid that's a bit off. Well in fact it's a steaming pile of shite.

Behaviour is not dictated by class, although class can dictate some behaviours - anything that requires spending vast amounts of money is obviously only available to those with the money to spend, but nearly everything else is an irrelevancy.


A school teacher probably makes less money than the aviation mechanic, but class is more than just about money. The teacher has a college degree
They are both of the same class though, as they share a common relationship to the MoP.


Agree or disagree with the following below?
Alright, I'll humour you and play this silly little game.


* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.
Disagree, violently. If you were to look around my room (for example), in amongst all the other trappings of daily life you will find a large selection of literature, same with the rest of my family. It is incredibly rare for any house to not have books unless the occupants are illiterate. Everyone can pick up a book from a second hand shop for 99p or whatever.


* Legible clothing is low class. As clothing increases in class, the words become smaller, then are replaced by symbols (like the polo pony), and finally at the top end there are no symbols at all, as with J. McLaughlin. You mean you never heard of J. McLaughlin? This demonstrates how there’s a whole level of clothing above Polo by Ralph Lauren that middle class with pretensions of being upper middle class have never even heard of.
Disagree. Um, what about clothes worn by ordinary people that have no logo at all, apart from (maybe) one on the tag? Blank shirts and the like are ubiquitous. As for not having heard of J. McLunkhead or whatever it is there is always the possibility that someone has no interest in fashion, I'm fairly sure someone who is into that shite would know what it is though. And before you start I know plenty of proles who are into their fashion.


* Upper classes like old stuff.
Disagree, the upper classes just tend to call their old shite "antiques" rather than old shite.


* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.
Disagree. I live in Britain, strangely cheap, shitty stuff here is still cheap shitty stuff.


* Proles like to collect stuff stupid stuff, such as limited edition plates.
Disagree. The only requirement for collecting stuff is that you want to.


* The middle class think they’ve accomplished something by just going to college, the upper middle class know that if it’s not Ivy it’s not good. (And if you’re upper class, it’s also important to “prep” at the right place.)
Disagree. Most people know that knowledge doesn't vary depending on where it is taught to you and that the "ranking" system of universities is not in fact based on quantity of knowledge gained but on ability to pass various exams. Although most of what you say here comes down not to behaviour but to spending power.


* The upper class “summer” in place like Nantuckett and the Hamptons. The upper middle class are too busy working to do that. The real top upper class summer in places like Dark Harbor. You mean you never heard of Dark Harbor? There’s a whole level of summering spots that the upper middle class with pretensions of being upper class never even heard of. And that’s what Fussell means by “out-of-site.” Regular people might stumble upon the upper class in the Hamptons, but you won’t see the top out-of-site summering.
Agree...sort of. again this is related to what someone can afford, so it is dictated by class - rather than dictating class.


* Bowling is very low class. “If the upper class have yachts, what do proles have? Bowling. If you want to maintain upper status, it’s important that you never, never go bowling.”
Disagree. The palace of the Sultan of Brunei has a rather nice bowling alley in Zone E, where Prince Malik and many of his siblings, friends and employees enjoy a few rounds of the sport. It would be madness to assert that because of this the ruling family of Brunei are lower class.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:08 pm
The notes presented in Capitalist Lawyer's post high light just how silly this is.
Indeed. Why do lower class people bowl? Because they don't have yachts. Because they can't afford yachts. Why don't upper class people bowl? First of all, I'm sure some do. Second, because why go bowling when you can go skiing, scuba diving, or some other expensive passtime?

Why do lower class people collect stupid things like limited edition plates? Because such things are aimed at them by advertisements. Why does the upper class collect cars, expensive jewelry, $100 t-shirts, etc? Because it's aimed at them. Both classes buy what they can afford, and what they are expected to buy. You don't make $500,000 a year and then buy limited edition plates. That's ridiculous.

Honestly, this was an incredibly weak argument. I wouldn't have been surprised if you just came up with it, but it's a book? Actually published? Something available at Barnes & Noble? Incredible...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:19 pm
* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

So everthing in Britain, nearly everything in Ireland, a lot of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, a fair portion of America and South Africa and quite a bit on India and Souther Africa along with assorted other places are upper class?

[Raúl Duke]

After reading all the posts...I have a fealing that what the book argues for is very false, generalized and boderline absurd.

However....questions I want to pose:

If such a conception of class were true (based on behavior), what would it imply?
Let's say that such a conception of class were true, how would it affect class struggle (or anything related to class) movements, theories, etc?
Who would benefit from such of conception of class?

[Hiero]

I have read some similar theories in my sociology course. The author we read (Pakulski) called it "cultural capital". This includes such things yachting, bowling but also college degress and trades.

It is really a dead end theory on class, you can never get away from the fact that real capital is the determing factor of all classes. People have given examples that show how flawed cultural factors are when determing class is. Culture is determined by ethnicity, nations, geography and of course class.

I find these sociological analysis of "post-industrial" society to be completly useless. We do not need to read a few hundred pages to work out that that the rich like yachts and the poor like bowling.

I find these theories are the result of failing to understand (or even acknowledge) the role imperialism and the creation of the labor aristocracy. They often attribute social mobility to gaining more cultural capital, and fail to see the relationship with every expanding imperialism and domestic economic growth (funding the welfare state, later creating the service sector etc).

[Raúl Duke]

I (although not in sociology...yet; but interested) heard that cuture capital is also used in school sociology.

In terms of school sociology...I think it says that those who accept "middle class" values, etc,etc have an easier time passing school and finding sucess. So the theory state that school basically wants to indoctrinate you into these values someway or the other. However..I think the idea that cultural capital plays a big role in your life is exagerrated.

(^^ Might be wrong; most of the info I learned by wikipedia :P )

[Mujer Libre]

I just wanted to add that the shit being peddled in this book would never ever pass for an academic sociological analysis. Such an analysis would definitely view all those differences (the ones that aren't just fallacious crap) as manifestations of a classed society, in which material reality and discourses (cultural law) both play an important role in the drawing of borders.

For example, if you're ruling class, it is expected that you will go to a private school and you have the financial means to do that, whereas if you're poor it is neither expected nor financially possible (unless you're thrown a bone in the form of a scholarship). Also, if a ruling class type decided to go to the comprehensive school down the road- they would most likely be on the receiving end of derision/condemnation from their peers.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although there is a cultural element to class, it is not the defining element- that is the relationship to the means of production. And yes, behaviour may be influenced by cultural norms associated with class (but not the other way around- that's just ludicrous), but that can't be separated from the economic side of the issue- seeing as that defines classes themselves.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 14, 2007 10:11 pm
I just wanted to add that the shit being peddled in this book would never ever pass for an academic sociological analysis.
At uni I studied similar ideas from this book Globalising Inequalities (http://www.allen-unwin.com.au/shopping/ProductDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781864489156), in the chapter 9. Education and cultural capital.

Idealist ideas like these have always passed for acadamic sociology. Marx called these people bourgeois sociologist.

[TC]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:19 pm
I just got done reading Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253) and the conclusion is that class is more about behavior and consumption rather than social standing, authority, money or relations to the means of production.

I've read the book...i think you really don't get it.

Its concerned with the social perception of status and esteem and the cultural demarcations of social standing, how different class strata identify each other and conceptualize themselves.

This is a totally different topic than economic class. You also reported the contents of the book, badly, both in several inaccuracies (which i'm not going to get into because i'm not bored enough) and in terms of the tone and conclusions: the author was dealing with cultural perception from a variety of social status cultural demographic points, he wasn't presenting those characterizations as being objective. In fact he argues that how people tend to define class differences tends to have to do with what class they're perceived by others as being (proles and lower middles conceptualize it in terms of money,middle classes conceptualize it in terms of education, upper classes conceptualize it in terms of taste and manners), he wasn't presenting any of those as the correct or definitive classification scheme only trying to document differences in perception.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

see this is where all of capitalism's contradictions stem from. Classism. The fact that people like "Capitalist Lawyer" think that working class people don't have books (thus are stupid) or are the only people who where the shirts that say "NEW YORK FUCKING CITY" or whatever. eck

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:19 pm
* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.
That's false, sterotypical, and patronising. I have books in my house, that I've read. In fact, everyone I know reads a lot, and we're all working class. But then, with a public library nearby, it doesn't cost a penny.


* Legible clothing is low class. As clothing increases in class, the words become smaller, then are replaced by symbols (like the polo pony), and finally at the top end there are no symbols at all, as with J. McLaughlin. You mean you never heard of J. McLaughlin? This demonstrates how there’s a whole level of clothing above Polo by Ralph Lauren that middle class with pretensions of being upper middle class have never even heard of.

Well, to an extent, we can only really afford to buy cheap clothes. Which may or may not have a "big" logo on them.

You can geta good idea of what class somebody is in by what they are wearing, but that doesn't define their class. I Could find a Ralph Lauren polo, and put it on. But I still don't have any access to the means of production.


* Upper classes like old stuff.

You're joking right? Every individual has

different preferences. Some people might like antiques, old folk music etc, and will do so regardless of their class.


* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

Can't comment on the second part because I am British, but theres fuck all classy about what I've witnissed of the place.


* Bowling is very low class. “If the upper class have yachts, what do proles have? Bowling. If you want to maintain upper status, it’s important that you never, never go bowling.”

Well this basically confirms what I suspected, that you're taking the piss. If a CEO goes bowling, he's not suddenly part of the same class as me. These things don't define class but are sterotypes that do sometimes fit.

[Fodman]

question:

would you consider 'Burberry' to be a middle class brand, or a working class one? Because recently working class people have bought the stuff by the lorry load.

+ would you consider a working class person to be bourgeois (or at least wish to be) if they wore Burberry?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:22 am
question:

would you consider 'Burberry' to be a middle class brand, or a working class one? Because recently working class people have bought the stuff by the lorry load.

+ would you consider a working class person to be bourgeois (or at least wish to be) if they wore Burberry?
:lol: GOod one. That was a joke, right?

Pretending it isn't for a moment and your sanity has actually left you in a huff I shall answer it.

There are no middle class or working class brands, there are cheap and expensive brands, most working class people use the former because it's what they can afford but there is nothing theoretically prevent a working class person from using an expensive brand.

As for the second question - of course I fucking wouldn't, because I'm not stupid.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.

What the fuck? :angry: This is so dripping with condescension, and you fucking believe it, you prejudiced twat. Arghh.

My entire family is working class, and we have so many books that we don't really have storage for them all.

I am actually outraged that you could sympathise with this idea.

-Alex

P.S. I read every day, god damn it. How on earth did your mind get warped enough to think that the working class don't read???

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:28 pm
:lol: GOod one. That was a joke, right?
yes, it was a joke :D and i'm glad to see it got you tickled! :P

[Qwerty Dvorak]

* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.
This point was really obviously put in to provoke, there's no point in "refuting" it.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

All I'm seeing is a lot of anecdotal evidence.

Has it ever occurred to you people that people want and even desire (consciously or unconsciously) a class society? Not just in terms of money compensation but also of status?

It’s not money that’s life’s be-all and end-all, it’s status. The ancient Roman poet Ovid got it right when he wrote two thousand years ago that “this is truly the Golden Age of Rome, because gold can buy everything: love, happiness, and the esteem of man.” Ovid understood that money is used to buy status, not physical possessions.

Economists who say that only total income counts and distribution is irrelevant, they are making the crucial mistake of ignoring human nature. You communists think that we should have status but based on the incentive of accumulated respect from others. This is impossible because it’s only the possibility of increasing one’s status (or preventing one’s status from decreasing) that motivates anyone to do anything. If people can’t get ahead by working hard, then they won’t work hard.

Capitalists understand very well that people won’t accomplish much without incentives, but they don’t grasp the true incentive people seek: not money, but status.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

One last thing.

We're all richer because of some "asshole capitalist's" desire to accumulate wealth. Are they egomaniacs who are complete assholes? Sure, there are a lot, but what about working class people? Can't they be as exploitive and hostile as well?

The reason why I think a lot of you are communists is because of hate and not through reason.

[Oedipus Complex]

We're all richer because of some "asshole capitalist's" desire to accumulate wealth. Are they egomaniacs who are complete assholes?

The desire to accumulate wealth stems the system which by its nature promotes this kind of action. They (bourgeois) are not necessarily egomaniacs but when a system forces you to accumulate something in order to obtain subsistence its no wonder some people become so entranced by it, and the desire then becomes so great for it. Even if this means exploiting others in order to "stay on the top". So, as long as capitalism is here it will continue to be done as humans when facing something that directly correlates to their survival will derive ruthless methods to obtain and keep it.


The reason why I think a lot of you are communists is because of hate and not through reason.

ad hominem atacks may give you personal satisfaction but it will not achieve anything other than that.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Even if this means exploiting others in order to "stay on the top".

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.


ad hominem atacks may give you personal satisfaction but it will not achieve anything other than that.

Even if it was an ad hominem (it wasn't)....so friggin what?

Is it true or not? Why do people become communists?

[RedStaredRevolution]

Even if this means exploiting others in order to "stay on the top".

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.

most people of the working class dont have that much power to exploit people. and even if they did it would be because they have probably been kicked around so much in their life that they think they deserve to kick someone else around for a change.




ad hominem atacks may give you personal satisfaction but it will not achieve anything other than that.

Even if it was an ad hominem (it wasn't)....so friggin what?

Is it true or not? Why do people become communists?

I personally believe that people become communist because they actually give a shit about other people. they think that everyone should have equal rights and be treated fairly along with everyone else.

[Fightin Da Man]

I think you misread the intent of the book. The book is meant to be humor, first and foremost. Second, I don't think the intended statement was "class is defined by how people behave" but "people in different classes tend to behave, dress, etc differently" which isn't exactly an original or groundbreaking idea.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

most people of the working class dont have that much power to exploit people. and even if they did it would be because they have probably been kicked around so much in their life that they think they deserve to kick someone else around for a change.

And the same can be said of the current capitalist class whom you would like to overthrow for whatever reasons.


I personally believe that people become communist because they actually give a shit about other people.

So communism is a charity now?


they think that everyone should have equal rights and be treated fairly along with everyone else.

When will a consensus be reached on this talking point?

Isn't that all what a communist movement needs?

[midnight marauder]

edit: my comment had little point aside from insult and I'm taking it back.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 10:33 pm

most people of the working class dont have that much power to exploit people. and even if they did it would be because they have probably been kicked around so much in their life that they think they deserve to kick someone else around for a change.

And the same can be said of the current capitalist class whom you would like to overthrow for whatever reasons.
Okay, now you're just lying :( And I thought you believed that there was a baby jesus that cried when you did that kind of shit.



I personally believe that people become communist because they actually give a shit about other people.

So communism is a charity now?
Charity=/=The only thing beneficial to people.



they think that everyone should have equal rights and be treated fairly along with everyone else.

When will a consensus be reached on this talking point?

Isn't that all what a communist movement needs?
What talking point? Equal rights? That consensus was reached a long time ago.

[Oedipus Complex]

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.

Nope. If you don't own the means of production then you are forced into wage slavery. There is no autonomy or control over your labour power, you must sell this to the capitalists in order to obtain subsistence. You have almost no chance if you don't inherit capital, therefore you must succumb to the will of the capitalists.



Even if it was an ad hominem (it wasn't)....so friggin what?

Is it true or not? Why do people become communists?

You attacked a group of people not based on facts/data or attacked an argument logically but attacked personal character qualities.

People become communists most likely because they are humanists who actually hate witnessing the dehumanization of other human beings. They also condemn unfair injustices such as inheritance, natural rights, wage slavery, etc.

[KC]

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.

Not in any meaningful sense.


I personally believe that people become communist because they actually give a shit about other people.

Most people become communists because it's in their class interests, not to "help people".


And the same can be said of the current capitalist class whom you would like to overthrow for whatever reasons.

Capitalists exploit workers for profit.




So communism is a charity now?

According to him.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Capitalists exploit workers for profit.

You're forgetting that the capitalist is also a part of the labor process as well.


Most people become communists because it's in their class interests, not to "help people".

It can also be argued that moving up in class is also in "their" class interests.


If you don't own the means of production then you are forced into wage slavery.

You own your labor and you have an effective monopoly on your labor power. Nobody exploits your labor except you, the owner.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You own your labor and you have an effective monopoly on your labor power. Nobody exploits your labor except you, the owner.
That's not true, not in capitalism, Those who do not own the means of production are coerced by threat of poverty into selling their labour to the bourgeoisie at an unjust and exploitative rate.

[KC]

You're forgetting that the capitalist is also a part of the labor process as well.

How is this statement relevant to what I have said?


It can also be argued that moving up in class is also in "their" class interests.

It could.


You own your labor and you have an effective monopoly on your labor power. Nobody exploits your labor except you, the owner.

Except for the fact that you must sell your labour power at a rate which the bourgeoisie controls. Employment isn't a "fair" contract by any means. Of course, you're just trolling here.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Capitalist Lawyer:

Are you standing by this idea that the working class don't have books in their home, or will you withdraw it?

It's just so offensive, and so plain wrong that I think you should try and scavenge what remains of your dignity and just take it back.

-Alex

[Comeback Kid]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:19 pm
I just got done reading Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253) and the conclusion is that class is more about behavior and consumption rather than social standing, authority, money or relations to the means of production.

A school teacher probably makes less money than the aviation mechanic, but class is more than just about money. The teacher has a college degree

Agree or disagree with the following below?

* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.

* Legible clothing is low class. As clothing increases in class, the words become smaller, then are replaced by symbols (like the polo pony), and finally at the top end there are no symbols at all, as with J. McLaughlin. You mean you never heard of J. McLaughlin? This demonstrates how there’s a whole level of clothing above Polo by Ralph Lauren that middle class with pretensions of being upper middle class have never even heard of.

* Upper classes like old stuff.

* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

* Proles like to collect stuff stupid stuff, such as limited edition plates.

* The middle class think they’ve accomplished something by just going to college, the upper middle class know that if it’s not Ivy it’s not good. (And if you’re upper class, it’s also important to “prep” at the right place.)

* The upper class “summer” in place like Nantuckett and the Hamptons. The upper middle class are too busy working to do that. The real top upper class summer in places like Dark Harbor. You mean you never heard of Dark Harbor? There’s a whole level of summering spots that the upper middle class with pretensions of being upper class never even heard of. And that’s what Fussell means by “out-of-site.” Regular people might stumble upon the upper class in the Hamptons, but you won’t see the top out-of-site summering.

* Bowling is very low class. “If the upper class have yachts, what do proles have? Bowling. If you want to maintain upper status, it’s important that you never, never go bowling.”

* Middle class people have books in their home and proles don’t.

I have books in my room. lots of books.


* Legible clothing is low class. As clothing increases in class, the words become smaller, then are replaced by symbols (like the polo pony), and finally at the top end there are no symbols at all, as with J. McLaughlin. You mean you never heard of J. McLaughlin? This demonstrates how there’s a whole level of clothing above Polo by Ralph Lauren that middle class with pretensions of being upper middle class have never even heard of.

absurd point, wearing a suit does not make me bourgsise (sp)


* Upper classes like old stuff.

most books read by most people on this board rate around 1900-1950, which I rate as 'old'.


* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

Skinheads and football holigans are British, they most defiately not higher class.


* Proles like to collect stuff stupid stuff, such as limited edition plates.

I rate the collection of antique furniture held by the upper class as 'stupid stuff'



stupid points, stupid books. Highlights sterotypical classisms.

[Tungsten]

Nope. If you don't own the means of production then you are forced into wage slavery. There is no autonomy or control over your labour power, you must sell this to the capitalists in order to obtain subsistence. You have almost no chance if you don't inherit capital, therefore you must succumb to the will of the capitalists.
What actually constitutes the means of production is so vague that the term is practically meaningless in this particular context. If a factory is a means of production, why isn't a computer or a shovel or a lawnmower too? I should imagine everyone has a means of generating wealth in their own home right now. What you're claiming is ridiculous and false.

You attacked a group of people not based on facts/data or attacked an argument logically but attacked personal character qualities.
He was perhaps insulting you by suggesting you were full of hate and lacking in reason, but an argument containing an insult isn't always an ad hominem.

-


That's not true, not in capitalism, Those who do not own the means of production are coerced by threat of poverty into selling their labour to the bourgeoisie at an unjust and exploitative rate.
Ditto what I've said above and stop trying to claim that having to work for a living is some unjust situation forced on you by the system. You'll still have to work for a living even under a socialist system and you'll still have to work for a rate people are wiling to pay or either lower your demands or look for another job.

[red team]

What actually constitutes the means of production is so vague that the term is practically meaningless in this particular context. If a factory is a means of production, why isn't a computer or a shovel or a lawnmower too? I should imagine everyone has a means of generating wealth in their own home right now. What you're claiming is ridiculous and false.

Yes, but what motivates me to work for somebody else if that is true? I have a means of production if I simply have a computer? :lol: Then huge factories and farms that have a definite group of owners are simply wasting their time aren't they? The fact that they aren't wasting their time, but is actually engaging in an activity that is very lucrative in terms of accumulating "value" when others have to work for them in assisting them in this accumulation when they rather would not means that they have some form of control over them.

What is this control? I assume everybody has a means of growing their own food and bulding their own house and computers. :lol: The fact that this assumption is ridiculous in itself means that at one end there is control (ownership in otherwords) of the means to make all these things and the resulting critical life sustaining products of utilizing these means of production (like food for instance) and at the other end is dependence by the vast majority upon this tiny minority that have all this control.

I simply follow the argument that a computer is a means of production to it's logical conclusion to where this "means of production" actually originated from and your entire argument falls to pieces.


Ditto what I've said above and stop trying to claim that having to work for a living is some unjust situation forced on you by the system. You'll still have to work for a living even under a socialist system and you'll still have to work for a rate people are wiling to pay or either lower your demands or look for another job.

And Mao or Stalin put up in a glass coffin to be worshipped like a God as well printed on circulatory currency bills that eventually flows back to the same rich people that controls the government who puts their pickled dead bodies up for display demonstrates what exactly? A free, fair and civilized society? :lol:

[Oedipus Complex]

If a factory is a means of production, why isn't a computer or a shovel or a lawnmower too?

A factory is a manifestation of productive forces which is inherently exploitive while a computer, shovel, or lawnmower are simply posessions which are not only controlled by a minority which enforces itself unto the proletariat for the pupose of profit. In other words people are not dependent upon my computer but on obtaining food in order to live which means they need to acquire money. In turn this means they must work in order to attain this. If you lack capital then you have no other means to do this other than wage slavery, therefore becoming subserviant to those who own the means of production.


I should imagine everyone has a means of generating wealth in their own home right now.

Really? How can the average person coerce someone into wage slavery if they lack capital? Those who lack capital must ensure their subsistence even if that means being exploited. You seem to think everyone is born into the exact same economic postion.


He was perhaps insulting you by suggesting you were full of hate and lacking in reason, but an argument containing an insult isn't always an ad hominem.

He essentially said all people who were communists were full of hate which has no scientific basis so, obviously he spewed random anger.

[Tungsten]

Yes, but what motivates me to work for somebody else if that is true? I have a means of production if I simply have a computer? :lol:
If you know how to use it to earn a living then yes, you do.

Then huge factories and farms that have a definite group of owners are simply wasting their time aren't they?
They're a different means of production producing different things.

The fact that they aren't wasting their time, but is actually engaging in an activity that is very lucrative in terms of accumulating "value" when others have to work for them in assisting them in this accumulation when they rather would not means that they have some form of control over them
No one need work at all, thus avoiding this control. However, starvation for everyone is usually the result. You could get rid of the owners of course, and then not bother to work, but then the result would be the same.

What is this control? I assume everybody has a means of growing their own food and bulding their own house and computers. :lol:
Well yes, people did grow their own food and build their own houses for centuries. Now we have a division of labour society that means we no longer need to.

I simply follow the argument that a computer is a means of production to it's logical conclusion to where this "means of production" actually originated from and your entire argument falls to pieces.
How does it fall to pieces? You've presented no real arguments.

And Mao or Stalin put up in a glass coffin to be worshipped like a God as well printed on circulatory currency bills that eventually flows back to the same rich people that controls the government who puts their pickled dead bodies up for display demonstrates what exactly? A free, fair and civilized society?
Try not to sidestep the argument next time.

-


A factory is a manifestation of productive forces which is inherently exploitive
How can something be inherently exploitive? Is this a bit like man being inherently evil, even if he hasn't actually committed an evil act? I wasn't aware Marxism was a religion.

while a computer, shovel, or lawnmower are simply posessions
And these things are not "a manifestation of productive forces" either? Were they just dig up out of the ground? They're different to the factory in no essential way.

which are not only controlled by a minority
You mean all computers, shovels and lawnmowers are communally owned? Nonsense.

which enforces itself unto the proletariat for the pupose of profit.
You sound like you're copying this out of a book.

In other words people are not dependent upon my computer but on obtaining food in order to live which means they need to acquire money.
If I was a computer programmer, I'd say I was dependent upon the computer as a means of obtaining food.

In turn this means they must work in order to attain this. If you lack capital then you have no other means to do this other than wage slavery, therefore becoming subserviant to those who own the means of production.
*Read* what I wrote.

Really? How can the average person coerce someone into wage slavery if they lack capital? Those who lack capital must ensure their subsistence even if that means being exploited.
You mean if I work for a living, I'm inherently exploited? How does that follow? Am I not also exploiting my employer too, for different reasons? What's this got to do with what I've just said about pratically everyone having a means of generating wealth in their home? Who would they be exploiting if they chose to make a living this way and who would they be exploited by if they did?

The scenario didn't fit your argument, so you ignored it. You're out of your depth.

[red team]

The fact that they aren't wasting their time, but is actually engaging in an activity that is very lucrative in terms of accumulating "value" when others have to work for them in assisting them in this accumulation when they rather would not means that they have some form of control over them
No one need work at all, thus avoiding this control. However, starvation for everyone is usually the result. You could get rid of the owners of course, and then not bother to work, but then the result would be the same.

Isn't that the same type of argument that could be used for the slave empires of old and Feudalism?

The Romans could just as well let Spartacus and his army on his merry way, but the rebel slave army chose to plunder the empire because all it's wealth were derived from slave labour so they were actually taking back what they worked in creating.

For the feudal lords their excuse was that they were offering armed protection for the peasants of the manor which was true because brigands and other robbers were wide spread in the medieval era.

As for not working resulting in starvation, that depends on the accounting system you set up. Using money for trade means things that aren't sold are zero value even though that may only be a result of people not having the money to trade for the product that is being sold and not because the merchandise itself is too costly physically to produce or can't be produced or that people don't have a desire for it.

Under a money system and under Capitalism in particular the price of labour has no correlation to the output potential of means of production which also means prices of goods has no correlation to how costly in material and labour terms a product requires in its actual physical production. If means of production require less labour per unit, increased productivity by hiring less workers to produce massive amounts is done with no forethought on whether or not having less people paid a wage would result in less people being able to purchase this massive amount that was produced.

This irrational approach as well as redundancy in production and salesmanship in trade and let's not forget the supplier games in manipulating prices and quantity to get the best deal for themselves all serves to make unnecessary misery of a toiling class of workers and opulent, decadent class of investors, which can quite accurately also be called price manipulators, all but inevitable.

Not that there's anything wrong with it for the rulers of such a system. Roman Patricians, Feudal Lords and Capitalist Bankers were and are indeed quite happy with their respective systems.


response #2

Well yes, people did grow their own food and build their own houses for centuries. Now we have a division of labour society that means we no longer need to.

Irrelevant.

The response deals with control over production not division of labour of which the vast majority in the present era of high technology industrial production is redundant as well as unnecessary and in some cases even counter-productive in real quality of life terms.


How does it fall to pieces? You've presented no real arguments.


It fails because you've presented a fallacious model of society of freely associating people who are all producers trading their products to each other under no pressure for meeting critical needs like rent or food because all parties engaging in trade negotiations are of equal capacity to meet their own needs.

That is clearly not the case as I've followed in the chain of production to where almost all products eventually get produced.

A financial oligarchy doesn't need to control (through state sanctioned legal ownership) all production in a society to exert a dominating influence over the actions of their subjects. They only need to control a large majority of the most important areas of production.

The financial oligarchy also controls the banks which controls the medium of conducting trade so let's not forget about that. I will be treated as a criminal if I make up my own currency or if I choose an entirely different scheme for cost accounting.



And Mao or Stalin put up in a glass coffin to be worshipped like a God as well printed on circulatory currency bills that eventually flows back to the same rich people that controls the government who puts their pickled dead bodies up for display demonstrates what exactly? A free, fair and civilized society?
Try not to sidestep the argument next time.

Like you sidestepped the argument in response #2 by yourself?

It's quite an accurate statement to portray half the population as stupid, easily manipulated sheeple. If they weren't something like this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uOIYsGVyg8M) would never have happened as well as people not wanting to have their dead pickled leaders put up for display in a glass coffin. Try scoring 100 (the median score) or below in an I.Q. test to see how stupid half the popuation is.

This wasn't even a very good test of intelligence either. An invisible sky fairy will help you and make you happy if you clasp your hands and whisper to it, otherwise if you don't believe in this sky fairy you would go to a very bad place. Oh please, I've been brought up by a religious family and I've seen through this shit and knew it was total garbage when I was ten years old.

Education helps (sometimes), but preventing breeding or deporting the stupid helps even more.

[RGacky3]

Talking about Class is like talking about Race, its all subjective. But here on this board we generally talk about class in the Marxist sense, of those who sell their labor, those who own Capital and buy Labor, and those who own Capital but don't by Labor rather doing it themselves. If your comming to the Revolutionary left board, even as a Capitalist, you should probably talk in Socialist terms of Class because thats the type we are discussing.

Your notion of class is different than ours, does'nt make it any more right or wrong, but since we are here, talk about our notion.

[luxemburg89]

* Anything that’s British has higher class than something that’s not. That’s why the streets in pretentious housing developments have British-sounding names.

Look dickhead, you obviously haven't been to Portsmouth or Slough.

[Oedipus Complex]

How can something be inherently exploitive? Is this a bit like man being inherently evil, even if he hasn't actually committed an evil act? I wasn't aware Marxism was a religion.

When human labor power and capitalist mode of production meet their will always be exploitation, otherwise capitalism would not work. Comparing it to religion is so fallacious for the fact that people who claim humans are inherently evil have no empirical evidence while we do (surplus value).


And these things are not "a manifestation of productive forces" either? Were they just dig up out of the ground? They're different to the factory in no essential way.

Yes, they were made through productive forces but a personal shovel is not used as part of the productive forces when personally owned. So, if I own a lawnmower it is not used in order to exploit people while private property (the factory) which is almost always inherited is explotative because the proletariat lack this (capital) so therefore work in it so they can live.


You mean all computers, shovels and lawnmowers are communally owned? Nonsense.

No they are not communally owned but they are usually not used in order to exploit. These items are simply part of the productive forces which culminates itself private property (exploitation). Having access to one shovel isn't owning any means of production since you don't own the majority of them. However if you were to take away say 85% of shovels within a community, you will force those who need a shovel (to live) to work for you which is explotive. Same goes for computers and so on. However I believe you were just talking about one shovel or one computer as a means of production which is nonsense.


You sound like you're copying this out of a book.

Ok, you caught me :rolleyes:


If I was a computer programmer, I'd say I was dependent upon the computer as a means of obtaining food.

Yes, the computer is the means by which you acquire money, and then gain access to critical survival needs. So, yes, this computer when used to exploit workers (when most computers are allocated to a few people only) is part of the means of production, however your argument was computers in general (including personal computers) should be counted as means of production, when rather that's not the case at all.


*Read* what I wrote.

I did.


You mean if I work for a living, I'm inherently exploited? How does that follow?

Yes to some extent because you sell your labor power to capitalists in order to live.


Am I not also exploiting my employer too, for different reasons?

How so?


What's this got to do with what I've just said about pratically everyone having a means of generating wealth in their home?

Almost nobody has the means to generate capital within their own homes. To generate wealth requires a lot of money, in order to pay for wage costs, production costs. Were not all producers who have the same amount of wealth who are making mutual trade-offs, some actually have needs which can only be met through wage labor. If this weren't the case then why do so many then go on to work under the capitalists?


Who would they be exploiting if they chose to make a living this way and who would they be exploited by if they did?

Most just simply don't have the means to live this way, and the one's who do exploit the workers by forcing them to work for wages decided arbitrarily, and unjustly.


The scenario didn't fit your argument, so you ignored it. You're out of your depth.

Your scenario seems to ignore the real world.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 22, 2007 12:28 am

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.

Nope. If you don't own the means of production then you are forced into wage slavery. There is no autonomy or control over your labour power, you must sell this to the capitalists in order to obtain subsistence. You have almost no chance if you don't inherit capital, therefore you must succumb to the will of the capitalists.



Even if it was an ad hominem (it wasn't)....so friggin what?

Is it true or not? Why do people become communists?

You attacked a group of people not based on facts/data or attacked an argument logically but attacked personal character qualities.

People become communists most likely because they are humanists who actually hate witnessing the dehumanization of other human beings. They also condemn unfair injustices such as inheritance, natural rights, wage slavery, etc.
If that were true, we'd all be making 10 cents an hour

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+August 27, 2007 10:57 pm--> (Capitalist Lawyer @ August 27, 2007 10:57 pm)
Oedipus [email protected] 22, 2007 12:28 am

And we all know that working class people who own no capital can't be exploitive.

Nope. If you don't own the means of production then you are forced into wage slavery. There is no autonomy or control over your labour power, you must sell this to the capitalists in order to obtain subsistence. You have almost no chance if you don't inherit capital, therefore you must succumb to the will of the capitalists.



Even if it was an ad hominem (it wasn't)....so friggin what?

Is it true or not? Why do people become communists?

You attacked a group of people not based on facts/data or attacked an argument logically but attacked personal character qualities.

People become communists most likely because they are humanists who actually hate witnessing the dehumanization of other human beings. They also condemn unfair injustices such as inheritance, natural rights, wage slavery, etc.
If that were true, we'd all be making 10 cents an hour [/b]
if that were the case thered be no onus for extortionate costs of living so in the end the vast proportion of people may end up better off. As Ive said before, currency is an arbitrary concept designed by those with a vested interest in applying a numerical value to partition wages and profit.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Why was 'redteam' banned?

He was one of your best posters. He was also communist.

I don't get it.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2007 07:47 pm
Why was 'redteam' banned?

He was one of your best posters. He was also communist.

I don't get it.
According to the admin log here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27963&st=1025) (14th post) user "red team" was restricted for being anti-abortion (or more accurately anti-choice).

Then, 4 posts down, he was banned for being a 3rd Positionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_positionism). 3rd positionists are fascists who've adopted some left-wing terminology and rhetoric.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Sorry, but this is just more foolish dribble from someone who lives in a textbook and has no inkling of the real (should I say capitalist) world.

Individuals who have worked to gain a meaningful education and those who have worked to develop useful job skills are very much in demand and are hardly at the mercy of capitalists.

Anyone who has tried to hire a graduate Electrical, Chemical, Aeronautical, Mechanical, or Software Engineer knows that many of these people can name their hiring price....It is the poor capitalist manager who deserves the pity here.

And qualified job candidates who can virtually name their price is not limited to engineers but, includes a wide range of those with technical skills and graduates of proven educational programs in business, marketing, Financial management, Health Services, etc.

The same is true graduates of reputable technical training schools and those who worked dilgently to gain special and applicable job skills.

The only time an employee has to "sell his labor at the rate the capitalist class controls"....is when the employee has little in the way of education and/or job skills to offer.

You, for example, probably feel that you are underpaid and are being taken advantage of by the capital class employer wen in fact, you have received an unmarketable degree from a second rate college and as a result work in an unrelated field......

It occurs to me that is not the fault of a capitalistic class employer...

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Any responses? Or did I just destroy the communist paradigmn way of thinking with my statement?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28, 2007 08:00 pm
Sorry, but this is just more foolish dribble from someone who lives in a textbook and has no inkling of the real (should I say capitalist) world.

Individuals who have worked to gain a meaningful education and those who have worked to develop useful job skills are very much in demand and are hardly at the mercy of capitalists.

Anyone who has tried to hire a graduate Electrical, Chemical, Aeronautical, Mechanical, or Software Engineer knows that many of these people can name their hiring price....It is the poor capitalist manager who deserves the pity here.

And qualified job candidates who can virtually name their price is not limited to engineers but, includes a wide range of those with technical skills and graduates of proven educational programs in business, marketing, Financial management, Health Services, etc.

The same is true graduates of reputable technical training schools and those who worked dilgently to gain special and applicable job skills.

The only time an employee has to "sell his labor at the rate the capitalist class controls"....is when the employee has little in the way of education and/or job skills to offer.

You, for example, probably feel that you are underpaid and are being taken advantage of by the capital class employer wen in fact, you have received an unmarketable degree from a second rate college and as a result work in an unrelated field......

It occurs to me that is not the fault of a capitalistic class employer...
*sigh* I think this has been discussed numerous times. Regardless of the skill level of the individual, there is a certain price that a capitalist will not pay for a worker. Why would a capitalist pay a worker if it means he cannot turn a profit? If a capitalist can afford a highly skilled person, he or she would obtain such a person. But historically the highest paid is always the first to go when the business goes south.

Plus you seem to forget white collar workers are just as vulnerable as blue collar (to use the sociological terms for skilled and unskilled workers). Wasn't there a big stink last year about whether or not Ford would fire 30% of its white collar staff? And what about out sourcing, where a firm hires people who will work for less, thus forcing even the most skilled person to lower his price.

Your statement is the one that doesn't match reality. I highly doubt a capitalist would place a want ad stating "will pay whatever you want." They name the price and if you want to work for less, fine. If you want to work for more, no go.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Your statement implies that the USA is outsourcing more than we are insourcing.

It isn't true. Many European and Japanese companies move operations to the USA as well.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 04, 2007 01:29 am
Your statement implies that the USA is outsourcing more than we are insourcing.

It isn't true. Many European and Japanese companies move operations to the USA as well.
Actually, we are sending industrial and office jobs overseas; basically, anything not tied inherantly to the locality it services is being shipped out.

Just because Toyota has moved some operations here doesn't mean we're actually gaining more jobs nationally than we're shipping out.