Has capitalism really simplified class relations?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So far, I've seen threads regarding additional classes emerging due to the historical processes of capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70479), or the changing dynamics of existing classes (and have myself made a thread on such (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71322)), but the bottom line is that every one of us, myself included in particular (at least until this point), hasn't bothered to ask the hard question in all of this.

Marx himself stated that, unlike feudalism, capitalism has simplified class relations to two or three sides. Has it?

1) I am reminded of Luis Henrique's remarks that Marx himself originally separated the peasantry from the petit-bourgeoisie (which could explain coincidentally why peasants were/are more open to Lenin's idea regarding the pre-DOTP epoch of "revolutionary democracy" than the typical petit-bourgeois folks, who in turn are more prone to fascism, as Trotsky noted), as well as the landlords from the bourgeoisie proper.

[Even this morning, I was cynical about the revolutionary prospects of the peasantry in this Learning thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72555), but since that time I've cooled down.]

EDIT: Luis also said this below (I've posted this here for clarification on the main reason behind the separation):


Then, the countryside classes are always somewhat different from the city classes, due to the issue of land property. Land is not a product of human labour, and, as such, its private property is always an anomaly within a capitalist society; the "proper" capitalist regime of land would be georgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/georgism), but the bourgeoisie apparently is not bourgeois enough to stick to it.

2) I linked above to a thread regarding a "coordinator class" (myself having originally consigned them to be the dominant force of the modern petit-bourgeois "big tent," even in light of Marx's brief comments regarding managers and professionals), having read this libertarian communist topic elsewhere on the "de-coupling of ownership and control in the modern corporate structure," (http://libcom.org/forums/thought/ruling-class-coordinator-class) and in my own lumpenprole thread consigned various elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie to the modern lumpenproletariat "big tent" ("Expired historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities").

[On the other hand, the modern equivalents of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie happen to be the "self-employed," those owning and running consultancy businesses, even those owning and running "incorporated" small businesses, etc.]

3) Then there are the cops and security guards (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69723&st=0), whom I consigned in my thread above to the historical and modern lumpenproletariat "big tent" (because Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxemburg, and pretty much every major Marxist theorist didn't "classify" those who merely protect the capitalist state and do squat to advance the productive forces).



In short, there's the traditional dualism,

The ever-changing "triple-threat" analysis (which, unfortunately, even the parecon folks like Albert and syndicat can't get away from in ignoring the modern petit-bourgeois "self-employed persons," consultants, etc. and especially the lumpenproletariat),

Marx's later four-way remarks (the lumpenproletariat being the fourth side),

And a revival of the six-way analysis (and perhaps even an extension to a seven-way analysis, depending on one's views of the peasantry, from their relationship to the means of production to their "exceptional" historical role in comparison to other segments of the petit-bourgeoisie)...

Which for some reason I'm now more open to - with the landlords having been subsumed completely into the bourgeoisie (commercial real estate) and petit-bourgeoisie (those individuals owning a house or two elsewhere to earn rental income), their sixth position having been replaced by the "coordinator class".




Hammer (subject to continuous editing)[/i]
#1) Does the person exist outside a wage-labour system? [If yes, then the person is a lumpenprole.]

#2) If Yes to #1, does the person contribute to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities? [If no, then the person merely contributes to the protection of the capitalist state machinery, and thus belongs to the same class as cops, security guards, judges, and lawyers. This "Class #2" also includes those elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie whose historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities has expired, such as the manual bow-and-arrow handicrafts "occupation" that still exists today.]

#3) If Yes to #2, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]

#4) If Yes to #3, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class, comprised of lower (but this I don't mean a typical shift manager in retail or fast-food restaurants) and mid-level managers of bigger businesses, as well as all non-owning managers of smaller businesses, since non-active small business owners are obviously scarce (if existent at all).]



[Note this big chasm here between #4 and #5 in regards to the petit-bourgeoisie: they can have anywhere from "significant influence" ownership to "controlling ownership" in the means of production, but never on a sufficiently social scale.]



#5) If Yes to #4, does the person have a "controlling" ownership stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale ("social stake")? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There's the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.]

#6) or #5a) If Yes to #5, does the person exercise active control over his/her "social stake" in the means of production? [If no, then the person is a "non-functioning capitalist."]

Thoughts?

[syndicat]

capitalism in its advanced or late stage has become more complex. a key thing to understand the "petit bourgeoisie" is a basic change in the production system that happened in the period from the late 19th to early 2oth century with the emergence of taylorism. the old artisanal working class had its jobs increasingly broken down into taylorized fragments, with the massive growth of the coordinator class, on the one hand, and of a more intensely controlled less skilled working class, on the other.

the artisanal working class of the 19th century still possessed the techonology in their heads and in their apprentice systems, and that got blow away in the 20th century.

and in the process the old farmer and artisan self-employed classes had their means of production largely stripped from them.

so capitalism continually changes not only the means of production but class relations, and i think Marx knew this.

in the course of this the old petit bourgsoisie shrank, as Marx predicted, but the new coordinator class grew due to capital's need to increase control over the labor process.

i'd see five basic groups:

1. proletarian class, the more subordinated and deskilled working class

2. small business class, including the self-employed who own their own means of production and might hire employees, but NOT including the pseudo-independent workers like truckers or cabbies who are still really workers dependent on an employer/capital owner. many of these folks derive from the working class since this is the only path to upward mobility for the non-college educated part of the working class.

3. coordinators, not owning capital as the basis of their class power over workers

4. lower level professionals, who have a worker-like subordination to the employers but a bit more autonomy in work due to craft like conditions, such as application programmers, writers. i regard this group as the upper edge of the working class.
due to their worker-like situation there is the potential of being part of the working class alliance.

5. the plutocracy, that is, the big capitalists who don't have to direct workers directly, they have their managers do this for them.

thus there are four classes.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

in the course of this the old petit bourgsoisie shrank, as Marx predicted,

He also predicted its members would be replaced by managers, security guards and cops, etc. There is no "new coordinator class," there is the petty-bourgeoisie.

Journalists and construction workers are proletarian. They don't belong to different classes because they do different kinds of work. The same is true of small shop owners and managers, who both belong to the petty-bourgeoisie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxemburg, and pretty much every major Marxist theorist didn't "classify" those who merely protect the capitalist state and do squat to advance the productive forces

Of course they did.

"The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." - The Communist Manifesto

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by syndicat+November 03, 2007 06:32 pm--> (syndicat @ November 03, 2007 06:32 pm) 4. lower level professionals, who have a worker-like subordination to the employers but a bit more autonomy in work due to craft like conditions, such as application programmers, writers. i regard this group as the upper edge of the working class.
due to their worker-like situation there is the potential of being part of the working class alliance. [/b]
First of all, why do you still ignore the lumpenproletariat (and surprisingly ignore the cops and security guards)? <_< :huh:

Second, I do agree with Companero in regards to a lack of class separation between skilled and unskilled workers. By your definition, I&#39;m not a working-class person. :(


Companero
Of course they did.

"The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." - The Communist Manifesto

Really (and I saw that quote of yours in that Learning thread)? Any other sources besides that rather basic pamphlet that explicitly link the cops and security guards to the petit-bourgeoisie?

The problem I see with your analysis (nothing personal) is that the cops and security guards&#39; do not share the same relationship to the means of production as the petit-bourgeoisie (and you yourself mentioned the "relationship to the means of production" in that Learning thread as part of a question directed towards me). The latter have a mix of everything: they own their albeit small-scale means of production (the "self-employed" plumber, as you mentioned), they compensate themselves (the proletarian function), and they manage their own labour and the labour of "possible others" for profit (the managerial function or the traditional petit-bourgeois function, depending on one&#39;s POV).

Cops and security guards don&#39;t have this relationship. They earn wages, but their interests are similar to those of the lumpenproles (hence why I initially classified them as being part of the "miscellaneous" lumpenproletariat).

[syndicat]

okay. Hammer you say by my analysis you&#39;re not a working class person. what do you do?

my personal loyalties to the working class derive from my family background, and early work (gas station attendant, typesetter), not from my current work situation (as a writer).

cops are not a part of the working class because they are the supervisors of the streets, as such they are part of the coordinator class.

security guards are in a different situation because they don&#39;t have the kind of power cops have.

the socalled "lumpenproletariat" are just the worst off section of the working class. poverty is experienced by a large part of the working class. i grew up in the working poor myself.

there is such a thing as structural unemployment. consider the position of the black population of the US in the &#39;60s. in the &#39;40s most of the black population had been working in agriculture in the south. but mechanization took their jobs, and they were mainly forced to relocate to northern cities. but they hadn&#39;t been retrained and lacked urban job skills and faced race discrimination on top of that. so there was prolonged structural unemployment. but it wasn&#39;t a different class than the working class, but a segment of it.

[Tower of Bebel]

the socalled "lumpenproletariat" are just the worst off section of the working class. poverty is experienced by a large part of the working class.

The lumpenproletariat is the worst off part? What is the worst off? Since you wrote poverty is experienced by a large part of the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry for the long wait. :(

On an interesting note, with the way I structured my five questions above, there still remains the possibility of certain elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie actually becoming part of "Class #2" (cops, security guards, judges, AND LAWYERS) by virtue of "expired historical usefulness in developing society&#39;s labor power and its capabilities":


This last one is important, because not every single occupation can be progressive for all eternity. Handicraftsmen, for example, were classified by Marx himself as being part of the petit-bourgeoisie, but nobody here finds manual bow-and-arrow handicraftsmen still taking part in doing the above (I even watched a few months ago a show on someone who still handicrafts feudal stuff, saying that industrial production is nothing compared to the "perfection" of feudal-era manual labor in making his particular stuff).

I&#39;ve received a bit of flak recently for calling out the peasantry as a class (petit-bourgeois as they are, anyways), but what about differentiating between Third-World peasants (who form the core labour of food production there) and First-World "small farmers" who receive subsidies for continuing their inefficient work (when industrial farming has now taken over as developing society&#39;s labor power and capabilities in the area of food production)? [I don&#39;t think they can be compared with honest welfare recipients who work and get partial welfare, mind you.]

Thoughts?

[As an aside, Lenin&#39;s class background, therefore, was not that of the petit-bourgeoisie ("Class #5"), but rather that of "Class #2," being a lawyer and studying law. On a humorous note, perhaps that&#39;s why he didn&#39;t "classify" the cops, security guards, judges, and lawyers. :lol: ;) Even the litigation lawyers of today and their outrageous lawsuits aren&#39;t contributing to the development of society&#39;s labour power and its capabilities.]

[ComradeRed]

I could have sworn I replied to this thread the other day. Oh well...


Originally posted by Jacob Richter+November 03, 2007 09:38 am--> (Jacob Richter &#064; November 03, 2007 09:38 am)So far, I&#39;ve seen threads regarding additional classes emerging due to the historical processes of capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70479), or the changing dynamics of existing classes (and have myself made a thread on such (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71322)), but the bottom line is that every one of us, myself included in particular (at least until this point), hasn&#39;t bothered to ask the hard question in all of this.

Marx himself stated that, unlike feudalism, capitalism has simplified class relations to two or three sides. Has it?[/b]
I think the answer is "sorta but not really".


1) I am reminded of Luis Henrique&#39;s remarks that Marx himself originally separated the peasantry from the petit-bourgeoisie (which could explain coincidentally why peasants were/are more open to Lenin&#39;s idea regarding the pre-DOTP epoch of "revolutionary democracy" than the typical petit-bourgeois folks, who in turn are more prone to fascism, as Trotsky noted), as well as the landlords from the bourgeoisie proper.

[Even this morning, I was cynical about the revolutionary prospects of the peasantry in this Learning thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72555), but since that time I&#39;ve cooled down.] This is without a doubt true. I don&#39;t have much to say, but I will quote Marx and Engels on peasantry.

They had various thoughts on the "revolutionary potential" of the peasantry, mostly negative ones:

The peasant is an element that is little active politically. In so far as he himself is a proprietor, he is going ever more to ruin because of the unfavourable production conditions of the allotment peasants, who cannot engage in stock-breeding, having been deprived of the old common Mark or community pasture. As a tenant, his position is even worse. Petty peasant production presupposes a predominantly subsistence economy, the money economy seals its doom. Hence the growing indebtedness, the massive expropriation by mortgage creditors, the recourse to domestic industry, so as just not to be evicted from his native soil. Politically, the peasantry is mainly indifferent or reactionary: on the Rhine it is ultramontane because of its old hatred for the Prussians, in other areas it is particularise or protestant-conservative. Religious feeling still serves this class as an expression of social or political interests.

From Chapter 5 of The Role of Force in History (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/role-force/ch05.htm) by Frederick Engels (1887).

The “glorious liberation war” of 1813-14 and 15, the “most glorious period of German history”, etc., as it has been called, was a piece of insanity such as will drive the blood into the cheeks of every honest and intelligent German for some time to come.[22] True, there was great enthusiasm then, but who were these enthusiasts? Firstly, the peasantry, the most stupid set of people in existence, who, clinging to feudal prejudices, burst forth in masses, ready to die rather than cease to obey those whom they, their fathers and grandfathers, had called their masters; and submitted to be trampled on and horse-whipped by.

From Paragraph 7 of Letter 1 of The State of Germany (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/02/20.htm) by Frederick Engels (1846).

Marx thought them to be like a "sack of potatoes":

The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.

From Chapter 7 of The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm) by Karl Marx (1852).


2) I linked above to a thread regarding a "coordinator class" (myself having originally consigned them to be the dominant force of the modern petit-bourgeois "big tent," even in light of Marx&#39;s brief comments regarding managers and professionals), having read this libertarian communist topic elsewhere on the "de-coupling of ownership and control in the modern corporate structure," (http://libcom.org/forums/thought/ruling-class-coordinator-class) and in my own lumpenprole thread consigned various elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie to the modern lumpenproletariat "big tent" ("Expired historical usefulness in developing society&#39;s labor power and its capabilities").

[On the other hand, the modern equivalents of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie happen to be the "self-employed," those owning and running consultancy businesses, even those owning and running "incorporated" small businesses, etc.] A "coordinator"...in what sense? There are several senses that I can think of, let me assess each one in turn.

The first that immediately comes to mind is the Soviet Planner. This is actually where corporations got their inspiration for coordinators.

Soviet Planners were really little more than "supply agents". The economy proved to be to complicated to centralize (considering there were only a hand full of actual Soviet planners, Stalin kept them small in number to ensure their loyalty).

Things like "price" were given roughly around some neighborhood for general goods. The actual firms themselves set the price.

Soviet planners kept track of the output produced, and designated "What should go where". In practice, the firms often took over the actual exchange aspect.

So what then could be said of the role of Soviet planners? They basically managed to keep track of output, and set plans for output targets of the next five year plans.

That said, let us think of their relation to labor and the means of production.

They do not produce commodities and they control the means of distribution and have "significant influence" in the means of production.

The coordinators that I think you and the libcom thread are referring to are corporate "Planners". As stated earlier, corporations actually adopted their paradigm from planned economies.

It could be argued that corporations are little more than a "mini-command economy". That would be an interesting topic to peruse, but one that I do not have the luxury of time to do.

At any rate, I honestly do not know what corporate planners do...but I can make an educated guess.

I suspect that they keep track of the supply of the various goods produced by the corporation and their distribution within the corporation.

For example, a hypothetical 19th century railroad corporation would consist of coal mines, iron mines, lumber mills, tool shops, etc.

A corporate planner would ensure that so much iron went to the tool shops, so much coal went to the engine shops, etc.

That is my guess but I suspect there is more to it than just this. I honestly don&#39;t know because I haven&#39;t been a corporate planner nor do I intend to become one.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong (and I probably am missing something vital that they do), but it appears they manage the means of distribution and have some influence in the means of production (as far as setting quotas, etc.).

They do not necessarily "own" the means of production, but they are paid with surplus value.


3) Then there are the cops and security guards (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69723&st=0), whom I consigned in my thread above to the historical and modern lumpenproletariat "big tent" (because Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxemburg, and pretty much every major Marxist theorist didn&#39;t "classify" those who merely protect the capitalist state and do squat to advance the productive forces). I would qualify them as petit bourgeois, as CdL as provided evidence from the manifesto.

Interestingly, bailiffs historically were knights of a distinguished honor.

Then they became law enforcement.

Law enforcement may not "advance the productive forces" but they sure as hell protect it&#33;

You give us an algorithm for determining class status. Do not be offended, but since I am studying Donald Knuth&#39;s The Art of Computer Programming, I am tempted to make some notes about this algorithm (just as an algorithm first, then the actual implications of it, etc.):

Hammer (Learning)
#1) Does the person exist inside or outside a wage-labour system? [If outside, then the person is a lumpenprole.]

#2) If Yes to #1, does the person contribute to the development of society&#39;s labour power and its capabilities? [If no, then the person merely contributes to the protection of the capitalist state machinery, and thus belongs to the same class as cops and security guards. EDIT: On the other hand, this "Class #2" also includes those elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie whose historical usefulness in developing society&#39;s labor power and its capabilities, such as the manual bow-and-arrow handicrafts "occupation" that still exists today.]

#3) If Yes to #2, does the person own and/or control the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]

#4) If Yes to #3, does the person have a sufficient ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class.]

#5) If Yes to #4, does the person have a sufficient ownership and controlling stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There&#39;s the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.] Let me just say that it is a poor algorithm given the standards of Donald Knuth for several reasons.

The concept of a "wage-labor system" is undefined and thus ambiguous.

Step four, "a sufficient ownership stake in the means of production" is ambiguous as well as in step five "sufficient ownership and controlling stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale" is equally ambiguous.

That does not mean that this is a bad algorithm. Indeed, it always terminates...that&#39;s a good thing&#33;

It just needs elucidation for it to be a great algorithm.

That said, let&#39;s actually look at the algorithm.

The only thing that&#39;s new is the addition of a "manager class"...and I&#39;m not entirely certain that it&#39;s justified to assign them to be a class.

Perhaps you could share your thoughts on this matter.

Personally I see the problems with Marx&#39;s model lying in the concept of a worker and a petit bourgeoisie.

If a worker invests in stocks, is s/he still a worker? :huh:

I think perhaps "subclasses" ought to be investigated. A manager really is nothing more than a petit bourgeoisie if you wish to push the argument hard enough, but a manager is a "certain unique kind" of petit bourgeoisie.

A "subclass" of the petit bourgeoisie - a "manager subclass" - is a more appropriate explanation than promoting them to be an independent class on their own.

That&#39;s my take on it. Of course it would be nice if there were a straightforward algorithm that could be used, but it may be a wee bit more complicated than the one presented here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, the "coordinator" that I had in mind was either a branch manager or a mid-level firm manager, or even an accounting controller (since corporate execs enter the bourgeois class through the more prolific use of stock options).

Then again, maybe I misread the libcom article. :huh:

Fair enough on your constructive criticism of my "algorithm," but let&#39;s consider that worker-owning stocks question: I own a few mutual funds (but the total is under &#036;10K), but the vast bulk of my income comes from non-managerial employment. Live For The People told me awhile back that I&#39;m still a prole (again, because of the primary source of income).

Perhaps indeed a "great" algorithm would be more complicated, but at least this is a starting point. :)



The only thing that&#39;s new is the addition of a "manager class"...and I&#39;m not entirely certain that it&#39;s justified to assign them to be a class.

Perhaps you could share your thoughts on this matter.

...

I think perhaps "subclasses" ought to be investigated. A manager really is nothing more than a petit bourgeoisie if you wish to push the argument hard enough, but a manager is a "certain unique kind" of petit bourgeoisie.

A "subclass" of the petit bourgeoisie - a "manager subclass" - is a more appropriate explanation than promoting them to be an independent class on their own.

The problem here is that cops, security guards, and managers perform way different things than the typical shop owner (or, in the modern corporate environment where there are small private corporations, the "small businessman"). You don&#39;t see the "small businessman" protecting the state, for example. Algorithmically speaking, since my algorithm has the working class sandwiched between the petit-bourgeoisie and the cops, how can the latter be petit-bourgeois?

[I think gilhyle or g.ram said that the fate of "Class #2" is tied directly to that of "Class #1" (lumpenproles).]

The "small businessman" sure does a lot of managerial stuff, however, so you do have a point on the managers (at least to a certain extent). The problem is: the algorithm deals with the managers first before the petit-bourgeoisie, so at least, per the algorithm, the former can&#39;t be a subclass of the latter.



On another front, given the recent distinctions between the "money-capitalist" and the "functioning capitalist", maybe "Class #6" should be split, too (or have the "non-functioning capitalists" as a subclass). :huh: Essentially, those multi-millionaires (and some billionaires) who don&#39;t do squat about improving their capital position while holding shares in various enterprises are modern landlords. Case in point: the Queen of England (and more notorious heiresses (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2006/07/27/billionaire-heiresses-hilton_cz_lk_cv_0727heiresses.html)). Who manages her investments? [Contrast them to, say, the WWE&#39;s Vince McMahon, who VERY ACTIVELY manages his business.]

#6) or #5a) If Yes to #5, does the person exercise active control over his/her share in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale? [If no, then the person is a "non-functioning capitalist."]



P.S. - You should note my humorous pot-shot at Lenin the Lawyer above. ;)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 13, 2007 04:02 pm
Actually, the "coordinator" that I had in mind was either a branch manager or a mid-level firm manager, or even an accounting controller (since corporate execs enter the bourgeois class through the more prolific use of stock options).

Then again, maybe I misread the libcom article. :huh:
Probably not, I lost patience reading the thread after several posts.


Fair enough on your constructive criticism of my "algorithm," but let&#39;s consider that worker-owning stocks question: I own a few mutual funds (but the total is under &#036;10K), but the vast bulk of my income comes from non-managerial employment. Live For The People told me awhile back that I&#39;m still a prole (again, because of the primary source of income).

Perhaps indeed a "great" algorithm would be more complicated, but at least this is a starting point. :) The problem is this: you are trying to modify a model that is identified as dysfunctional. Historically this has been problematic.

A worker that has, e.g., no investment is different than a worker that has "some" investment, and both are different than a worker with "a lot of" investment.

There are various "sub-classes" within "worker". That is my entire point. It&#39;s not easy enough to simply "add on" to pre-existing classes when the pre-existing class divisions are already ill defined.

Because strictly speaking any ownership in the company makes one either bourgeois or petit bourgeois.

One could reformulate the condition from being any ownership to "a significant degree" of ownership, as long as that "significant degree" has been defined.


The problem here is that cops, security guards, and managers perform way different things than the typical shop owner (or, in the modern corporate environment where there are small private corporations, the "small businessman"). You don&#39;t see the "small businessman" protecting the state, for example. Algorithmically speaking, since my algorithm has the working class sandwiched between the petit-bourgeoisie and the cops, how can the latter be petit-bourgeois?

[I think gilhyle or g.ram said that the fate of "Class #2" is tied directly to that of "Class #1" (lumpenproles).] All trout are fish, but not all fish are trout.

All cops are petit bourgeois, why then should we be surprised that all petit bourgeois are not like cops?


The "small businessman" sure does a lot of managerial stuff, however, so you do have a point on the managers (at least to a certain extent). The problem is: the algorithm deals with the managers first before the petit-bourgeoisie, so at least, per the algorithm, the former can&#39;t be a subclass of the latter. So? Rewrite the algorithm.

This isn&#39;t some "holy writ" wherein no one is allowed to modify this. Rearrange the steps, it&#39;s ok you won&#39;t go to hell.


On another front, given the recent distinctions between the "money-capitalist" and the "functioning capitalist", maybe "Class #6" should be split, too (or have the "non-functioning capitalists" as a subclass). :huh: Essentially, those multi-millionaires (and some billionaires) who don&#39;t do squat about improving their capital position while holding shares in various enterprises are modern landlords. Case in point: the Queen of England (and more notorious heiresses (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2006/07/27/billionaire-heiresses-hilton_cz_lk_cv_0727heiresses.html)). Who manages her investments? [Contrast them to, say, the WWE&#39;s Vince McMahon, who VERY ACTIVELY manages his business.] Rather than splitting steps, why not start from scratch all over again?

First I would recommend outlining the classes you want to distinguish prior to writing any algorithms.

It&#39;s a good idea to have a look at all the components, and what distinguishes them from each other, before you try identifying them in practice.

So far what it appears to me what you&#39;re doing is you&#39;re taking the class divisions of bourgeois, petit bourgeois, and proletariat, (and lumpenproletariat) then you&#39;re trying to "add on" rather than "clarify" the model.

But if the notion of a worker is so ill defined already, how can you coherently add on?

You have to start from square one: identify what a worker is. Then inspect all various different types of workers (relative to their relations to the means of production and to labor).

Inspect those that are not workers. See their relationships to the means of production and labor.

Distinguish certain elements in society. Identify the fundamental characteristics which separates them. Then and only then write an algorithm dealing with identifying them based off of an "if...else if...else" type of algorithm.

You&#39;re just going to be wasting your time until you clarify these ambiguities, they&#39;ll still be present in your model.

When in doubt, add a division. You can always eliminate it later on ;)

[synthesis]

Marx&#39;s class system was fundamentally based on the dichotomies of European industrialization. Outside that context, especially in our post-industrial society, we have to face the possibility that his system of classification is totally useless.

What we need to develop is a system that accurately classifies the "new" class relations outside of industrialization. Marx&#39;s views on the bourgeoisie and proletariat were fundamentally based on the people who own and operate, respectively, the industrial means of production.

In other words, the Marxist system is predicated upon the developing manufacturing sector of his time. When society is no longer dominated by that sector, where do we go from there?

I don&#39;t really know, to be honest. Class tension in Western society is at an all-time low. I think our energies in this day and age would be more aptly directed towards opposing imperialism and exploitation.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 13, 2007 10:36 pm
Marx&#39;s class system was fundamentally based on the dichotomies of European industrialization. Outside that context, especially in our post-industrial society, we have to face the possibility that his system of classification is totally useless.
This fundamentally disagrees with the notion of classes.

A class is a group of humans with specified relations to the means of production and labor. Hammer (or whatever his name is now) is trying to specify those relationships using an algorithm.

Do these relationships change? Yeah, everything changes given enough time.

Have these relationships fundamentally changed?

No.

The reason is that there are still those that own the means of production and those that operate it. The divisions are "smeared" however since Marx laid down his generalized model.

Does that mean the model is bad? It depends at what scale one is looking at, at a really macro scale it&#39;s not too bad. At a really micro scale, it worsens.

This isn&#39;t too surprising though, since even in Marx&#39;s analysis of France in works like The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx distinguishes between this sort of bourgeoisie and that sort of bourgeoisie, etc.

I think ultimately trying to come up with an algorithm that works is fruitless because it will only work for a certain duration of time until the relations change significantly enough to make the algorithm antiquated.

On the other hand, it would not be bad to demonstrate how to analyze one&#39;s current environment to asses the classes that exist. That would be quite useful as an example, an implementation of a sort of "meta-algorithm" of historical materialism.

Even in our "post-industrial society" (whatever that means), it&#39;s still in the capitalist mode of production and consequently capitalist relations prevail. This is why the model laid down by Marx works at the Macro scale.


What we need to develop is a system that accurately classifies the "new" class relations outside of industrialization. Marx&#39;s views on the bourgeoisie and proletariat were fundamentally based on the people who own and operate, respectively, the industrial means of production.

In other words, the Marxist system is predicated upon the developing manufacturing sector of his time. When society is no longer dominated by that sector, where do we go from there? So because we&#39;re past the early phases of capitalism, all of Marx becomes antiquated? :lol:

Your argument is self-defeating though, because Marx also analyzed some pre-industrial social relations in a large chunk of his Grundrisse :o

These have been presented in a text called Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/precapitalist/index.htm) by Karl Marx (1857).

Further, the "Marxist system" is build upon the empirical evidence of the most advanced capitalist nation of Marx&#39;s time: the British empire.

His database that he pulled from was hardly a "developing manufacturing sector of his time". If you bother to read Das Kapital, vol. I you&#39;ll see the evidence for yourself.

When "society is no longer dominated by manufacturing", you are missing something rather fundamental in your analysis.

How does the circuitry of capital work in such a situation?

A Leninist will tell you that the pseudo-workers in the first world countries are "bribed" by the "super-profits" from the "super-exploitation" of some super-third-world-worker.

This makes no real sense from a materialist stand point, or from the perspective of a "first world super bourgeoisie".

Even then, how long could the "super bribing" go on until the circuitry of capital becomes coagulated? It depends on the proportion of the "super profits" going to the "super first world workers", but if it&#39;s less than 100% then by finite difference equations the mode of production would still collapse.

If you really want, I could post the math to demonstrate this too.

So either capitalism has collapsed and this is a completely different mode of production, which contradicts elementary empiricism, or your assessment is not quite correct.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+December 13, 2007 09:37 pm--> (ComradeRed &#064; December 13, 2007 09:37 pm) A worker that has, e.g., no investment is different than a worker that has "some" investment, and both are different than a worker with "a lot of" investment.

There are various "sub-classes" within "worker". That is my entire point. It&#39;s not easy enough to simply "add on" to pre-existing classes when the pre-existing class divisions are already ill defined.

Because strictly speaking any ownership in the company makes one either bourgeois or petit bourgeois.

One could reformulate the condition from being any ownership to "a significant degree" of ownership, as long as that "significant degree" has been defined. [/b]
As I said before, I come from a corporate finance background. Besides, remember that criticism of yours regarding my "miscellaneous classification" attempt with regards to the lumpenproles (it seems you&#39;re doing it here :huh: )? Let&#39;s look at the phrase "significant degree" for a moment. In international accounting standards for intercorporate investments, the definition of "significant influence" and "control" isn&#39;t dead-stuck to 20-50% and 50+% of the other company&#39;s shares, respectively (unlike US GAAP) (http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias28.htm). [Here&#39;s an article on control (http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/reports-statements/463063-1.html).]



On the other hand, you&#39;re right. Technically speaking, I should edit Question #3 to incorporate accounting-speak. :) I&#39;ll get to that right now&#33;




Rather than splitting steps, why not start from scratch all over again?

First I would recommend outlining the classes you want to distinguish [b]prior to writing any algorithms.

That&#39;s what I did when adding the manager/coordinator class and "Class #2" (somehow, you&#39;ve still failed to convince me how merely protecting state interests advances the productive forces :( ).

I "knew" instinctively that there were at least six classes. I didn&#39;t come up with this algorithm until I read a post of Companero&#39;s in the aforementioned Learning thread. I took his (the classical) definition of petit-bourgeoisie and combined that with my incorrect analysis of the lumpenproletariat and with the material in the cops-and-guards thread linked above to come up with what I have now.


So far what it appears to me what you&#39;re doing is you&#39;re taking the class divisions of bourgeois, petit bourgeois, and proletariat, (and lumpenproletariat) then you&#39;re trying to "add on" rather than "clarify" the model.

...

Does that mean the model is bad? It depends at what scale one is looking at, at a really macro scale it&#39;s not too bad. At a really micro scale, it worsens.

I&#39;m not sure about that one. :huh: Anyhow, I learned from my stats class that the purpose of coughing up models is to come up with a very simplified yet reasonable description of the real world.


I think ultimately trying to come up with an algorithm that works is fruitless because it will only work for a certain duration of time until the relations change significantly enough to make the algorithm antiquated.

On the other hand, it would not be bad to demonstrate how to analyze one&#39;s current environment to asses the classes that exist. That would be quite useful as an example, an implementation of a sort of "meta-algorithm" of historical materialism.

A track record lasting for AT LEAST 70 years (not counting the debut of the Soviet planner 10 years prior), buttressed by Bentham&#39;s "managerial revolution" material, is still good. :P ;) :D




A Leninist will tell you that the pseudo-workers in the first world countries are "bribed" by the "super-profits" from the "super-exploitation" of some super-third-world-worker.

Huh? I know that stuff, but the implication there is two-fold: differing rates of development and, to go along with those, different levels of exploitation. That "bribery" stuff is just polemics. You really need to get past Lenin&#39;s high usage (and depending on one&#39;s POV, perhaps even abusive usage) of polemics in order to get his points.




Kun Fana
Marx&#39;s class system was fundamentally based on the dichotomies of European industrialization. Outside that context, especially in our post-industrial society, we have to face the possibility that his system of classification is totally useless.

What we need to develop is a system that accurately classifies the "new" class relations outside of industrialization. Marx&#39;s views on the bourgeoisie and proletariat were fundamentally based on the people who own and operate, respectively, the industrial means of production.

I fail to see any "need" to distinguish between industrial and retail workers. :huh:

[synthesis]

On the other hand, it would not be bad to demonstrate how to analyze one&#39;s current environment to asses the classes that exist. That would be quite useful as an example, an implementation of a sort of "meta-algorithm" of historical materialism.

That&#39;s pretty much what I&#39;m proposing.

I gave the example elsewhere that there are places where this paradigm just does not exist. For example, in an economy that is heavily dependent upon the informal sector, what would normally be called the "petit-bourgeoisie" actually fills the social position of the proletariat.

Yet it&#39;s just not the same in that case. It&#39;s not wage slavery. They&#39;re not really "workers" per se. But historically, the informal sector has often shown itself to possess an equally revolutionary character as the industrial proletariat. Why would this be?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:04 am
The lumpenproletariat is the worst off part?
Just as a side note, this isn&#39;t true (as I gather you are saying). the lumpenproletariat is the sector outside of regular, organised working class labour, such as criminals. some criminals can be very wealthy.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Jacob Richter+December 14, 2007 07:29 pm--> (Jacob Richter &#064; December 14, 2007 07:29 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 09:37 pm
A worker that has, e.g., no investment is different than a worker that has "some" investment, and both are different than a worker with "a lot of" investment.

There are various "sub-classes" within "worker". That is my entire point. It&#39;s not easy enough to simply "add on" to pre-existing classes when the pre-existing class divisions are already ill defined.

Because strictly speaking any ownership in the company makes one either bourgeois or petit bourgeois.

One could reformulate the condition from being any ownership to "a significant degree" of ownership, as long as that "significant degree" has been defined.
As I said before, I come from a corporate finance background. Besides, remember that criticism of yours regarding my "miscellaneous classification" attempt with regards to the lumpenproles (it seems you&#39;re doing it here :huh: )? Let&#39;s look at the phrase "significant degree" for a moment. In international accounting standards for intercorporate investments, the definition of "significant influence" and "control" isn&#39;t dead-stuck to 20-50% and 50+% of the other company&#39;s shares, respectively (unlike US GAAP) (http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias28.htm). [Here&#39;s an article on control (http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/reports-statements/463063-1.html).] [/b]
Well that&#39;s great...but just because I own 51% of the shares of a company does not necessitate that I am the CEO, or in any position to necessarily accumulate surplus value.

Sometimes a dummy is put in place for strategic reasons.

My point is that "owning a significant amount of the means of production" is not the same as "having a certain command of the means of production".

These different relationships aren&#39;t really well taken into account in your algorithm. I just finished my last final the other day, so I&#39;ll try demonstrating what I mean later.


That&#39;s what I did when adding the manager/coordinator class and "Class #2" (somehow, you&#39;ve still failed to convince me how merely protecting state interests advances the productive forces :( ).

I "knew" instinctively that there were at least six classes. I didn&#39;t come up with this algorithm until I read a post of Companero&#39;s in the aforementioned Learning thread. I took his (the classical) definition of petit-bourgeoisie and combined that with my incorrect analysis of the lumpenproletariat and with the material in the cops-and-guards thread linked above to come up with what I have now. Why 6 and not 7? Or 8? Or a million?

Further, you redefine petit bourgeoisie to include "advancing the productive forces" which is unwarranted.

What I am talking about is start completely from scratch&#33;

No bourgeoisie, petit bourgeoisie, and worker classes.

Again, I&#39;ll show you what I mean later.


I&#39;m not sure about that one. :huh: Anyhow, I learned from my stats class that the purpose of coughing up models is to come up with a very simplified yet reasonable description of the real world. Hmm...I don&#39;t think so.

The purpose of a model is to model reality (how convenient&#33; :lol:).

It basically allows one to "play God" more or less, to a certain degree of precision.

I&#39;m not sure why you are responding to my response to kuna but whatever.


A track record lasting for AT LEAST 70 years (not counting the debut of the Soviet planner 10 years prior), buttressed by Bentham&#39;s "managerial revolution" material, is still good. :P ;) :D Newtonian mechanics has lasted 300 years, and it&#39;s still wrong. Aristotlean mechanics lasted over 2000 years, and it&#39;s even worse.

Just because it "lasts a long time" does not equate to "goodness".


Huh? I know that stuff, but the implication there is two-fold: differing rates of development and, to go along with those, different levels of exploitation. That "bribery" stuff is just polemics. You really need to get past Lenin&#39;s high usage (and depending on one&#39;s POV, perhaps even abusive usage) of polemics in order to get his points. Again, if you look at the context of this quote you are responding to, it&#39;s a response to kuna&#39;s observation that "first world workers lack consciousness".

And if you ask a Leninist, that is what they often say.

But such a model doesn&#39;t really "avoid" the whole collapse of capitalism problem. I actually wrote the mathematical reasoning behind why on the train.


Let W&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the aggregate wage of the labor aristocracy employed in the i-th industry during the n-th production process, B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the portion of profits used to &#34;bribe&#34; the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; W&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; during the n-th production process, P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the profits the capitalists acquire during the n-th production process in the i-th industry. Let w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the wage per third world worker to produce one unit of commodity j in the n-th production process, and k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the cost of capital in the third world used to produce one unit commodity j in the n-th production process.

&#91;b&#93;Definition 1&#91;/b&#93; We define the proportion of the profits used to bribe the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; be b&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;=B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;/P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;.

&#91;b&#93;Proposition 1&#91;/b&#93; 0&#60;b&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#60;1, because the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; is bribed with some nonzero sum &#40;so 0&#60;b&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; because B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#62;0&#41; which presupposes that there is some profit used to bribe &#40;i.e. which requires P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#62;0&#41;, and the capitalist needs a portion of the profit to live, so B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; and it follows by dividing both sides by P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; that b&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; 1.

&#91;b&#93;Corollary&#91;/b&#93; Profit cannot be zero otherwise b&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; would be undefined &#40;&#34;infinity&#34;&#41;.

&#91;b&#93;Definition&#91;/b&#93; Let M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the aggregate number of commodity j produced in the industry sector &#91;i&#93; during the production process n. Further, let p&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; be the price per unit of commodity &#91;j&#93; produced during the n-th production process in the i-th industry sector.

&#91;b&#93;Remark&#91;/b&#93; One can add and remove new and old commodities via matrix multiplication, so innovation is tacitly taken care of. Note that we require the total number of the different variety of commodities to be greater than or equal to 2 at all times, but it is allowed to be variable.

&#91;b&#93;Proposition 2 &#40;&#34;No Shortages&#34;&#41;&#91;/b&#93; SUM_&#91;i&#93; W&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; + &#40;P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;-B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; = &#40;amount paid to labor aristocrats during the n-th production process&#41; - &#40;amount capitalist deals with in the n-th production process&#41; &#60;= SUM_&#91;i,j&#93; p&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;*M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;.

&#91;b&#93;Definition&#91;/b&#93; L&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; is the number of third world workers working in the i-th industry sector during the n-th production process.

&#91;b&#93;Lemma 1&#91;/b&#93; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infty} SUM_&#91;i,j&#93; M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#62; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infty} SUM_{i} L&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;, i.e. the number of units made total outnumbers the third world workers, in other words a third world worker produces more than one commodity.

&#91;i&#93;Proof of Lemma 1&#91;/i&#93; It trivially follows from the &#34;No shortages&#34; proposition.

&#91;b&#93;Corollary&#91;/b&#93; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infty} SUM_{i,j} M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; = infinity, i.e. as time goes on more and more goods will be produced.

&#91;i&#93;Proof of Corollary&#91;/i&#93; again this trivially follows from the &#34;No Shortages&#34; proposition.

&#91;b&#93;Definition&#91;/b&#93; The capital used in the n-th production process in the i-th sector is treated as little more than a linear combination of the commodities used denoted by the diagonal matrix K&#91;i&#93;&#91;m&#93;&#40;n&#41; where m is a dummy variable used to index each entry.

&#91;b&#93;Lemma 2&#91;/b&#93; 0 &#60;= lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity}SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; &#60; infinity.

&#91;i&#93;Proof of Lemma 2&#91;/i&#93; By the &#34;no shortages&#34; proposition, it follows that&#58;

lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} &#40;SUM_{i} W&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; + P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; - B&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;/&#40;SUM_{i,j} M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; &#60;= lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;

The left hand side vanishes, which gives us

0 &#60;= lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;

Now the right hand side follows from simply noting that&#58;

lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; &#60; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;

And since

lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; = infinity

multiplying it by positive, nonzero constants would not change anything so&#58;

lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; &#60; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i,j} P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; = infinity

which gives us the desired relation. QED.

&#91;b&#93;Theorem 1 &#40;&#34;Imperialism results in no profit&#34;&#41;&#91;/b&#93; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i} P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; = -infinity

&#91;i&#93;Proof of &#34;No Profit in Imperialism&#34; theorem&#91;/i&#93; Let Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; be the number of units of commodity j produced in the industry sector i from the n-th production process sold, then

Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;

due to the above &#34;No Shortages&#34; proposition. It follows that&#58;

SUM_{i} P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; = SUM_{i,j} &#40;Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; - M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#40;w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; + k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;&#41;

We know that&#58;

0 &#60; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; infinity, for all i,j

and

0 &#60; lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; infinity, for all i,j

which tells us basically &#34;As time goes on, it will still cost some finite amount of money to produce one unit of any commodity&#34;. We can bound this by two arbitrary functions F&#40;n&#41; and G&#40;n&#41; such that&#58;

w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; F&#40;n&#41;

and

k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; G&#40;n&#41;.

We basically end up with a term involving a constant times Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; which grows slower than M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;, and a term involving -M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; times a constant. Taking the limit, we see that -M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; is the dominating term and find the P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; goes to -infinity. QED.

&#91;i&#93;Alternative proof&#91;/i&#93; One can note that there is a dilemma although

M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#62; Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;

we also have&#58;

w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;

So we need to find which one grows faster. We then compare these two fractions&#58;

Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;/M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;

and

&#40;w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;/P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;

We note that as we take the limit n-&#62;infinity we get 0 and some positive number, respectively. So if we take this and arrange the inequality&#58;

Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;/M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; &#40;w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;/P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;

then multiply both sides by &#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;&#40;P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;&#41; we find&#58;

Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; &#60; &#40;w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;

Which holds if we take the limit n goes to infinity, which is what we do in our theorem. So this implies &#40;by subtracting the term on the right hand side from both sides&#41;&#58;

Q&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; - &#40;w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#60; 0

This holds for all i,j. Then we simply take the sum, which is by definition the profit, and the sum of all negative terms is itself negative. QED.

&#91;b&#93;Corollary 1&#91;/b&#93; The &#34;real&#34; third world workers will, given long enough time, become &#34;labor aristocrats&#34; themselves&#33;

&#91;b&#93;Corollary 2&#91;/b&#93; If lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i} P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; = -infinity, then capitalism will collapse.

&#91;b&#93;Corollary 3&#91;/b&#93; If lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} SUM_{i} P&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#62; -infinity, then either there is an upper bound to the number of third world workers or the third world is industrializing.

&#91;b&#93;Remark on Corollary 3&#91;/b&#93; This turns out to be one of the most bitter ironies, because it turns out that Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism doesn&#39;t really challenge Marx&#39;s Law of Accumulation, nor does it &#34;articulate&#34; it any. In a matter of fact, Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism proves to be internally inconsistent if one accepts the concept of a labor aristocracy.

&#91;b&#93;Some Reflections&#91;/b&#93; Just a few thoughts looking back at this about what a &#34;real Leninist&#34; would argue. One would probably argue that &#40;k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; would be so small in comparison to P&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41; that the profit would actually go the other way...to +infinity&#33; The problem with this is that the labor aristocracy is a growing &#34;class&#34; and so M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; needs to grow proportionally according to the &#34;no shortages&#34; proposition, which requires either industrialization of the third world which is not supposed to happen &#91;b&#93;or&#91;/b&#93; an increase in the number of third world workers employed. This increases the cost of production, despite the assertions that &#34;wage may be treated as a small constant&#34;. Further, M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; grows proportionally to O&#40;L&#91;i&#93;&#40;n&#41;*w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;. So the negative term grows proportionally to O&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;^2&#41;. Compare this to the positive term which grows at a fraction of O&#40;M&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;&#41;. So this objection doesn&#39;t really make any mathematical difference, unless w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;+k&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41;=0 which is impossible in the capitalist mode of production.

It should also be noted that lim_{n&#092;to&#092;infinity} w&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93;&#40;n&#41; &#62; 0, so this objection is moot in the long run which is what we are concerned about.

What is interesting, which I am certain some MIMists and other Maoists are going to try to argue, is that the model is consistent if the number of third world workers is bounded from above &#40;i.e. there is a maximum number of third world workers that can work&#41;...the first thought that came to my mind was some sort of mass killings. That is what the MIM will argue &#34;Amerikkkans, KKKanadians, and the UKKK are enforsing mazz killingz of da thrd wurld wurkyrz.&#34; This is not really observably justified, at least with common sense and basic empiricism, but maybe the mysticism of dialectics could do something for them &#58;lol&#58;

So the moral of the story is if the theory of the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; is true, &#91;b&#93;then Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism is internally inconsistent with basic empiricism and basic math.&#91;/b&#93; Or the theory of the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; is false. If the former, then there is no basis for the theory, and it results in being internally inconsistent, therefore false.

&#91;b&#93;Conclusion&#58;&#91;/b&#93; We thus reject the theory of the &#34;labor aristocracy&#34; based on the above mathematical arguments.

Edit: made the math in the <code> segment...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 15, 2007 03:29 am
I "knew" instinctively that there were at least six classes.
I "instinctively know" that there are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

But evidently other classes were handed down from historical past.

First of all, of course, the petty bourgeoisie - those who own means of production, but whose means of production are not enough to constitute capital, ie, are not enough to reproduce on an amplified scale.

Then, the countryside classes are always somewhat different from the city classes, due to the issue of land property. Land is not a product of human labour, and, as such, its private property is always an anomaly within a capitalist society; the "proper" capitalist regime of land would be georgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/georgism), but the bourgeoisie apparently is not bourgeois enough to stick to it.

This gives us a third and a fourth classes, or at the very least very distinct fractions within, respectively, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie: landed oligarchy and independent peasantry. It seems clear, however, that as capitalism advances, those classes become more and more identifiable with their urban counterparts.

The bourgeosie is divided internally, besides the existence of a landed oligarchy, by several different issues. Some bourgeois effectively own means of production, and control the production of commodities; but others own improductive capital: bankers, merchants, etc. Also some bourgeois are directly involved in the activity of companies, as leaders or advisors, while others basically lend their money to companies. Some of the "productive" capitalists produce commodities that are ordinarily bought by proletarians, while other produce commodities that, for their price and function, are only bought by capitalists: either means of production, or goods that are useful as class marks: jewels, expensive cars, etc. And evidently there are capitalists of the most different sizes, varying from owners of international empires to county-level capitalists; some of the big ones are capable of making monopolistic profits, and constitute a quite specific layer within the bourgeosie. But while there is often sharp conflict among those sectors and layers, it seems clear that they all constitute a single class, socially and politically unified in the defence of capitalism and their status within it.

The proletariat, of course, mirrors such divides within the bourgeoisie. And particularly, the fraction of the proletariat that works for improductive capital seems to have, or have had, a different behaviour regarding politics and social status. Poulantzas, for instance, argues they are a fraction of the petty bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat, and their political behaviour in fact is similar to that class. But the proletariat is also internally divided between skilled and unskilled workers, learned and unlearned workers, workers with administrative tasks (bosses, overseers, etc) and rank-and-file workers, and so on.

Then there is a discussion about those people that occupy positions within the corporate hierarchies, without necessarily owning means of production. There is a tendency to assimilate them to the petty bourgeoisie, and another tendency to make them into a separate, managerial class, which would be the fifth one. I think, however, they are rather part of the bourgeoisie.

Finally, the sixth class would be the lumpenproletariat - but I would say they are a fraction, or perhaps a layer, of the proletariat, not a different class.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

[So far, it seems all are in agreement that the answer to the original question is a resounding "no."]


Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 04:02 am
Then, the countryside classes are always somewhat different from the city classes, due to the issue of land property. Land is not a product of human labour, and, as such, its private property is always an anomaly within a capitalist society; the "proper" capitalist regime of land would be georgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/georgism), but the bourgeoisie apparently is not bourgeois enough to stick to it.

While it&#39;s evident that we disagree on who belongs where (which I&#39;ll get to later), thanks for clarifying on the peasantry question (I quoted this paragraph of yours above in my original post :) ).

In regards to the "landed oligarchy," I think they have a lot more in common with those capitalists who, as you say, "own unproductive capital" than the latter group does with those capitalists who own productive capital. Thoughts?


The bourgeoisie is divided internally, besides the existence of a landed oligarchy, by several different issues. Some bourgeois effectively own means of production, and control the production of commodities; but others own improductive capital: bankers, merchants, etc.

...

And particularly, the fraction of the proletariat that works for improductive capital seems to have, or have had, a different behaviour regarding politics and social status. Poulantzas, for instance, argues they are a fraction of the petty bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat, and their political behaviour in fact is similar to that class. But the proletariat is also internally divided between skilled and unskilled workers, learned and unlearned workers, workers with administrative tasks (bosses, overseers, etc) and rank-and-file workers, and so on.

Before someone jumps the gun here and turns this post of yours into a manufacturing-versus-retail commentary, care to clarify more on this "unproductive capital"? Because you mentioned merchants, I need to ask: to what extent is "unproductive capital" synonymous with das finanzkapital, and even speculative finance capital?


Then there is a discussion about those people that occupy positions within the corporate hierarchies, without necessarily owning means of production. There is a tendency to assimilate them to the petty bourgeoisie, and another tendency to make them into a separate, managerial class, which would be the fifth one. I think, however, they are rather part of the bourgeoisie.

Harking back to Marx&#39;s rather broad definition of "functioning capitalist" now, are we? ;)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 16, 2007 06:26 pm
In regards to the "landed oligarchy," I think they have a lot more in common with those capitalists who, as you say, "own unproductive capital" than the latter group does with those capitalists who own productive capital. Thoughts?
In some sense, maybe. But an "improductive" capitalist is still a capitalist; his/her business is to make capital to reproduce: M -> C -> M&#39;. The landed oligarchy, on the other hand, cannot do this from its position as landlords: they can of course "earn" money as land rent and then use such money as capital, but "accumulating" land is much more complicated, as land cannot be produced.

So I would argue that the landed oligarchy is something different from all the other fractions of the bourgeoisie, who are much more typically capitalists.


Before someone jumps the gun here and turns this post of yours into a manufacturing-versus-retail commentary, care to clarify more on this "unproductive capital"? Because you mentioned merchants, I need to ask: to what extent is "unproductive capital" synonymous with das finanzkapital, and even speculative finance capital?

Well, financial capital is of course "improductive", but there are other kinds of improductive capital. I would like to remark that "improductive" should not be taken as a moral category. "Improductive" capitalists do not necessarily work less than "productive" capitalists (a banker can kill himself out of being a workaholic, and an automobile maker can bid his overseers to take care of the factory and go living la vida loca).

But there is a kind of improductive capitalists that are clearly apart from "active" capitalists of all sorts: the rentists, who basically loan their money to other capitalists, avoiding risk and trouble. These are not the same as finanzkapital, of course.


Harking back to Marx&#39;s rather broad definition of "functioning capitalist" now, are we? ;)

I would say, avoiding an excessively juridicist conception of property. If John owns a bookshop, but isn&#39;t really interested in the trade, and "hires" Joe, basically saying, "do whatever you want, as long as you return me X dollars a month, who is in fact the bookshopper, John or Joe? Or, more closely to modern business, who are the real capitalists in, say, Ford? The stockholders or the guys in the corporate bureaucracy?

Usually juridical property and ability to take decisions go hand in hand, but when they diverge I would say the ability to take decisions is more important.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 01:42 pm
I would say, avoiding an excessively juridicist conception of property. If John owns a bookshop, but isn&#39;t really interested in the trade, and "hires" Joe, basically saying, "do whatever you want, as long as you return me X dollars a month, who is in fact the bookshopper, John or Joe? Or, more closely to modern business, who are the real capitalists in, say, Ford? The stockholders or the guys in the corporate bureaucracy?

Usually juridical property and ability to take decisions go hand in hand, but when they diverge I would say the ability to take decisions is more important.

Luís Henrique
You got me thinking on a possible rearrangement of my algorithm here:


#3) If Yes to #2, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]

#4new) If Yes to #3, does the person have at least active control over in the means of production? [If no, then the person is a "non-functioning capitalist."]

The problem here, of course, is that a new class is introduced. My original algorithm is open to having "non-functioning capitalists" as merely a sub-class. :(

Furthermore, certain "non-functioning capitalists" repeat themselves in #6new (ie, those with "controlling" ownership stakes on a sufficiently social scale).


#5new) If Yes to #4new, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class.]

#6new) If Yes to #5new, does the person have a "controlling" ownership stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale ("social stake")? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There&#39;s the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.]



One more question in all of this: Are you saying that mid-level corporate managers and top-but-not-owning management of small companies are capitalists, too? :huh:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 16, 2007 10:06 pm
One more question in all of this: Are you saying that mid-level corporate managers and top-but-not-owning management of small companies are capitalists, too? :huh:
It depends, I guess, of what they do.

If they have a direct interest in the expansion of capital, then they are probably bourgeois. If they just sell their work force for a higher price than most workers, then probably not. I don&#39;t think there is a completely neat dividing line.

In my example of John, Joe, and the bookshop, for instance, I would argue Joe is a capitalist (provided that the bookshop itself is a capitalist company, not a petty-bourgeois shop). If however Joe had just a fixed wage plus commissions, and the decisions of what books to buy, what employees to hire, what wages to pay, etc., where basically taken by John, with Joe acting just as an overseer and/or advisor, then I would say Joe would be working class, though evidently a quite particular kind of worker - a boss, a manager, an overseer, someone with some kind of actual power over other workers.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Per Devrim&#39;s suggestion in the "Left Communism" thread, I read this ICC article (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm).

What I find a bit startling is the article&#39;s mention of a "new middle class" ("With regard to those social strata which in present day capitalism occupy a distinct place in economic life. such as the liberal professions, technicians, functionaries, intellectuals [...]"), which is in sync with syndicat&#39;s response above.

[Red_or_Dead]

Could in todays world we be talking about the development of lumpen-bourgeoisie? By that term I imagine people like rich mafia bosses, gang leaders, ect., people who control the illegal means of production.

If Im not much mistaken, Marx classed them together with the lumpen-proletariat, but I believe that those people are not proletarians by any measure. I think that we could be talking about a "paralell world" of sorts, between the classic proletariat and bourgeoisie, and the lumpen-equvalent of those two. Even in the world of lumpen bourgeoise and lumpen proletariat there clearly is class struggle and exploitation.

My wikipedia search for lumpen bourgeoisie had no results, so I think that this term has never been used before.

[ComradeRed]

Er I tossed this to Learning...

[INDK]

I don't really know why Marx called the lumpen the lumpenproletariat because in the Manifesto of the Communist Party he defines it merely as the "dangerous class".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm not sure such move is appropriate, ComradeRed. The OP has gotten me to rethink my algorithmic "six classes" analysis. This, IMO, should be in the Theory forum.

[Ideally, all the posts thus far in this thread should be merged into my "class relations (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)" thread there.]

Escape Artist: good point. While I acknowledge that "lumpenproles" exist outside the wage-labour system, what about the lumpen bourgeoisie and lumpen petit bourgeoisie (most criminal capital isn't on a sufficiently social scale, unless it's that of the Russian mafia bosses, for example)? Or should I redefine the system as the "labour-capital" system in my Theory thread?



EDIT: The problem with "labour-capital" lies with policemen and state lawyers. Governments don't exist to make a profit, and so folks of the two job occupations above (and others, too) exist outside the "labour-capital system." :(

[ComradeRed]

Bump for laziness...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Thanks, ComradeRed, but what are your specific opinions regarding the possibility of at least two additional criminal classes?

[INDK]

Marx makes logical but fallacious observations when defining the "dangerous class". He seems to assume with the label lumpenproletariat that most criminal aspects of society and the handling of some form of capital in an unlawful fashion is only found in the proletariat - a very logical assumption, crime is ultimately a product of alienated material conditions for most people - but he does ignore who owns the capital being handled unlawfully. Someone with such a superb class-based analysis of society should realize no matter where the capital is, someone owns it and is exploiting with it.

[Red_or_Dead]

Marx makes logical but fallacious observations when defining the "dangerous class". He seems to assume with the label lumpenproletariat that most criminal aspects of society and the handling of some form of capital in an unlawful fashion is only found in the proletariat - a very logical assumption, crime is ultimately a product of alienated material conditions for most people - but he does ignore who owns the capital being handled unlawfully. Someone with such a superb class-based analysis of society should realize no matter where the capital is, someone owns it and is exploiting with it.


I agree for the most part, but I would point out that handling with capital in an unlawfull fashion is not found merely in the proletariat. There are many cases of the bourgeoisie (the classic one, not the lumpen one) resorting to unlawfull actions to gain more power, riches or whatever.

Also, when a certain member of the lumpen proletariat reaches the level when he or she doesnt have to work (in this case "work" would mean stealing, smuggling, drug dealing ect.), and has others do it for him/her, when that point is reached, than that person is not a proletarian by any measure, and I think that that is another argument against unlawfull behavior being restricted to the lower classes.

And of course, both "lumpen" classes should be dealt away with, imo. Thats the main diference that I see between them and the rest of society, where proletariat should deal away with the bourgeoisie.

[INDK]

I agree for the most part, but I would point out that handling with capital in an unlawfull fashion is not found merely in the proletariat. There are many cases of the bourgeoisie (the classic one, not the lumpen one) resorting to unlawfull actions to gain more power, riches or whatever.

Though I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, I think you misunderstood what I said here. I stated: "-but he does ignore who owns the capital being handled unlawfully." With this I acknowledge the classification of "dangerous class" being able to extend into a normal, haves and have-nots type of class struggle just as we find in lawful workplaces. I think we generally agree with this issue.


And of course, both "lumpen" classes should be dealt away with, imo. Thats the main diference that I see between them and the rest of society, where proletariat should deal away with the bourgeoisie.

Well, of course. All classes, ultimately, will be dealt away with.

[Red_or_Dead]

Though I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, I think you misunderstood what I said here. I stated: "-but he does ignore who owns the capital being handled unlawfully." With this I acknowledge the classification of "dangerous class" being able to extend into a normal, haves and have-nots type of class struggle just as we find in lawful workplaces. I think we generally agree with this issue.




Well, of course. All classes, ultimately, will be dealt away with.


Yes, but to paraprhase it, while the normal proletariat will cease to be the proletariat (since there will be no more classes), it will still perform its jobs (a bus driver will still be a bus driver, a carpenter still a caprtenter), we should not allow the same with lumpen-proles, we shouldnt allow them to continue their unlawfull actions.

As, for the first arcticle, I agree.

[INDK]

Class, as a whole, will be down away with - however, we must distinguish what is a product of alienation (and thus will disappear with class) and what is a legitimate demand that has been outlawed by Capitalist society, which has set up strong and strict taboos. See, I find not a thing wrong with pornography, erotica, even prostitution (no one is being forced to do these things) - moreover, these things (especially prostitution) outdate Capitalism by hundreds of years (outdating alienation). Mobs and the like will disappear, surely, as products of material conditions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Huh? Wasn't there alienation in feudalism and in slave production? :huh:

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, but to paraprhase it, while the normal proletariat will cease to be the proletariat (since there will be no more classes), it will still perform its jobs (a bus driver will still be a bus driver, a carpenter still a caprtenter),

I don't think so. The point of our revolution is to abolish this kind of thing.

Luís Henrique

[Red_or_Dead]

I don't think so. The point of our revolution is to abolish this kind of thing.

Luís Henrique


The point is to abolish classes, since we are in favour of a classless society. The jobs themselves should, imo, remain the same. We are not seeking to abolish work, right?

[bezdomni]

The point is to abolish classes, since we are in favour of a classless society. The jobs themselves should, imo, remain the same. We are not seeking to abolish work, right?

No, we actually are.

You can't transform society without transforming the relations of production that lie at the root of it. By abolishing the division of society into classes, we must also abolish the relations of production on which this division rests (and all of the ideas and oppressive social conditions that grow from these relations of production).

People won't work their entire lives at McDonald's in communism.

[Red_or_Dead]

No, we actually are.

You can't transform society without transforming the relations of production that lie at the root of it. By abolishing the division of society into classes, we must also abolish the relations of production on which this division rests (and all of the ideas and oppressive social conditions that grow from these relations of production).

People won't work their entire lives at McDonald's in communism.


Of course, but fundamentaly, people will still work in communism. There will still be different jobs. Of course, with diferent relations of production, no exploitation from the higher classes (since there obviously wont be any classes), but people will still work.

And I seriously hope that there wont be a McDonalds in communism!

[FireFry]

Capitalism today, in the west, is in it's most decadant phase. That is, things are falling apart at the top, they're getting desperate, they're getting sloppy and they're become incompetent.

For example, look at drugs. With a medicated society, capitalism could have persisted for thousands of more years if they had everybody doing LSD, but even capitalists have their limits on what is humane and normal. That is, they're ability to capitalise is hindered by their cultural hatreds. Imagine the size of the proletariat, the potential workforce, if they didn't discriminate against blacks. Certainly, if they left cultural hatred behind, and focused on direct oppression of the working proletarian and the capitalisation thereof, then certainly, capitalism might even still be ascendant. But it isn't.

Capitalist now, aren't minimising class antagonisms, like they tried during the cold war, but are aggravating them, making a revolution soon very likely.

[FireFry]

And by the way, my answer is yes to your question, class relations truly only began with capitalism. Especially, American capitalism operated under a republic. Before capitalism, it was muddled , but existant still, with there always being ruling classes and tribal elders and anything else who decided the fates of regular, working, people. Particularly peasants and country "hicks".

Capitalism is the most advanced thing we have today for organising the means of production.

[INDK]

The point is to abolish classes, since we are in favour of a classless society. The jobs themselves should, imo, remain the same. We are not seeking to abolish work, right?

We don't want to abolish work as a physical entity - but I assure you it will look very, very different. You could even say the orthodox definition of work, or work as an economic entity, would be abolished and replaced with work in a much more collectivist definition. I assume there will be lots of interdependence - undesirable jobs would be shared, for instance. There would be large emphasis on mutual aid, and I think a lot of people get the meaning of that twisted - people would be openly putting "in" for the community in general, and they'd be getting an "out" back into their hands. A lot of folks seem to think it would be a direct, from person-to-person, aid, where one hand washes the other, but they need to think mutual on a larger scale. Mutual aid is a communitarian concept. But to stay on topic, "work" itself, in the physical sense of the term, yeah, people will do stuff - but communally.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And by the way, my answer is yes to your question, class relations truly only began with capitalism.

Huh? :confused:

Class relations began with the shift away from "primitive communism."


Before capitalism, it was muddled, but existant still, with there always being ruling classes and tribal elders and anything else who decided the fates of regular, working, people. Particularly peasants and country "hicks".

Again: huh? :confused:

As you said, "capitalism is the most advanced thing we have today for organizing the means of production," mainly because of specialization.

My original question dealt with the number of classes. Marx, when declaring (rather erroneously) that capitalism "has simplified class relations," he was referring to the number of classes.

In Europe's pre-capitalist eras, for example, there were the aristocratic landlords, peasant serfs, household slaves (during the slave mode of production), merchants, etc.



Even as I have identified six or seven class functions in my first post above, I also admit that I may have been overly "miscellaneous" in regards to the first two functions ("exist[ing] inside or outside the wage-labour system," and "contribut[ing] to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities").

[Luís Henrique]

Of course, but fundamentaly, people will still work in communism. There will still be different jobs. Of course, with diferent relations of production, no exploitation from the higher classes (since there obviously wont be any classes), but people will still work.

No doubt people will still work. But the point of working in a classless society is to increase "dead work", and eliminate "live work" as much as possible. We can't rule society if we have to work 8 hours a day.

As for different jobs, I suppose there will still be different tasks. But I hope nobody will be constrained to spend their own lives doing the same task, day after day, until they become too old to perform it.


And I seriously hope that there wont be a McDonalds in communism!

That would be up to people in a communist society - if they still wish to eat such food, then there will still be McDonald's - though, evidently, they won't belong to a private company called "McDonald's". As we can barely rule our own lives now, I am very afraid we are not the right people to regulate the lives of people in the future (at most, I guess eating quickly will lose much of its importance as wage slavery fades away, thus quite taking out the point of "fast food" - but who knows future).

Luís Henrique

[Red_or_Dead]

We don't want to abolish work as a physical entity - but I assure you it will look very, very different. You could even say the orthodox definition of work, or work as an economic entity, would be abolished and replaced with work in a much more collectivist definition.


Oh, I agree, and not just the work itself, the relations on the workplace will be changed considerably.


I assume there will be lots of interdependence - undesirable jobs would be shared, for instance.

I think that we already have that to some degree, different people perform different taks, which in the end form one product/service.

But undesirable jobs would have to be shared, of course.

[Red_or_Dead]

That would be up to people in a communist society - if they still wish to eat such food, then there will still be McDonald's - though, evidently, they won't belong to a private company called "McDonald's". As we can barely rule our own lives now, I am very afraid we are not the right people to regulate the lives of people in the future (at most, I guess eating quickly will lose much of its importance as wage slavery fades away, thus quite taking out the point of "fast food" - but who knows future).



That was more of a joke, but still, this makes sense. I dont think fast food will just disappear (no real reason why it should, imo), but fast food companies will have to change in accordance to the new system.

[INDK]

Exactly - there will be McDonald's, but not McDonald's as you know it. Same goes for the workplace. Society will go through a series of major reforms after a revolution. There would be much - I mean, fucking much - to be done.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because a Learning thread created just recently reminded me of syndicat's post distinguishing between skilled and unskilled labor, I felt the need to use this post of mine in that Learning thread as a more "mature" rebuttal ("mature" in that I know a lot more know than what I did when I posted "I do agree with Companero in regards to a lack of class separation between skilled and unskilled workers"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/any-you-actually-p1086473/index.html


The scope of "proletariat" isn't limited to factory workers.

There are three distinct types: manual, clerical, and professional.

"Manual" includes factory workers, rural farm workers (actual workers on business farms, NOT peasants or small-family farmers), forestry and mining workers, etc.

"Clerical" includes people like myself (office workers), typical retail workers (though the support guys doing the heavy-lifting at the back are "manual" workers), bank tellers, etc.

"Professional" includes engineers, designated accountants who don't own businesses or who aren't executives [my first and present "career" aspiration, mind you], teachers [my future and second], etc.

The scope of "professional workers" is expanding all the time, in spite of the development of post-tertiary "sectors" of the capitalist economy.

[RNK]

I think capitalism originated with a great simplification of class relations, but over the past 150 years of its development we've seen quite a bit of complexity develop. The services sector inparticular now surpases agriculture and manufacturing jobs combined in most western countries, with everything from fast food restaurant servers to convenience store cashiers to gas pump attendants to telemarketers, whose only real connection with production is their role as intermediary, facilitating the purchasing and consuming of commodities by others.

[Die Neue Zeit]

FYI (but somewhat off-topic):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_sector_of_industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinary_Sector

[INDK]

RNK:

Well I think the 'complexity' of the Capitalist system would develop because society divides and becomes isolated from class to class (this brings literal meaning to the term 'class division', I think) as Capitalism grows. It's class division to the extreme, really. And as Capitalism grows, extreme, we know perfectly well Imperialism and Fascism can grow quickly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given some of the recent talk surrounding who exactly is a "proletarian" (and the fact that SovietPants in the same Learning thread I referred to above is close to repeating syndicat's position above) I need to revisit old responses in this thread and rebuttals elsewhere:



Generally speaking, the proletariat in the marxist sense of the word exists almost exclusively in the third world, or in the oppressed nations in the first world. That's not to say that there aren't white proletarians in the first world, but generally speaking, most white people in the first world are not proletarians.

That doesn't mean they can't be revolutionary (SDS and WUO are examples of white first world youth siding with the revolutionary proletariat) , it just means that they aren't the main revolutionary class.

That, in turn, is the most un-Marxist post I've read from you so far ("Three Worlds" crap). :(

Most WHITE Americans, whether you like it or not, ARE proletarians. At most, 2 or 3&#37; of the total American population are proper bourgeoisie (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Bush family, CHE-NEY, etc.).

Elsewhere in this thread, ComradeRed - although not a revolutionary Marxist - succinctly debunks Lenin's position of "labour aristocracy" in regards to geographic considerations, which alas forms the basis of the "Three Worlds Theory."



The labour power being used for the production of commodoities for less than the value of the commodities is the key idea to the theory of surplus value and plays the premise of the marxist theory of alienation.

Cashiers, janitors, maids...etc, although working class are not proletarians.


You, like Trotsky and all of his ideological heirs, seem to equate Lenin's theory of imperialism (most notably, the law of uneven development) with being an "un-marxist" position.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

The law of uneven development can be used to justify MANY things, unfortunately. I have noted various examples, most notably the one in my Stamocap thread, since uneven development doesn't occur between just geographical regions (but also between whole industries).

If all goes well, I should be able to posit a new aspect of uneven development tonight: the uneven development of capitalist decadence.

SovietPants then quotes Engels as some sort of "rebuttal":


The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

Earlier in this thread, ComradeRed said something similar, but was at least more open-minded, since he considered profit-sharing and share purchase plans, among other investment mechanisms:


A worker that has, e.g., no investment is different than a worker that has "some" investment, and both are different than a worker with "a lot of" investment.

There are various "sub-classes" within "worker". That is my entire point. It's not easy enough to simply "add on" to pre-existing classes when the pre-existing class divisions are already ill defined.

Because strictly speaking any ownership in the company makes one either bourgeois or petit bourgeois.

One could reformulate the condition from being any ownership to "a significant degree" of ownership, as long as that "significant degree" has been defined.

I think that the fact that Engels said "of the 19th-century" is VERY important. He was being very time-specific. Nowadays:


A proletarian / worker is simply one who exists inside a wage-labour system (unlike lumpenproles), who contributes to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (unlike cops), but who does not have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of production!

This also takes into consideration my earlier post above regarding "manual, clerical, and professional workers."

ComradeRed then raises the issue of defining "significant influence," and I said this in response:


As I said before, I come from a corporate finance background. Besides, remember that criticism of yours regarding my "miscellaneous classification" attempt with regards to the lumpenproles (it seems you're doing it here :huh: )? Let's look at the phrase "significant degree" for a moment. In international accounting standards for intercorporate investments, the definition of "significant influence" and "control" isn't dead-stuck to 20-50% and 50+% of the other company's shares, respectively (unlike US GAAP) (http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias28.htm). [Here's an article on control (http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/reports-statements/463063-1.html).]

ComradeRed, I know that all this stuff I'm sticking to isn't as well-defined as you'd like it to be (since you rebutted the quote above anyways), but I prefer to be on the right track in my "judgmentalism" (professional judgment and not "cookbook rules" being the basis of non-US GAAP) than remaining stuck in "traditional schematism" - a reductionist error that should be and must be avoided by revolutionary Marxists.

[Awful Reality]

As Marx has made clear, class relations are ever-changing, from system "x" to system "y," etc. But a question one must ask is: how? It seems, through what is historically described as "advanced society" (or often, European Society), there has been an advancement in the simplification of class- from Casteism to feudalism, to capitalism. In each step, at least one class is removed, and the lines between the others blur somewhat, often in terms of class mobility...

In Casteist society (using herein ancient Indian society as an example), class mobility was essentially non-existent. One had to die and re-incarnate into another class, and even that was considered nearly impossible.

Moving into Feudal society, class mobility was largely defined by military might. Wars, coups, and murder were rampant, and with each brought a change in class personnel.

It may here be noted that in these systems class mobility was not defined by the means of production, rather those were defined by the other factors described above...

In capitalist society, social mobility has been defined by the means of production. Members of the bourgeoise, capitalist, and petit-bourgeois shift as economic conditions change and monetary power defines political power.

It may now be noted the increasing ease (albeit still overwhelmingly difficult, hence our struggle) with which class mobility has been progressing. And with mobility, it is obvious and historically apparent that relations between stationary classes change.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The final product culminating from all this invaluable discussion:

Simplification of class relations? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html?p=1100321#post1100321)





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things got a bit more complicated over the past week. ComradeRed: so much for my algorithm. :(

Ignoring lumpenproles and "Class #2" for a moment (who don't have a direct relationship with the means of production), things got "cubic." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Three-dimensional_coordinate_system)

What I had in mind for determining the remaining class positions is a cube, with the x-axis pertaining to "significant-influence" ownership, the y-axis pertaining to what I call "factual control," and the z-axis pertaining to the scale of the means of production relative to society at large. For purposes of simplicity I'll use only 1 or -1 to denote the relative "location" of the positions.



Proletarian: W1 (-1,-1,-1) and W2 (-1,-1,1)

[This means that the scale of the means of production relative to society at large does not impact the definition of "proletarian." Heterogenous features are "sectoral" instead: manual, clerical, and professional.]

"Coordinator": C (-1,1,-1)

[This indicates that "coordinators" do have "factual control" over the means of production, but they only operate on the lower end of the scale in regards to the means of production under them: mid-level managers of bigger businesses, as well as all non-owning managers of smaller businesses.]

The next part is tricky, because now the "petit-bourgeoisie" are divided into two distinct parts: active and passive. The passive ones are like most partners in small-business partnerships with quite a few partners: they have "significant-influence" ownership, but they cede "factual control" to the "general partner."

"Active" petit-bourgeois: A (1,1,-1)

[The traditional petit-bourgeois]

"Passive" petit-bourgeois: P (1,-1,-1)

Practically speaking, however, the "general partners" and small-scale equivalent of "money-capitalists" can still be considered to be of the same class.



Now, here come the bourgeoisie (whose intra-class differences aren't sectoral, and are instead as a result of the large scale):

Money-capitalist / "aristocrat": M (1,-1,1)

[I use the label "aristocrat" because they don't have "factual control" over their large-scale means of production. The Queen of England, for example, is a wealthy capitalist, but doesn't manage her wealth. Ditto with Paris Hilton.]

"Functioning capitalist": F (-1,1,1)



[b]Business magnate / tycoon / industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialist) (link): O (1,1,1)

[Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch, Roman Abramovich, the crook Conrad Black, etc.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not-so-"final" product (as can be seen from my "class of flux" thread) :(

Anyhow, spartan asked a really good Learning question here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/athletes-workers-t74537/index.html

I gave this reply:


There's the "labour aristocracy" that comprises a significant minority of professional athletes (the drug-fraud Bonds comes to mind :glare: ), but on the other extreme there are amateur athletes like most in the Olympics.


Amateurs

Personally, I think it's really high time to emphasize the functioning and money- capitalists here. The latter are "sponsors" (corporate AND government), while the former are the bosses of the big-time athlete organizations. There's also the fact that athletes draw an audience. A cut goes to the athlete organizations after the initial cut goes to building owners. Some of the money from the sponsors and audiences then goes to the athletes themselves. :)

Pros

This one's more obvious. Guys like Tiger Woods aren't employed, so they're petit-bourgeois. On the other hand, there's George Steinbrenner (bourgeois scum) vs. Derek Jeter (labour aristocrat) in American baseball.



This got me going in terms of entertaining questions regarding the Marxist concept of "labour aristocracy" (especially if such questions are worth entertaining in the chapter itself).



Is a "labour aristocrat" someone who's labour value is overrated? Take, for example, the New York Yankees baseball franchise. On the whole, George Steinbrenner the "business magnate" (per the term used in my chapter) extracts surplus value from the franchise.

However, there are stark differences between the guys "in the back" (trainers, medics, ticket sellers, etc.) and the professional athletes like Derek Jeter up front.

The same question applies to union bureaucrats. They're not "functioning capitalists" (managing capital itself), nor are they "coordinators" (employed by businesses on lower levels).



P.S. - I am NOT entertaining the prospect of adding ANOTHER class, since "labour aristocrats" share the exact same relationship to the means of production as the proletariat (ie, no "significant-influence" ownership, no "factual" control, and the scale of the means of production is irrelevant).