Surviving financially under capitalism in a way that supports leftist activities

[Rascolnikova]

as much as possible.

How best?

What kinds of jobs leave the most time/resources/freedom open for working towards revolution? I would think maybe academic jobs, but surely there's some others? I don't know about anyone else, but if I were working a 40hr+ week of something strenuous, I wouldn't have time or energy to learn or do nearly as much as I presently do.


And what forms of surviving under capitalism are considered really exclusive to leftist activity?

For an example:

I'm sure many here would object to the idea that a leftist can appropriately be employed as a prison guard or a police officer.

In the Stanford prison experiment, one of the behaviors that came to light (and was subsequently confirmed by other studies) was a complacency among the "good guards." The "best" of the guards were the ones who would stand back and not take part in the torture, and would easily grant the prisoners the tiny favors that become so precious in prison. None of them would go so far as to take a strong stance against the negative handling of the prisoners, thus influencing the permissive social atmosphere.

If approaching the situation with a constant willingness to loose one's job, and a full and well-informed intent to take a strong stance against prisoner mistreatment--and possibly even to organize among the prisoners and/or other guards--is this kind of employment compatible with leftism?

[Kamerat]

Working as a farmer (preferably working with others in a commune) would be 1 of the best ways of surviving financially under capitalism in a way that supports leftist activities.
You find some info about it in Steal This Book under Rural Living and Communes. I would have posted a link if i could but I am sure you can find it by searching.
Not much info about Communes and things like that in Steal This Book, so if anyone have more place share.:)

[Bilan]

Do what you want to do. That's what counts.

As for rural communes...no. Isolating yourself from your class does nothing for anyone.

[Rascolnikova]

Do what you want to do. That's what counts.

I find this a bit disingenuous (as non-answers go) on a site where people get restricted for cop apologism.

[Potemkin]

I think the idea of "do what you want to do" assumes a level of political understanding and class consciousness. Also, I think it reflects the idea that we have to do something that we can live with, too, as we can't just be martyrs for the revolution. Don't get me wrong, struggling in a revolutionary way is very important, but being in a good place mentally/personally (i.e. not waking up in dread of having to go to work) allows us to be better revolutionaries.

For me, I try to keep my expenses and things to a bare minimum, which allows me to work less to meet my financial obligations, allowing me time for community projects. Ideally, the work that I do would also be helping the community in a revolutionary way -- I think this could only happen with the start of a cooperative or something. I know cooperatives have been controversial on RevLeft, so I don't want to dig up those debates, just posting a possibility.

As for particular jobs, I would look for something with not much responsibility, and something you don't have to take home with you. Something that you can walk away from and forget about when you're not at work.

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to pick up where Potemkin left off, and introduce a non-individualistic, more-macro perspective (as is my wont).

Consider that we all have to resolve our own, personal relationship to the existence of surplus value in society. In a primitive-based (gatherer-hunter) community this would not be an issue at all, as everyone would be living off the land and basically living hand-to-mouth.

But since we've been born into a society with a surplus the unignorable question for all of us is: Who should control the surplus?

- The standard heredity-based argument of keeping it in one's family lineage is *not* a valid or acceptable argument, and the bourgeois revolutions definitively overthrew this mode of ownership. (Admittedly, the merchant / financial class still uses inheritance in the present day.)

- One cannot argue, either, on the basis of an alleged * meritocratic * basis for achieving wealth. Acquisition of wealth is *not* based on who is the strongest, or healthiest, or fleet of foot, or the smartest, or the wisest, or the most popular. And, now, in the Internet age, all it takes is the notion to do some web searching in order to find out how markets work, and how to be profitable / successful.

- The * moral * argument has to be thrown out, also, because the world does *not* operate according to the logic of the movies' moral universe. While bourgeois society does enforce a certain set of laws, these laws are much more property-protecting-oriented, rather than moral-universe-maintaining -- if someone is wealthy enough they will certainly use their resources to play a major hand in the functioning of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, at all levels, in order to secure and grow their financial interests.

- Since the globalization of the world's markets one cannot claim a deserved right to wealth ownership based on national loyalty, either. At one point one may have been part of capitalizing national industries, which was objectively progressive -- though not preferred, from the working class point of view -- but those days are long gone.

So, in light of all of these common misconceptions, what *is* one's "legitimate", _personal_ claim to the ownership of some wealth, or surplus value, in society?

Ultimately, of course, this question is moot because our working class interests are best served by organizing * collectively *, to control the means of mass production * collectively *. I like to think of these politics as the day-to-day "business" of the class conscious worker.

But, in the short term, as far as one's "survival" in the capitalist regime goes, one can legitimately call into question the basis of * anyone *'s claim to surplus goods and/or infrastructure, because most of it was produced out of surplus value, *not* from wages and benefits.

In other words, the rags-to-riches archetype (e.g., "Pursuit of Happyness" movie) is a useful mythology for cloaking the reality that private property is based on stolen labor value, and nothing more. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant, or -- more likely -- willfully lying.

This leads me back to Potemkin's ground-level perspective which indicates that one should certainly avail oneself of whatever means one requires to do what one thinks is worth doing. This * cannot * exclude the political consciousness of class and our society's overall need for a global working class revolution.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Bilan]

I find this a bit disingenuous (as non-answers go) on a site where people get restricted for cop apologism.

Evidently, I don't mean join in the systematic oppression of the working class by violent state institutions.
Which also means that I'm not suggesting joining the Army, the Navy, or whatever.

I was implying a sense of political conscience within your decision was needed, but when it comes down to it, you should do what you want do because you want to do it, and for no other reason. It's best not to drain yourself doing things you hate because you think you have too.

For workers, there's no one who is 'more right' or 'helping the cause more' because of their employment.
Especially in times right now, where you're employed is not really the issue, because the job market is rapidly shrinking: what you do is.

[ckaihatsu]

Workers are excluded from all economic and management decision-making, so it absolves workers from responsibility in whatever job they're performing within the profit-motivated system. Why? (Many people are not going to like this reason, but here it is: ) Because someone else will just do it instead of you -- or -- You're just doing your job.

So unless you're crossing picket lines or voluntarily taking part in an explicitly political demonstration on the side of the bosses, the part you play strictly as an employee at work is non-political because as workers we're * coerced * into the wage-labor (wage-slavery) system in order to make our way in the world.

Obviously don't join in any organization or play any role that's explicitly destructive towards the working class, like the military, police, or labor bureaucracy, but even this is a huge gray area because one might find ways to be influential as a leftist in almost *any* work environment while not having to be class collaborationist on a routine basis. (Or one might not.)

I think I'd have to agree that there is no job out there that is inherently "more right" or "helping the cause more", and that's because there is no revolutionary-politics sector of the (capitalist) economy. Any jobs related to the Green bubble, or liberal causes in general, are reformist in nature, and so are politically insubstantial.

At times we might happen to help the revolutionary cause in the course of our daily work, but it would be incidental, like helping to photocopy flyers when a general strike breaks out in a city, or something.

I guess we can conclude that one is more revolutionary by having more time to do explicitly revolutionary-oriented work, and even more so if that work has more of an impact, like organizing rank-and-file labor actions in the workplace.

[JimmyJazz]

Become a union organizer, and organize with sympathetic others within the union to undermine the conservative influence of the "official" union leadership. (I know two people who do this).

Or:
-Public school teacher
-Work at a public hospital
-Labor Lawyer
-Independent journalist (a longshot, admittedly)

This is an interesting topic, I've been trying to figure it out myself. The two categories I would be happy making a career in are the explicitly pro-leftist jobs (like labor lawyer, union organizer, left-leaning journalist), and the jobs that perform a public function as part of the sector of our economy that is already socialized (public school teacher, doctor/nurse at a public hospital, etc.). I will basically never be happy at a private corporation whose sole purpose in existing is churn out crap for consumers and squeeze surplus value from producers, regardless of what I may do with my time outside of work. I find those jobs too demoralizing.

[S.O.I]

Do what you want to do. That's what counts.

As for rural communes...no. Isolating yourself from your class does nothing for anyone.

id say doing nothing is alot better than supporting your enemy:p

[ckaihatsu]

Become a union organizer, and organize with sympathetic others within the union to undermine the conservative influence of the "official" union leadership. (I know two people who do this).

Or:
-Public school teacher
-Work at a public hospital
-Labor Lawyer
-Independent journalist (a longshot, admittedly)

This is an interesting topic, I've been trying to figure it out myself. The two categories I would be happy making a career in are the explicitly pro-leftist jobs (like labor lawyer, union organizer, left-leaning journalist), and the jobs that perform a public function as part of the sector of our economy that is already socialized (public school teacher, doctor/nurse at a public hospital, etc.). I will basically never be happy at a private corporation whose sole purpose in existing is churn out crap for consumers and squeeze surplus value from producers, regardless of what I may do with my time outside of work. I find those jobs too demoralizing.


Speaking as one who has worked in both the public and private sectors, I can only say that there are trade-offs between working life in the two. As you're pointing out, JimmyJazz, work in the public sector can be very rewarding, since it's meaningful and often enriches the clients (for lack of a better word) you're working with. One tends to have more latitude for creating one's own professional routines, thus making the role more of one's own. I think there's also a much stronger sense of togetherness, with co-workers being more humanities-oriented, and warmer.

On the flipside, I think one gets into these public sector professions from very individualized, "trippy" motivations, however well-intentioned. The encounter with the reality of the public sector administration, as it is, can be quite a shock and working within it can be quite demoralizing against one's better hopes. Finally, the workload and preponderance of unfunded mandates (whether from without or within) can simply overwhelm one's entire workweek and life / being, indefinitely.

The private sector can feel more *personally* liberating, if compensation is sufficient, because one can more easily leave work at work. Also, one is *always* aware of the overriding objective / purpose of one's work -- to do well for the company and improve sales. Granted, there are workplace politics here, too, but operations overall in the private sector tend to be more streamlined and clear-cut because of the simplicity of the objective. One's own role and place in the overall workflow is spelled out and professional expectations tend to be clearer. One can free up more of one's own time to develop oneself independently of the work role.

On the downside the work is usually pretty meaningless, as you've pointed out, and class consciousness and job security tend to be far lower. Routines are *so* clear-cut that one does feel like a cog in the machine, with accompanying powerlessness. Much of the work environment is consumed with the intrigues of the ladder-climbing scene, with all of the dehumanizing culture that goes with it.


I'd like to note that finding overlap between one's political directions and one's profession is an entire other realm of challenge, akin to finding overlap between one's professional direction with one's profession. For whatever it's worth, I've come to see the three realms (individuality / pleasure, profession / work, and politics / ambition) as being quite distinct, with minimal overlap. I did a diagram that illustrates this, in spatial form:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w

[Bilan]

id say doing nothing is alot better than supporting your enemy:p

That's not a 'choice'. You either indirectly support them, or you perpetuate their dominance by a poor idea of abstainment.
It's lose lose.
Revolution is the only way.

[JimmyJazz]

Interesting post ckaihatsu.


Much of the work environment is consumed with the intrigues of the ladder-climbing scene, with all of the dehumanizing culture that goes with it.

Yep, that's my main objection.

I have worked in one private sector job--as a behavioral therapist for autistic kids--that didn't have that terrible culture. (You know, the one that rewards the appearance of competence over actual competence). However, special needs teaching is such a public sector *industry* that it probably affects the culture of the few private firms.

Most private jobs do have that horrible, shitty atmosphere though. I find it dubious that I could ever advance too far in a place where brown-nosing and aligning yourself with the corporation's objectives of "more profit" are required to advance.


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w

The graph is pretty wtf.

[Rascolnikova]

Interesting discussion, all, thank you.

I suppose it might do to rephrase part of the question--

Is there any job that one definitely can't do, and still be a good leftist, provided one enters the employment with a clear understanding of how one intends to resist the system from within?

For instance, it would be very hard, but I'm not sure it would be impossible to work to reduce police brutality from inside the police force.

[Bilan]

Police brutality is only one part of the problem with the police.
It is merely one of the more violent manifestations of class oppression.

I would advise strongly against joining an organisation which is the muscles for the bourgeoisie. Very strongly.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Interesting discussion, all, thank you.

I suppose it might do to rephrase part of the question--

Is there any job that one definitely can't do, and still be a good leftist, provided one enters the employment with a clear understanding of how one intends to resist the system from within?

For instance, it would be very hard, but I'm not sure it would be impossible to work to reduce police brutality from inside the police force.
Entryism is always difficult. That and being a prison guard over children. That would be just terrible. I would recommend getting several shitty low paying jobs and using that money to finance local revolutionaries.

[Bilan]

why low paying?
There's no reason in forcing yourself into poverty. What the hell is the point in that?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

why low paying?
There's no reason in forcing yourself into poverty. What the hell is the point in that?
It's an inside joke.

[An archist]

Being a prison guard and being a revolutionary leftist isn't really compatible. You might try to improve the situation in a prison and you might even succeed, but you'll still be on the other side of the class conflict. At best, you could give your prison a humane face, but that wouln't solve the problem of prisons being terrible, repressive institutions.

So, no, don't become a prison guard or a cop.

[ckaihatsu]

The graph is pretty wtf.


The G.U.T.S.U.C. illustration is a cognitive aid, like the Ideologies & Operations one, at the same hosting website. I've written about that one here, at this RevLeft thread...


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1313670&postcount=18


...because the Ideologies & Operations illustration doubles as a vector through the history of historical development. Briefly, any politics that are less-than-revolutionary for the working class are, by definition, backwards and reactionary, because human society / government has already covered that ground in the past and superseded it already, to some extent. (Duh.)

---

The G.U.T.S.U.C. illustration provides a * spatial * rendering of human life development within the context of surplus material value. I incorporated Marx's surplus labor value, on a split vertical axis, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, on a vertical progression, and Bloom's Taxonomy, on a radial axis.

In short, surplus labor value -- that labor which goes beyond reproducing the labor force -- can only go either to growing assets or to realizing pleasure. The simplest pleasures are food and sex, while more resource-demanding ones -- and also the most individuating and self-actualizing -- are higher-level, like hobbies, romance, family, and athletics.

I added in another aspect, seen on the right side of the illustration, which is meant to comprehensively define all of the possible types of (horizontal) communication dynamics *between* or *among* individuals / entities, called "Inter-personal meanings".

This expands on the nonfiction / fiction dichotomy, which I've always felt has been lacking. It serves to show the qualitative levels of interpersonal communications and, to that extent, can be used as a cognitive aid in daily life.

There is a progression here, too, which might be described simply as an immaturity-to-maturity axis. Those who are most immature and un-self-conscious will mostly engage in conversations that attempt to deceive or that deal with pseudo-information, in vain attempts to appear mature and learned. Their attempts will be transparent to anyone who is more mature, or more learned -- that is, to people who regularly communicate at higher levels.

Many people unwittingly serve as conduits for the prevailing culture of the day, robotically perpetuating the hype and spin that is professionally produced by the dominant, bourgeois culture. This level is still sub-, or semi-conscious, and is certainly less than intentional, or mature.

* Intentional * meanings might be considered the beginning of maturity, as they correlate to individuality and self-awareness. This is not to say that self-intended communications are necessarily * correct * or advisable, but at least they can be called one's own, and are a rudimentary form of planning for the future.

Many who make plans are not fully knowledgeable about the larger composition of the world, or socio-political environment, in which they are entering into, and so their best, well-intentioned efforts may fall well short of their desired outcomes. These less-than-successful efforts can conveniently be categorized as "farce", or unwitting entertainment for others. Those efforts that attempt to elucidate on the nature of existence, or life, are better-informed and are more mature efforts, and may be termed 'fiction'.

Advertising will have more of an objective effect on the world, since it uses a quasi-authoritative method to direct people to the results of other undertakings. "Advertising" or "sales" may be loosely defined as *any* communication, since *any* communication from without is an attempt to convince one of something, whether actual commerce is involved or not.

Marketing, as I define it, is "talking about talking about something". In other words, marketing has the benefit of being somewhat informed by macro-information, and/or demographics, and also is directed by intention. This makes it rather powerful, especially as it's used in commerce and bourgeois politics, because it *is* authoritative and directs others in a forced-delegation manner to deal with the particulars of making something happen. Marketing, in this way, can be likened to executive power.

Information alone can trump marketing because a better-informed person can rise above mere intention and burst the bubble of *anyone*'s purported authority, given correct information.

Knowledge can be thought of as refined information, or that which has become a valid generality over time as the result of accumulated experience. One who has knowledge can be said to be learned.

Finally, wisdom is a sort of meta-knowledge, or a higher form of knowledge. I won't attempt to define this, as it will vary greatly, but I think we tend to know what it means. It is akin to scientific theory, or any generality that is well-proven and impenetrable.


Thanks for the prompt, JimmyJazz -- RevLeft is terrific for providing cross-motivation and as a forum for revolutionary leftist think-tank-type activity. Hope this helps, and take care.


Chris

[ckaihatsu]

Entryism is always difficult. That and being a prison guard over children. That would be just terrible.



Being a prison guard and being a revolutionary leftist isn't really compatible. You might try to improve the situation in a prison and you might even succeed, but you'll still be on the other side of the class conflict. At best, you could give your prison a humane face, but that wouln't solve the problem of prisons being terrible, repressive institutions.

So, no, don't become a prison guard or a cop.


I'm not *proud* of dancing around in the gray area here, but I do think it's worth doing in this case, so here goes:

Can we *really* distinguish between roles that are *more* enabling of bourgeois rule, and those that are less?

Is it better, or somehow "cleaner", to practice entryism in the realm of party politics (legislative), but less so in the realm of the *enforcement* of those bourgeois policies (executive)?

I would tend to agree with RD and An archist, but with the proviso that workers of all stripes, even those that directly prop up bourgeois rule, deserve to have access to revolutionary leftist politics.

I don't mean to suggest revolution-from-within in the least, but rather to say that we're all in the shit, so one's placement in the role of entryism hardly matters. More to the point is that we're *all* entryists, of varying types, if we're revolutionaries, because the world is entirely about bourgeois rule.

Either we can do the professional duties of one's working role, or we can't, but what one does for a living is * not * synonymous with one's own politics.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Being a prison guard and being a revolutionary leftist isn't really compatible. You might try to improve the situation in a prison and you might even succeed, but you'll still be on the other side of the class conflict. At best, you could give your prison a humane face, but that wouln't solve the problem of prisons being terrible, repressive institutions.

So, no, don't become a prison guard or a cop.
HA HA HA, this is so hilarious.

[Rascolnikova]

Yeah. . .

I guess it's time to come clean.


I am a prison guard.

I stop people from being raped. That's why I kept the job. The people in question are children who should, for the most part, not be imprisoned at all--and certainly not in this way. I spend as much time as possible shaming the regular staff for being too harsh with the kids. I also spend a lot of time arguing with the kids that my less stringent interpretations of all the rules are legitimate . . . some of them have been there for years, and there's a really heartbreaking kind of brainwashing going on. A few of them have caught on to the idea that less rule-happy could = slightly less like hell. We're working on it.


I find it most likely there's nothing you could do to convince me that this job is not a good way for me to be spending my time.

I don't understand why similar action couldn't be taken in prisons for grownups. In fact, my life--and the lives of the kids--would be massively happier and easier if more of the guards where I work were leftists. . . as it is, I have to be very careful what I say and do.

Of all the workplaces that, ethically speaking, demand to be revolutionized, this is surely high on the list. What could possibly be un-leftist about working towards that?


Edit: to be clear, I more or less started this thread because I wanted to see the arguments why this sort of work is un-leftist, whatever that means. . . I was already aware they existed, but the details are mysterious. .

[Bilan]

Yeah. . .

I guess it's time to come clean.


I am a prison guard.

I stop people from being raped. That's why I kept the job. The people in question are children who should, for the most part, not be imprisoned at all--and certainly not in this way. I spend as much time as possible shaming the regular staff for being too harsh with the kids. I also spend a lot of time arguing with the kids that my less stringent interpretations of all the rules are legitimate . . . some of them have been there for years, and there's a really heartbreaking kind of brainwashing going on. A few of them have caught on to the idea that less rule-happy could = slightly less like hell. We're working on it.

Your intentions are admirable, but I can't say that this is in any way an acceptable job for a communist. I know, for example, that in my organization, you would most likely be booted out for this.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Your intentions are admirable, but I can't say that this is in any way an acceptable job for a communist. I know, for example, that in my organization, you would most likely be booted out for this.
Doesn't that beg the very question, "Why?" Let's leave the apparatus of the state completely in the hands of people who hate us. I'm glad to know we should exclude all police, military, and correctional personnel. What could possibly go wrong?

[Jorge Miguel]

Solution - get a job and stop dreaming up ultra-leftist fantasies.

[Rascolnikova]

Your intentions are admirable, but I can't say that this is in any way an acceptable job for a communist. I know, for example, that in my organization, you would most likely be booted out for this.

Right. . .

Now the part with the arguments why?

[An archist]

Right. . .

Now the part with the arguments why?

I don't doubt you have good intentions or that you're doing good things inside the place where you work, but you said yourself, the people locked up are children who for the most part shouldn't even be there. And yet, when you go to work, your job is to make sure they stay imprisoned. When one of them tries to run away, your job is to prevent that. Your job is to make sure these kids stay imprisoned when you yourself think a lot of them shouldn't be there. Your job is to make sure they stay in an environment where they are subjected to mental and physical abuse.
So whatever your intentions may be, by being a prison guard, you aren't helping these kids.