Labor Day Demonstration against child labor - 1909
So if "class warfare" actually breaks out (we’re not talking about beheading rich folks .... yet! Just suggesting raising their taxes to the level paid under Clinton’s administration) with what "class" do you identify?
Are you "middle class, upper middle-class, lower class?" These are categories we love to use and always see in the corporate media.
These categories are based on how much you make and how much you consume. The y assume you work. You have a job. If if are "lower" or "middle" class you cannot stay home and live on accumulated wealth or on income generated by others working for you. Yet rarely are such folks characterized as "workers".
The broad categories of class are better defined by your relationship to the process of the production of wealth.
You are either a worker, selling your labor because you have no other adequate source of income or you are an owner, a capitalist whose income is generated by others - i.e workers in your factory/corporation or your investments, or your accumulated wealth.
Mitt, for example, didn't "work" a day last year yet had an income of $20 million. That $20 million was generated by his previously stashed welath. How much does it take in the stash to generate $20 million in income in a year? Having spent my entire career in banking and finance I can assure you - It takes a great pile of money. As if you didn't know.
So Mitt is not a "worker". Let's call him a "capitalist".
Marx (remember him?) used to call the workers the proletariat - prols for short. Of course no one reads Marx anymore or pays any attention to him. Nothing he had to say is of any value. Marx is red, evil, godless, communist, bad. Kind of like Stalin. Or union organizers. Or socialists.
Right.
Now Marx theorized that the prols have no way to make a living but to sell their labor and to work with their hands, bodies, or minds. Since these workers have insufficient property to generate enough income to live on, in order to survive and obtain an income for themselves and their families, they must find employment and work for an employer, company or corporation. They must work for someone else.
Does this discribe you? Do you have to work for your bread?
Now working for a capitalist-employer is an exploitative social relationship.
Why exploitive?
If the capitalist-employer is to make profits and accumulate more capital, wages must be kept as low as possible with each worker producing more than he is paid. The value created by each prol's labor is taken by the capitalist and sold – thus producing surplus value or profit for the capitalist but potential poverty for workers. The corporation does not divie up the surplus profit with the workers. The corporation paid you a wage. That's all you're gonna get.
This occurs each day of the labor process, preventing workers from gaining ownership of sufficient property and recreating the conditions for further exploitation.
In simple terms, workers produce more in value than they are paid. The excess value produced is sold generating profit which is kept by the owner. All profit is kept by the corporation. All of it.
It is therefore in the interest of owners/corporations to keep wages as low as possible with as few workers as possible consistent with generating maximum profit.
Labor organizing attempts to keep more of the value generated by the workers in the hands of the workers through higher wages and benefits. It is the reason for the never ending attacks on unionization by capitalists and corporations. Is it somehow "bad" for workers to organize and bargain collectively but "good" for the corporation to face the individual in a complete mismatch of power?
Good for whom? Not the worker. Read Grapes.
The antagonistic and contradictory nature of this system is evident as capitalists constantly attempt to reduce wages and make workers work more intensively, while workers have exactly the opposite set of interests. Work and the labor process in the capitalist mode of production are organized so that workers remain propertyless members of the proletariat. The surplus products and value created by workers turns into capital, which is accumulated by owners.
Many Marxists attempt to show that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the "middle class" would become members of the ownership classes, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.Anyone disagree with that given what is going on in our society?
So now back to the original question: What class are you?
If you’re unemployed you know you are a worker. A prol. You are looking for a job, trying to sell your labor. It's all you have.
You are also serving the corporation since the corporate interest is in maintaining a relatively high unemployment rate.
Why? It makes those with jobs worker harder for less. Corporations will not "make jobs" unless unfilled DEMAND is there for their products. Lowering their tax rates allows only for the further additional accumulation of profits. There is no "trickle down".
"Grapes" spoke of California fruit farmers sending leaflets to impoverished Okies promising jobs and good wages. "Come to California!". When the poor got there they found vast pools of excess labor which had made the journey for the very same reason and read the very same leaflet. Yes there were a fixed number of jobs - available for those who would accept the lowest wages. Before the Lawrence textile strike in the early 20th century, immigrant unskilled workers earned $9.00 for a 56 hour week.
If you are working for minimum wage you know you are a prol. Without the minimum wage laws corporations would pay you Joad wages because of the pool of unemployed and unskilled. Abolishing the minimum wage would not "make jobs"; only lower the wages for the unskilled. There is no job creation without unfilled DEMAND for the product.
So you’re white collar, work say in a major bank making eighty grand a year. Think yourself as "middle class". Live in the ‘burbs, Have a few bucks saved, some investments, a 401k. You don’t identify with "workers".
Ask yourself: Can you be fired without cause at any time by the powers that be? Are you working more hours than ever for the same annual salary? Are you afraid to take a sick day or vacation time because you fear you will not be perceived as "committed" to the company? Are you driving staff to produce more because your future depends on it? Do you pay more for medical insurance and benefits each year? Did the company cancel your pension plan? (Most did that long ago). Does your Chairman make millions no matter if the company is doing well or not while your "bonus" is tied to a subjective evaluation of your "performance"? Do you feel you are forever striving to do "more for less?"
Can you live without another job?
If not, seems to me you are a worker. A prol.
And as far as moving jobs overseas for those lower wages, we need only tax American corporations who do so on a punative and global profitability basis - unless of course the CEO and the company want to move their corporate headquarters from New York to China, where they can give up the benefits of being incorporated in Delaware and earn all those profits available in Beijing.
Funny but I don't see that happening.
People who need to work for a living need to start thinking differently. Billionaires don't give a rat's ass about your welfare. You don't need to wonder what they want. The only answer is "More!!" .
The solidarity of labor (yes YOU!) is the first step to changing the system to make it more fair to the vast majority of the nation as a whole - for what good is capitalism if it eventually impoverishes those who work in it?
The "New Left" has been a failure since the sixites - it has one fatal flaw. It forgot the workers. Bring back the Old Left.
How long you gonna take it?
Until your children are old, worked all their lives and have nothing to show for it but their age?
Until we are living in tents again?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Aristoxenus
JALI 17
L in the Southeast
Missilynn
Poor Woman
Laura Wilkerson
Salon.com
Comments
HUGGGGGGGGGGGG
But now that the Great Silent Majority is getting poor, like they were in the 1930s, class politics are back. With a VENGEANCE!
“All profit is kept by the corporation. All of it.”
Let’s finish that thought…and all losses are retained by the corporation, all of it. Everyday capitalists make decisions about risk; it’s called the risk/reward relationship. When capital is kept in a bank the interest rate is small but so is the risk of loss, whereas if you invest in the stock market, the gains can be large but so is the potential for loss. To be sure, it would be very easy to tax these investment gains at a higher rate than they are currently taxed. But Obama, most Democrats and virtually all Republicans understand that this would be economic suicide.
Put yourself in a rich man’s shoes, if you make a good investment your reward will decline (because of the higher tax) but your risk of losing your investment remains the same. The result will be lower levels of risk taking by the capitalists, and without investment, there are no jobs for the exploited. Now that you understand the risk/reward relationship, I’ll be happy to clear up your confusion on worker exploitation.
This country will not live up to its promise until all within its jurisdiction have adequate medical care; until all have shelter; until all have a secure old age; until all receive a decent education; until all who work full time earn a living wage.
I paid more to the IRS last year than G.E.
You my friend are part of the problem - an apologist for corporatism spouting that same conservative economic bull shit one can hear on Fox Business News justifying the system.
Be gone.
That said, we should use the caucus as a means of RETAKING the Unions and making them radical, once again.
Modern unions don't fight enough.
and, Marx (sometimes through Hegel) gets more press now than he has since he was alive. 'Terrorists' are the target of neuvo-mccarthyists. it's given blacks and commies a bit of a break.\
Still, people are too dumb to look out for their best interests...or, in this country, they are too complacent and reliant on the fact that things will work out as they have in the past. They are due for a serious splash of water in the face when that happens. Unfortunately, it will be far too little, far too late when it does happen. Oh well.
@Johnny Fever: "Let’s finish that thought…and all losses are retained by the corporation, all of it." Not even almost true. When corporations experience losses, they take it out on the hides of their employees (hiring freezes, budget cuts, layoffs, etc.) and their customers (higher prices justified by lower productivity).
Lezlie
It’s fair to say we disagree about a lot of things but on the subject of “justifying the system” we are in total agreement; there is no justifying the current system as it is very broken. Oh by the way, when you discover the location of the society where everyone earns a living wage, please let me know. That sounds like a nice place.
Southeast:
What do you suggest a business owner do if he should control an investment which loses money? On a side note, I’ve heard of profit sharing but I’ve never heard of loss sharing. If you ever become aware of a business where I can get my workers to share in the losses, I’ll buy it.
There was a time when this was not so. The “labor” Prols were selling was worth much more because there very few machines that could do much of the work Prols do. But as the machines are getting more and more sophisticated, they can do more and more of the work the Prols used to do; they can do it better, more efficiently…AND they can do it for less cost.
Why should the people who empl0y Prols pay Prols more than they absolutely have to? And if a single machine can do the work of many, many Prols (as is often the case)…do it better and more efficiently (as is often the case)…and do it for less cost (as is often the case)…why on Earth would anyone suggest the Prols should be paid decent wages to do the jobs anyway?
Honestly. Why?
All in the name of "free market capitalism"?
Of what good is a system which requires one to work all his life and have nothing to show for it at the end except the years?
It is of no good to millions upon millions and you should be ashamed to defend it. "When too much accumulates in the hands of too few, it is taken away" - Steinbeck.
First, higher crime, higher welfare payments, higher medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc...
Now, if you cut these, social and political instability (circa 1789 and 1917) could come about. This would be the mother of all externalities.
So, it all comes down to a single question for Capitalists. "Are they feeling lucky?"
I was never what you call prole (proletarian). I doubt very much it leaves me less sensitive to what goes on in this country.
I also am not at all sure why we are either proud or unproud of our class-origins. We did nothing to be born into any class.
What matters is our commitments and what we do, ethically and consistently, to make them real, no?
r.
Let’s actually apply some logic to the quote above. Assume you own two businesses, one that designs websites, and another that makes hamburgers. A hamburger chain that pay an above market wage would be inundated with applicants just like a website design firm that pays minimum wage would attract very few workers. It’s up to business owner to understand the nature of their business and then set a wage rate that effectively attracts employees. If you pay too little for website designers, you’ll be out of business just as quick as if you pay too much for hamburger flippers. In other words, the free market determines the wage rate for all employees, not capitalists.
I don’t have the time to dispel all the economic myths I just read. Let’s just say that liberals depend on the illogical in order to justify much of their theories on economics and business.
Labor is a factor of production…and humans are not especially worthy of high costs; they also relatively (to machines) ineffective and unproductive…as well as too costly.
What I am suggesting is that we have got to STOP conceiving of the problem as “how do we create enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs or wants one”…because there is absolutely no way we will ever do that again. Our technology…the machines, robots and computers…are, in effect, the infusion of billions upon billions of SLAVES.
Humans are not going to compete with them…and the “third world” nonsense is stop-gap at most. Soon…especially if a decent, renewable, inexpensive energy source is developed…third world coolies will become as prohibitively expensive as high-wage-demanding Americans.
Earning a living is fast becoming an anachronism.
The “problem”, as I mentioned earlier, no longer is how do we create the needed jobs (that cannot be done!)…the problem is “How do we more fairly distribute the incredible bounty we will have using much more productive machines rather than humans…so that everyone has what they need?”
More in a bit…but first, let’s hear a few responses.
Nope. He'd have to live on $13 million instead of $17 million after taxes. Poor, poor bastard.
Sorry gents. While millions are doing without I feel no sympathy for billionaires and corporatists. If Norway can take care of its people so can we. Redistribution is a good thing.
That's why its called class warfare.
Johnny puts the system of profit making first - the economic system. The rest of you put the people first - the social system. It is an unfortunate fact that, in these days, each side considers that its viewpoint is "the only logical way to think about these things."
Both are right and both are wrong. Separate the economic and social systems briefly, in your mind. Each serves a purpose. Each has a very powerful influence on the other. Each achieves certain ends through the other. Where they meet is at "people." Not one dime of profit is unrelated to the work of people. This is still true in spite of bankers and financiers floating the value of money and trying, for many decades, to perform a "disconnect" between labour and the wealth it produces by initiating money markets and such-like.
Throughout most of human history the economic system has dominated the social system. It has had sufficient wealth to rent or buy the workers. It has also been shared sufficiently with the governing bodies or individuals so that they have considered their interests to be identical with those of the wealthy. This holds true even when we "chose" the governing body by means of elections. No sooner are they elected then, if not already corrupted, they are bought off by the wealth interests.
It is time, and past time for us to recognize that we do not form societies so as to make a few people wealthy; that the economic system we chose to use ought to be subject to our social needs, wants and goals, NOT the other way around.
When it is clearly understood that any economic system chosen by the society is always to be fully subject to social goals and may never be permitted to force social principles to fall in line with economic ones, we will have a chance to "put the economic system in its place."
Economic systems MUST NOT be allowed to determine social methods or goals. Social systems MUST ALWAYS determine the place and influence of the economic interests.
An economic system must always serve the society.
The society must never serve the economic system
The two do indeed need to work together but never should the bankers run the society.
.
.
Although I appreciate the effort, you don’t understand my viewpoint at all. In the selfish desire of putting “profit making first” corporations put people and the social system first. There is no better way to enhance our social system then to give people jobs. For every job there is one less person that is dependent on Government and one more person paying taxes in the name of social justice.
The more profitable the corporation the more jobs for the people or as the ultra-left like to say, the more the people are “exploited”. It all breaks down when corporations stop making a profit. Sadly, this basic understanding about economics will fall on deaf ears on Open Salon, but at least you know there is another side far different than the other side you claim to understand.
IMHO only DEMAND creates jobs. No corporation will hire one person unless there is additional demand for its product. How to create demand? Certainly not by cutting Mitt's taxes so he can stash the revenue in his portfolio.
Demand is created by putting money in the hands of people who will spend it - i.e unemployment insurance; tx cuts for middle classes - not the one percenters.
Finally, do you really believe corporations don't LIKE a relatively high level of unemployment? Why not? It pushes down wages and makes the employed work harder - and you don't have to give them raises next year. I mean where dey gonna go?
I'm done with comenting here. Please do write your own blog on how the system is working just fine, the poor will always be with us and our health care system is the envy of the world.
Really. Sell that claptrap on your own page.
Regards.
It's one thing to sound-off like a 7th grade economics textbook written in 1958 but trying to sell that pap in 2012 as "knowledge" is a poor marketing plan. Reality intrudes. You're not even on this planet. Profits are high, the megacorps (and that's what we're really talking about here) are awash with liquidity, choked with assets and employment and wages are moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Square that with what you claim is superior knowledge.
You can't, but seeing it would be as fun as watching a horny chihuahua trying to nail a greyhound . . . in full stride. So, whup out that whiffy lil' stiffy and show us how it's done. We'll assume -- generously in your case -- that the greyhound is willing, but unafraid.
speechless...
/r
Corporations ONLY put "people and society" first so long as they bow to the corporate agenda of profit, profit, and more profit. It is certainly true that UP TO A POINT a corporation's growth is beneficial to the people and the society but you know as well as I do that the growth of corporate profits does not necessarily equate to a growth in either its production or its expansion of its work force.
Excessive profit growth, in fact, works in exactly the opposite way. It leads to the eliminating of local jobs when cheaper labour can be found off-shore and/or when automation can cut labour costs. Since both of these conditions now are rampant in those areas of the world (ours) where labour costs are high, our workers are getting shafted by the corporations they helped to build with their blood sweat and years. Who is "not sharing the risk"??!! We get fucked and management continues to pile up the coin of the realm without a hitch.
All real wealth is ultimately based on labour. Even "capital-as-a-separate-thing", itself represents labour. It accrued to some from the efforts of all. It ultimately belongs to those who work for it - the workers AND management - who each contributed according to his ability. And THAT my ancient capitalist friend, is the facts.
People can start without a dime of capital and create wealth. Wealth cannot start without labour and create anything. Well, it couldn't until the bankers began fiddling with its "value" by floating the world's currencies and manipulating markets and all those inflationary "money making money" schemes of theirs.
So far, even with all their manipulations, they still cannot escape the true, basic fact that real money represents labour. As soon as they figure out a way to get around that, and the banks may already have done so, no corporation is going to bother producing anything of value at all; they'll all just "manipulate" their way to massive wealth.
.
Given that, it makes sense to see the entire world shudder, and our system shaken to its core. Everyone seems to be flailing as we try to figure this whole thing out. I truly believe most of us will successfully ride this out, and once the dust settles we'll be a much happier people.
-R-
I consider my chance of showing you the light very slim, my main point was simply to point out that you don't understand the other side. This latest comment is more evidence of your confusion. But in the interest of continuing the dialogue, let's see what wildly illogical liberal myth rears its ugly head. Low and behold, it doesn’t take long:
“excessive profit growth”
Let’s start with a few questions: What is an excessive profit (a million, a billion, a trillion)? Who will determine when excessive profits have been made (Government bureaucrats)? What should we do about the excessive profit makers (drive them overseas)? Successful companies are supposed to make profits, are you suggesting certain companies are too successful (like Apple)?
Please don’t rack your brain trying to answer those questions; common sense renders your fears about excessive profits groundless. To the extent a business makes money providing a product or service, other companies will attempt to compete. The more “excessive” the profit the more competition will attempt to get a piece of the action. And thanks to competition, maintaining an “excessive” profit is next to impossible. Guess what we call this system of business and industries competing with each other in their insatiable desire to make an excessive profit? Capitalism