This is a pev peeve, which I'm sure I get wrong all the time: capitalism versus corporatism.
Getting up at 6 AM to go work for the man? That's corporatism.
Leveraging your wealth (ie, capital) to create more wealth? That's capitalism.
You can have capitalism without corporatism (see american pre-20th century, more or less), and you can absolutely have corporatism without capitalism (see the military)
Neither of these necessitates a free market, either.
What you hate is probably corporatism. Heiarchies and structures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ye gods is that one of my soap boxes. I particularly hate it when people go off on the free market and then list a bunch of reasons which are invariably corporatist issues that are aggressively anti-free market...
ReplyDeleteRalph Mazza Thank you! Did i get my terms right?
ReplyDeleteWell, not precisely. The literal meaning of corporatism is a system of social organization where groups with shared interests shape policy. It goes way back. Its been used to refer to alot of different things over the centuries. In the late 1800s it was a response to communism where business, government and labor interests cooperated to find common ground instead of competing in class warfare.
ReplyDeleteIt was later used to describe European Fascism, referring to the linking of big business interests with government policy.
Today it's often used to refer to the current situation of American politics being bought and paid for by corporate interests so that it's really big business that sets government policy.
But the key take away is that it's connected to neither capitalism nor free markets (predating both by a wide margin) and most of the shit people think they hate about capitalism and free markets is really a sign of corporatism.
the parts of corporatism that make it a negative thing have more to do with corrupt links between business and government than just structure and hierarchy.
Fair. I'm aware that Mussolini said something like "fascism is corporatism", but I am also aware that I don't fully understand that quote.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, the part of corporatism I'm meaning to refer to is the getting up at a time set by someone else, not being master of your own life, and generally alienation from labor. Not necessarily that our tax policy benefits our corporations at the expense of our people.
Does this make any sense?
I feel like alienation of labor and being subject to other people's dictates on your work is pretty definitely part of capitalism?
ReplyDeleteI've never heard corporatism used as a label for those things. Self-management is the accepted term for the opposite of what you just described...but i can't recall hearing a term for what you describe...though I would think there's be one...given that the self-management ideology is a thing that people espouse, I'd expect them to have a word meaning "the other thing".
ReplyDeleteI think there is a convincing argument to be made that non-representative corporatism can be relied upon to impinge upon the self-management of those not represented: It alienates one not merely from ones own labor, but from the collective labor of society, while making participation in that collective labor (on the corporate body's terms) a prerequisite for participation in society.
ReplyDeleteSeems reasonable. Wouldn't argue against it. Just haven't come across it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, so the thing I'm saying everyone probably hates is a thing that doesn't have a name? And, in particular, is not called the thing I think it is called?
ReplyDeletetotally tangentially, I read that initially as "capitalization" and was curious how that related to corporations...
ReplyDeleteI am going to say all of the above is hierarchy:
ReplyDeleteUnder capitalism workers do not exchange the products of their labour they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves for a given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey their paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and managers -- are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the bottom. This means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical.
As Carole Pateman argues:
"Capacities or labour power cannot be used without the worker using his will, his understanding and experience, to put them into effect. The use of labour power requires the presence of its 'owner,' and it remains mere potential until he acts in the manner necessary to put it into use, or agrees or is compelled so to act; that is, the worker must labour. To contract for the use of labour power is a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the new owner requires. The fiction 'labour power' cannot be used; what is required is that the worker labours as demanded. The employment contract must, therefore, create a relationship of command and obedience between employer and worker . . . In short, the contract in which the worker allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. To obtain the right to use another is to be a (civil) master."
Further, Capitalism, by treating labour as analogous to all other commodities denies the key distinction between labour and other "resources" - that is to say its inseparability from its bearer - labour, unlike other "property," is endowed with will and agency. Thus when one speaks of selling labour there is a necessary subjugation of will (hierarchy). As Karl Polanyi writes:
"Labour is only another name for human activity which goes with life itself, which is in turn not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life itself, be stored or mobilised . . . To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment . . . would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity 'labour power' cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labour power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity 'man' attached to that tag."
And even worse, capitalism produces a specific perverted hierarchy of values -- one that places humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues:
"The use [i.e. exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the system of values underlying the capitalistic system. Capital, the dead past, employs labour -- the living vitality and power of the present. In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands the person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between capital and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity."
The above from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchists_oppose_the_current_system%3F/1.2 and
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/Why_do_anarchists_oppose_the_current_system%3F/1.3
ReplyDeleteShane Liebling That is all very well put. Normally, I have a disdain in these sorts of discussions for references -- all together too often, this becomes a form of academic bullying towards those who are less studied in the field -- but you have quoted excellent sources, and done so very well.
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciate that.
I suppose I have this romantic notion of very small market capitalism, where everyone is effectively freelancing. That's a fiction, isn't it?
William Nichols Yup. If you are selling your labor you've already lost.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols see Mutualism, a very popular idea in the mid 1800s.
ReplyDeleteShane Liebling And yet, while selling my labor, I generate capital. That capital is invested in broad swaths across the economy. Have I still lost?
ReplyDelete+William Nichols I am not sure what you mean by "I generate capital." Do you mean you add to your employers capital by surplus labor? If so, then yes. Yes you do. You make your employer richer at the expense of yourself and your fellow employees.
ReplyDeleteOr are you referring to the money you are paid and which you spend to buy the goods and services that you require to live the life you want to live? The money in that form is not capital. Once you give it to your landlord for rent, some chunk of it almost certainly will become capital (because your rent is higher than all the expenses your landlord pays out).
Capital is always aligned against labor, so if you labor, then yes by generating capital, you have lost by strengthening capital at the cost of labor.
No, Shane Liebling , I mean my 401(k) and RothIRA.
ReplyDeleteThat is, I mean the >20% of my income that i use as capital.
ReplyDeleteCapital is not aligned against labor. That doesn't even make sense. Capital is nothing more than the assets and resources used for production. Capital and labor are intertwined. Neither works without the other. Capital accomplishes nothing without labor to utilize it; and labor accomplishes nothing without the tools and materials to work with.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the ambiguity. I was referring to "financial capital" (ie "capital" as Marx would use the term) not "capital goods."
ReplyDeleteEven so. Financial capital is just money set aside to be used to purchase tools and material. So same arguement. Without capital, labor has nothing to labor with.
ReplyDeleteThere are specific forms of capital ownership can appear to be naturally opposed to labor. But most of those only appear so as an artifact of how rules for accounting were drafted.
For instance even under capitalism (the system where capital is owned privately by individuals who decide what use to put it to) the conflict with labor is mostly the result of the accounting decision to treat employees as an expense item on the income statement, that reduces net profit, that reduces dividends and retained earnings, that reduces equity (value to capital owners).
There are other ways to account for labor expense that could have resulted in dramatically different relationships.
This was a good read. I am always happy to read a thread where I can learn, other people in the thread learn, people have differing views and everyone remains civil. You guys rock.
ReplyDeleteRyan Good Yeah. I'm not sure how I've managed to create a space where dudes -- and its almost always dudes -- talk civilly to each other. On the internet.
ReplyDeleteAs is, I'd adore hearing more from Shane Liebling and Ralph Mazza , who have different views on the relationship between capital and labor.
Here are some hypotheticals:
1. Person W works for a living, and invests money in the stock market. At some point, W has enough money to no longer work. Does W transition from being labor to capital? Does this make them a class traitor?
2. Company C is a small business, and the owner works. The owner is person O. Mostly, this is wining and dining but it is also spreadsheets and marketting and whatever it is the business does. Is person O capital or labor?
3. Person O has a billion dollars, and lives off the interest. Person O keeps the capital moving by having it invested in a broad market index fund; person O is primarily concerned with listening to violin concertos, and travels around the world to hear them. Is person O capital?
ReplyDelete1. W is already labor and capital, the transition is being JUST Capital. This doesn’t make him a class traitor, as most of labor aspires to escape the labor class.
2. If you only get those two options then O is capital. I would call him something like Executive class, or Management, as he is still involved in the business.
3. In #3 O is capital. He is not involved in the actual business, he is a money shuffler.
Yeah, that all depends on how you define labor. If the professional class is labor (imo, yes) than O would be labor as well.
ReplyDeleteBut for this kind of angle, you really need 3 divisions. The working class, the professional class, and the leisure class. W would then be either WC or PC depending on what he did.
The division between working class and professional class is as much sub-cultural as financial. It's also the division that creates the most friction because the professional class has way more in common economically with the working class, but think they have more in common (both aspirationally and via contact with clients) to the leisure class.
Thus culturally, the professional class tries to emulate the leisure class (often a work necessity) which can cause them to absorb their common disdain for the working class...driving a wedge between classes that should be allies.
Slight tangent, but I'm unlikely to find such a prime conversation any time soon: I confess that I find it confusing to see the term "labor" talking about all of:
ReplyDelete(1) The act of work (what I think of as "labor as verb")
(2) The logistical planning abstraction of labor as resource (the justly-maligned "man-hours")
(3) A political identity ("labor class")
Does this confusion creep into discussions by people who actually know what they are talking about?
This is more than a little complicated but since you don't seem to be terrified by large chunks of text I will try to not tl;dr this stuff...
ReplyDeleteSince we are talking about class I think we should probably split the world up into two classes:
"(1) Working class -- those who have to work for a living but have no real control over that work or other major decisions that affect them, i.e. order-takers. This class also includes the unemployed, pensioners, etc., who have to survive on handouts from the state. They have little wealth and little (official) power. This class includes the growing service worker sector, most (if not the vast majority) of "white collar" workers as well as traditional "blue collar" workers. Most self-employed people would be included in this class, as would the bulk of peasants and artisans (where applicable). In a nutshell, the producing classes and those who either were producers or will be producers. This group makes up the vast majority of the population.
(2) Ruling class -- those who control investment decisions, determine high level policy, set the agenda for capital and state. This is the elite at the top, owners or top managers of large companies, multinationals and banks (i.e., the capitalists), owners of large amounts of land (i.e. landlords or the aristocracy, if applicable), top-level state officials, politicians, and so forth. They have real power within the economy and/or state, and so control society. In a nutshell, the owners of power (whether political, social or economic) or the master class. This group consists of around the top 5-15% of the population.
Obviously there are "grey" areas in any society, individuals and groups who do not fit exactly into either the working or ruling class. Such people include those who work but have some control over other people, e.g. power of hire/fire. These are the people who make the minor, day-to-day decisions concerning the running of capital or state. This area includes lower to middle management, professionals, and small capitalists."
I would say that this grey area likely would be better off if the current system was no longer and as such their interests would lie with the working class. That said - their mentality, especially those with hire/fire abilities also plays a role.
"Ultimately, it does not matter what class you are, it's what you believe in that matters. And what you do. Hence we see anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin, former members of the Russian ruling class, or like Malatesta, born into an Italian middle class family, rejecting their backgrounds and its privileges and becoming supporters of working class self-liberation. But anarchists base their activity primarily on the working class (including peasants, self-employed artisans and so on) because the working class is subject to hierarchy and so have a real need to resist to exist. This process of resisting the powers that be can and does have a radicalising effect on those involved and so what they believe in and what they do changes."
(All quotes from above are from http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html)
So since we are bringing class explicitly into it I am going to use "ruling class" for "capital" and "working class" for labor. Now on to your hypotheticals...
1) So we could see W theoretically as someone who has retired, no? How do you judge someone who has retired? What happens if there is a financial metldown? Will W still be stable? Does W have no worries about money and does he feel completely secure? Further W lives within the current capitalistic society so he has done what he has needed to do to become safe. How much of that activity was at someone else's loss? Did he ever exercise his power over others doing it? Does he manage his personal finances in a way that takes advantage of others? To an extent the question is: is W class conscious? How does W treat people who are not in a financial place like W is in? If W exercises power over others then they are part of the ruling class. If they don't and feel camaraderie with the working class then they are more working class.
ReplyDelete2) O likely falls into the grey area. There is a great deal of risk taken by those who start their own businesses and generally huge amounts of debt - all of which would align them with the working class. That said. If they are profiting off the labor of others and especially if they are constantly trying to grow their portion of the pie at the expense of their workers I would move them further away from the working class. I would probably say the same if they performed duties that were quantifiably easier than others in the business but yet payed the others less than they payed themselves. If the business was a coop or worker owned and operated that would obviously be something different. Similarly, if they are just scraping by and trying to do right by their employees, lowering their personal salary in order to keep someone on, then they definitely would be in the working class.
3) Person 0 pretty squarely falls into the ruling class. From your description they are not class conscious and really could care less. Their money is doing the work for them, and is likely being used to do pretty bad things to working class people. If you had described them differently I might change my mind. Just because someone has shittons of money doesn't directly put them into the ruling class. If they are trying to change the situation, if they are class conscious, if they see that their situation exists at the expense of others and they want to change that I think they may be able to move out of the ruling class.
I know or have known all of the types of people you note (and I tweaked to note) and some of them make me nauseous, some of them make me proud, some of them make me sad, and some of them just make me shake my head.
My personal criteria tends to be this: if you are intentionally not profiting from an unequal (economic, class, etc.) power dynamic (or you do not have enough power to even be on the higher side of that dynamic) then you are more likely to be working class.
Tony Lower-Basch Yes. You oftentimes know what you mean by the term and thus use it with that meaning in mind. Then someone else thinks you are using it in a different way. Or the conversation can shift to a tangential topic and the terms have their meanings tweaked as well.
ReplyDelete(damnit, I had two persons O. Curse me! The second person should be... person B, for the billion dollars.)
ReplyDeleteRalph Mazza , Shane Liebling :
ReplyDeleteRalph defined three classes: working, professional, leisure.
Shane defined two classes: working and ruling, with a grey area around those who work and rule. Basically, working bosses.
In 1984, Orwell (or his mouthpiece, and possible these are not Orwell's ideas, etc) describes three classes: proletariat, middle, upper. There is a suggestion made that the middle want to replace the upper, and use the lower to cause a revolution. That this is how every revolution happens, but that the proles stay the proles.
Ralph's working class, Shane's working class, and Orwell's proletariat look about the same. Ralph's professional, Orwell's middle, and Shane's grey area look about the same.
A distinction seems to be in this highest class: leisure versus ruling. Is this a meaningful distinction, or one that is merely semantically, ie words not understood well by me?
That is, ruling class indicates a level of ownership, possession, and capability to control that is not implied by the term leisure class. I think leisure class, I think both the mega wealthy and myself as a young man -- minimal concerns, and more than enough energy to take care of things.
Is that true, or is the distinction one of not understanding the implications?