In America today, we have a distorted view of what constitutes class. The people who control our flow of information would like us to see class as something purely defined by income—that way it is easy to conceal the true mechanisms of how society operates. They set up arbitrary income definitions, and based on an arbitrary sum of money you may or may not have, you are pretty much randomly assigned a class to which you do not really feel any belonging or solidarity. Of course, the Marxian observation of class distinctions is not so arbitrary or artificial. Basically, classes here are to be distinguished based upon the factors of ownership and labor. The upper class then is the haute bourgeoisie—the big capitalists, if you will. This class is defined by the fact that they acquire their income entirely as a consequence of owning means of production. They do not contribute any labor to society, but rather extract wealth from the labor of workers who produce it using the means of production they (the capitalists) own. The middle class is the petite bourgeoisie—small business owners. This class is defined by the fact that they acquire their income from wealth they generate by combining their own labor with means of production they themselves possess. Next comes the proletariat—the working class. This class is defined by the fact that proletarians to not own means of production. The only thing of economic value they own is their labor, and their only means of survival is to sell their labor to the capitalists who control the means by which they can employ their labor to produce wealth. Also called wage slaves, this class is only distinguished from chattel slaves in that proletarians, instead of being owned by their masters, rent themselves out to them. Some might expect the unemployed to be a distinct class beneath the working class, but not so. Unemployed workers—the reserve army of labor—are still to be considered workers. Their main problem (for the officially unemployed, at least—one thing a lot of people dont understand is that to be considered unemployed you actually have to be seeking a job, or else you statistically get put down in the category of discouraged worker for a year, after which you cease to be counted as being in the workforce at all)—the only thing that distinguishes them from other proletarians—is that they have not found anyone willing to buy their labor. The existence of the reserve army of labor is inherent to the capitalist system. The healthy operation of a capitalist system is contingent upon the capitalists ability to determine wages. It need not be unilateral—the system is fine where unions negotiate with employers to set wages—but the employers have to at least have the final say for capitalism to work. There is, within capitalist macroeconomics, a concept named the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). You see, that the system keeps a certain portion of unemployed people jobless serves the function of allowing the capitalists to keep wages down. If the unemployment rate falls below the NAIRU, what you end up with is a labor shortage. The effect of a labor shortage is that capitalists are no-longer able to keep wages low, and must raise them ever higher in order to attract workers. Now, since were taught that greed is a good and necessary thing, of course the capitalists are not going to allow these wage increases to cut into their profits—no, theyll then turn around and raise consumer prices to cover the increased wages. But then something funny happens: the increased consumer prices inherently drag the cost of living upward. With a higher cost of living, the previous wage increase is no-longer enough to sufficiently entice labor, necessitating more wage increases, which would then likewise be paid for by once again increasing consumer prices, which again increases the cost of living, and so forth, ultimately creating a self-perpetuating inflationary spiral. Hence, not only are the unemployed not to blame for their situation, but their situation is actually vital to the proper operation of the capitalist system. If there were no unemployed people, youd be pushing around wheelbarrows full of hundred dollar bills to go buy bread as quickly as possible, to get there before the prices change. Nor is it ideal to simply allow the unemployed to starve. Of course, there are the ethical/empathetic/altruistic concerns people usually talk about, but it goes beyond that. The worse off unemployed workers are, the worse off employed workers are as well. If the unemployed cannot feed themselves, the employed will accept any wages and conditions they have to in order to remain employed. Given that the capitalists interest is always in expanding his/her profit margin, that means wages will fall and every corner will be cut when doing so would mean more profit to the capitalist. The worse off the unemployed are, the more likely you are to be paid a poverty wage or to be put in working conditions where you cant really be sure youll return home alive that evening. If you truly do want to enjoy as near as possible to the full value of the fruits of your labor, capitalism will not give you this and democratic socialism is the only way forward. The only way to achieve such a society, where everyone can have a job and people are expected to contribute labor to their ability and be rewarded according to their work, is with the abolition of the wage system. A cooperative commonwealth, wherein the workers own all the means of production and wherein everyone is a worker. It has been said that socialism will encompass a proletarian democracy, but that implies that the class structure would be compressed into the proletariat, which isnt necessarily true. If anything, the class structure would be compressed into the petite bourgeoisie—everyone would work and everyone would own. But there are many ways to achieve socialism and a good picture is difficult to draw generally due to the variety of philosophies. One thing we do know, however, is that Leninism is not one of these ways—the Bolsheviks had their chance. The Soviet Union failed to achieve any form of socialism. Its time to give the other tendencies a try.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 19:06:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015