"working class take power" - should we rethink this phrasing?

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 5 2015 23:50

yes, I am serious because given your general misreading of everything Marx, how on earth could anyone detect that that is actually irony. You've made similar stupid statements before. But fair enough, my bad, but I base my interpretation of your post on your other posts. Hence why I took that comment at face value.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 06:09

I must say, some Marxists here are endless source of amusement grin

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 07:59
augustynww wrote:
And where profits were coming from in early forms of capitalism (like in merchant or commercial capital, before industrial capital and actual wage labour)?

From "buying cheap and selling dear".

augustynww wrote:
Is this true that Marx regarded workers in putting-out system as commercial workers, not industrial? Could you explain why exactly?

No, commercial workers are something else altogether (they don't produce use-values, they are involved in the circulation of use-values; like salespeople). Marx gives the example of the putting-out system as one of the early forms of capitalist industry.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 09:44
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
And where profits were coming from in early forms of capitalism (like in merchant or commercial capital, before industrial capital and actual wage labour)?

From "buying cheap and selling dear".

Yes and this is exploitation nonetheless.

jura wrote:
No, commercial workers are something else altogether (they don't produce use-values, they are involved in the circulation of use-values; like salespeople). Marx gives the example of the putting-out system as one of the early forms of capitalist industry.

But what I meant this was merchant capital and wage workers there were commercial workers involved as you said in further circulation. Manufacturers on the other hand were not employed but subcontracted.

No, this is not "capitalist industry" in Marxist meaning I think. What he says it's not industrial "mode of production" yet. This is intermediary form, not transformed into industrial capitalism. Manufacturers weren't transformed into wage workers completely. It happened only later in factories.

There is a discussion about it here:

https://libcom.org/library/george-caffentzis-letters-blood-fire
Caffentzis discusses assertion that "cognitive capitalism" is similar to early forms of capitalism. Cognitive capitalism or not, there is self-employment mentioned there. He criticize this assertion without dismissing it though. Rather he's trying to figure out what consequences of this would be if true for future development.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 10:24
augustynww wrote:
Yes and this is exploitation nonetheless.

No, not in the sense that this term is used by Marx. "Buying cheap and selling dear" is usually reffered to as carrying trade or arbitrage trade of "profit upon alienation".

augustynww wrote:
But what I meant this was merchant capital and wage workers there were commercial workers involved as you said in further circulation. Manufacturers on the other hand were not employed but subcontracted.

This is getting more and more confusing because you keep using your own definitions of terms.

The putting-out system, in its oldest form, works like this:

1. The merchant advances raw materials and money to pay for the "labor" to the craftsman.

2. The producer (peasant-craftsman) and his family turn the raw materials into the finished product and put it out.

3. The merchant collects it, sells it for more than the sum advanced, and pockets the difference.

(4. Rinse and repeat.)

The entire family's labor is employed not in circulation, but in production. The one who does the circulation is actually the merchant!

Now, what I'm saying is that what the merchant advances in step 1 is constant and variable capital. This sum of values is advanced with a view of valorizing it by means of the labor of the family. The labor that the producer and his family expends results in a product whose value is greater than what they get paid. It's a form of wage labor. For a time, it coexisted with pre-capitalist relations as an early form of capitalist relations.

It's different from the situation when the merchant simply uses price-differentials between two regions to buy commodities (produced by non-capitalist producers) cheap in one region and sell them dear in another. For one thing, in the putting-out system, the means of production confront the producer as capital. The difference between the advanced sum and the sum pocketed at the end is due to labor expended, not (only) due to favorable conditions on the market.

jura wrote:
No, this is not "capitalist industry" in Marxist meaning I think. What he says it's not industrial "mode of production" yet. This is intermediary form, not transformed into industrial capitalism. Manufacturers weren't transformed into wage workers completely. It happened only later in factories.

I agree that the 14th century putting-out was a transitory form through which merchant capital became gradually transformed into industrial capital. I view it as an early form of "formal subsumption" of labor under capital. However, the putting-out system never really disappeared; it still exists today, for example in textile production. In its contemporary forms (and also historically as soon as industrial capitalism became more established and the putting-out system no longer had to coexist with dominant pre-capitalist relations) it really is simply wage labor.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 10:25

Again, the crucial thing is the social status of the immediate producer. Is she really an independent producer? If so, then we might call her a "one-person business". She might still be earning shit money and be subordinated due to, e.g., debt, but it's not wage labor. This, in my view, is the case of the private accountant or the taxi drivers ocelot described.

If, on the other hand, the producer is not really independent – for example, because she does not really own (all of) the results of her labor; because she works in a workplace that is not her own; because she uses means of production that are not her own; because she only produces for one particular enterprise – then, perhaps with some weird and rare exceptions, her "self-employment" is really a guise for wage labor (used for reasons I described above with the "integration" of more traditional forms of employment). In other words, if her labor is simply an "instrument" of someone else (i.e., the capitalist) who advances her wages with a view of making a buck off it. This is the case of supermarket cashiers, office secretaries or computer administrators (as described above).

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 11:49
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Yes and this is exploitation nonetheless.

No, not in the sense that this term is used by Marx. "Buying cheap and selling dear" is usually reffered to as carrying trade or arbitrage trade of "profit upon alienation".

Well, I'll check what Marx thought about it, but it is exploitation in my opinion too. It's not so important right now and it certainly wasn't in industrial capitalism (or fordist or whatever we call it) but it was important in pre-industrial forms of capital.
Its like parasiting form of exploitation.

jura wrote:
This is getting more and more confusing because you keep using your own definitions of terms.

The putting-out system, in its oldest form, works like this:

1. The merchant advances raw materials and money to pay for the "labor" to the craftsman.

2. The producer (peasant-craftsman) and his family turn the raw materials into the finished product and put it out.

3. The merchant collects it, sells it for more than the sum advanced, and pockets the difference.

In descriptions in Polish books/texts it's little bit different: there were various forms of it but basically what merchants buy is product of their labour and this is not wage labour.
Merchant supply producers with means of production, raw materials and later buy the product. There's no wage here.
Later form was "manufaktura" (sorry I can't find English word for it, basically workplace for craftsmen)

I basically agree with the rest what you said but that's not true I'm using my own definition. I'm using Marxist definition of wage labour as "selling labour power" actually.
In all those cases you described that's not labour power which is being sold (and bought). It may be product of labour, ma be labour as kind of "service" (I don't know if it good word here, labour as a task).

From what you said wage labour is not necessarily "selling labour power". So I'm confused. What's your definition of wage labour ?

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 12:03
jura wrote:
Again, the crucial thing is the social status of the immediate producer. Is she really an independent producer? If so, then we might call her a "one-person business". She might still be earning shit money and be subordinated due to, e.g., debt, but it's not wage labor. This, in my view, is the case of the private accountant or the taxi drivers ocelot described.

If, on the other hand, the producer is not really independent – for example, because she does not really own (all of) the results of her labor; because she works in a workplace that is not her own; because she uses means of production that are not her own; because she only produces for one particular enterprise – then, perhaps with some weird and rare exceptions, her "self-employment" is really a guise for wage labor (used for reasons I described above with the "integration" of more traditional forms of employment). In other words, if her labor is simply an "instrument" of someone else (i.e., the capitalist) who advances her wages with a view of making a buck off it. This is the case of supermarket cashiers, office secretaries or computer administrators (as described above).

Well, I agree with you. There are various forms of self-employment and I said it already (this basically looks like all historical forms of pre-industrial capitalism used at the same time, not in succession).
What I'm saying in post-industrial capitalism all those forms that were "anomalous", insignificant in earlier period are becoming more and more widespread and "the core" of relations typical for industrial capitalism is shrinking
(which taken together with all those developments you mentioned when criticizing post-autonomist writers and also "cognitive labour", financial capitalism etc. constitute "post-industrial capitalism")

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 12:58
augustynww wrote:
Well, I'll check what Marx thought about it, but it is exploitation in my opinion too. It's not so important right now and it certainly wasn't in industrial capitalism (or fordist or whatever we call it) but it was important in pre-industrial forms of capital.
Its like parasiting form of exploitation.

It is still important. Whenever a commercial capitalist gets a better deal, for whatever reason, to buy the commodities he later plans to sell, he's taking advantage of it (vis-a-vis his competitors). He'll then sell for whatever is the market price, or below the market price to gain more market share. According to your logic, he's "exploiting" his supplier.

augustynww wrote:
Merchant supply producers with means of production, raw materials and later buy the product. There's no wage here.

I really don't think Stalinist textbooks on political economy should be decisive here. You haven't described anything different than what I described, you're just using different words, Humpty Dumpty-style. When the money is paid is not important (in fact, even in "normal" wage labor, the worker is paid after her job is finished, i.e., every month for the previous month).

With your logic, you can argue there is "no wage" in piecework: the capitalist "pays" for each piece that is produced, i.e., for the product, and so it's not wage labor. The important part is the relation between the labor expended and the labor "received" (in the form of money), and also how this labor "received" is determined, something you don't seem to pay attention to at all.

(This does not mean that there weren't any cases of the putting-out system where the peasant-craftsman family was actually a real "small business", selling the product for more than they needed for reproduction, i.e., for its "full value". I just don't think this form would be very profitable for the merchant. If they could do that, why not skip the middleman and sell directly to the market.)

augustynww wrote:
Later form was "manufaktura" (sorry I can't find English word for it, basically workplace for craftsmen)

It's called "manufacture".

augustynww wrote:
From what you said wage labour is not necessarily "selling labour power". So I'm confused. What's your definition of wage labour ?

1. Money is advanced by person X with the goal of using person Y's labor to appropriate a surplus (more money than was advanced), where the money advanced is (slightly more or slightly less than) the sum of value necessary for Y to reproduce her labor power. This is the only reason why it's called "selling labor power".

2a. In case Y is involved in immediate production, her labor produces more value than was advanced ("surplus-value"), in the form of either commodities and services. Y's labor is "productive".

2b. In case Y is not involved in immediate production (for example, when she is a commercial worker), she does not produce surplus value and her labor is "unproductive", but she still enables (via her activity) X to appropriate a surplus (a part of surplus-value produced by some other, productive worker). Also, what she gets paid is still more or less the value of her labor power, and she expends more labor time than she receives from X.

Y is a wage laborer in both 2a and 2b. In both cases, she's exploited.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 12:43
augustynww wrote:
Well, I agree with you. There are various forms of self-employment and I said it already (this basically looks like all historical forms of pre-industrial capitalism used at the same time, not in succession).

Well, you said that a supermarket cashier is a "one-man business", and not just formally. If you still believe that, then we don't really agree.

augustynww wrote:
What I'm saying in post-industrial capitalism all those forms that were "anomalous", insignificant in earlier period are becoming more and more widespread and "the core" of relations typical for industrial capitalism is shrinking (which taken together with all those developments you mentioned when criticizing post-autonomist writers and also "cognitive labour", financial capitalism etc. constitute "post-industrial capitalism")

The earlier/later period terminology is confusing. You are comparing "today" to the Fordist era, which lasted about 50 years if we use the weakest criteria. It's not like everyone was a permanent worker producing "stuff" in a "factory" in the 19th century.

The "shrinking" hypothesis is dubious as well. It may well apply to some of the "developed" countries, but I think the massive processes of "old-style" proletarianisation in China, India and other regions are offsetting this.

Reading about the "post-industrial" age always makes me giggle because I live in a country (in Europe) which manufactures the highest number of cars in the world per capita. This wasn't true 10 years ago.

Another aspect, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is that the turn to precarity/self-employment etc. could also be viewed as a process of proletarianizing the traditional middle class jobs (like university teachers, doctors or writers, for example).

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 13:56

BTW, some 2010 stats from the BLS (on the US economy).

Some interesting facts:

- total self-employed: 15.3 million or 10.9% of all employed (2009)

- the share of "unincorporated self-employed":

in total employed: 9.6% (1967), 7.5% (2000), 7.0% (2009)
in non-agricultural industries: 7.3% (1967), 6.8% (2000), 6.5% (2009)
in agriculture: 51.9% (1967), 41.0% (2000), 39.8% (2009)

- the share of "incorporated self-employed":

in total employed: 2.9% (1989), 3.3% (2000), 3.9% (2009)
in non-agricultural industries: 2.9% (1989), 3.2% (2000), 3.9% (2009)
in agriculture: 4.2% (1989), 5.8% (2000), 7.2% (2009)

What do you make of this, augustyn?

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 14:16

Here's the 2014 data for the UK. Again very interesting. The number of self-employed in the UK is the highest in 40 years. 43% of self-employed are age 50 or older (as opposed to a 27% share in employees). Largest increase in the "managers, directors and senior officials" category. "The top 3 job roles for the self-employed in 2014 were construction and building trades, taxi and cab drivers and chauffers, carpenters and joiners."

The highest rates of self-employment are in Greece (32%), Italy, Romania and Portugal, i.e. the true pioneers of the "post-industrial", "information" economy! Lowest in Luxemburg (8.1%), Denmark, Estonia, Sweden, Germany, France. UK is around the EU average (15%).

...aaand here's some more recent EU data (2015), focusing on post-crisis changes mostly.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 6 2015 15:52

Those are interesting numbers. I was reading an article yesterday that suggested that at the rate in which self-employment is falling in the US, it'll be almost non-existent soon. It would be interesting to have numbers on productive workers (in developed world, e.g. US), where productive is not synonymous with factory (as in augustynww's imagination), but in Marx's definition.

And btw, what the heck is post-autonomism?

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 16:24

The problem with Marx's definition of productive/unproductive labor is that it's very difficult to operationalize. A courier who drives cargo around, does some inventorizing, and accepts payments from clients is part productive, part unproductive. BTW, from the Marxian point of view, he's employed by industrial capital, but from the point of view of bourgeois statistics, he's in "services" (along with trade and utilities, for example).

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Feb 6 2015 16:47
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:

And btw, what the heck is post-autonomism?

basically the heirs of '68 prettymuch just arrived at 'anarcho-leninism' and are now trying to come to any other conclusion that isn't just 'capitalism'. most have fallen back on critical theory -type stuff, some have declared themselves 'anti-political'

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 16:49
jura wrote:
It is still important. Whenever a commercial capitalist gets a better deal, for whatever reason, to buy the commodities he later plans to sell, he's taking advantage of it (vis-a-vis his competitors). He'll then sell for whatever is the market price, or below the market price to gain more market share. According to your logic, he's "exploiting" his supplier.

If it happens only one way all the time I probably would call it exploitation in this secondary meaning. Only I'm interested in exploitation of labour by capitalists

jura wrote:
I really don't think Stalinist textbooks on political economy should be decisive here.

Not stalinist and not even on political economy but history, this is just common knowledge. What is wrong with this picture exactly?

jura wrote:
You haven't described anything different than what I described, you're just using different words, Humpty Dumpty-style. When the money is paid is not important (in fact, even in "normal" wage labor, the worker is paid after her job is finished, i.e., every month for the previous month).

Except merchants are buying product or service not "ability to work" (for whatever reason it was defined as such)

jura wrote:
With your logic, you can argue there is "no wage" in piecework: the capitalist "pays" for each piece that is produced, i.e., for the product, and so it's not wage labor.

Not according to my logic but to definition of wage labour as selling/byiung labour power. Yes, strictly speaking it seems to me it's not selling labour power but labour (as activity/service/task).

jura wrote:
1. Money is advanced by person X with the goal of using person Y's labor to appropriate a surplus (more money than was advanced), where the money advanced is (slightly more or slightly less than) the sum of value necessary for Y to reproduce her labor power. This is the only reason why it's called "selling labor power".

It's called selling labour power because it's ability to work is sold not work done or product itself - at least this is how Marx explain this (conclusion is of course there is unpaid work) Reasons for such defining of wage labour are different matter.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:00

Augustynww, you're not responding with anything new. I'll be happy to continue discussing this, but you can't just reiterate points I've responded to:

augustynww wrote:
I probably would call it exploitation

augustynww wrote:
Except merchants are buying product or service not "ability to work" (for whatever reason it was defined as such)

augustynww wrote:
Not according to my logic but to definition of wage labour as selling/byiung labour power

augustynww wrote:
It's called selling labour power because it's ability to work is sold not work done or product itself

As regards the last point, your response is contentless and uninformative. How do you know what is sold? I say you know this from the amount the worker is paid: if it's around the value of labor power (and the finished product is sold for more, so that there's a surplus), then labor power is being sold, not the product. And this is how the putting-out system worked, too. (The major difference being that in the archaic form of the putting-out system, the peasant family did not necessarily fully depend on the income from manufacturing, whereas the "self-employed" supermarket cashier not only depends on it, but often has to have another job just to get by.)

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:03
augustynww wrote:
Not according to my logic but to definition of wage labour as selling/byiung labour power. Yes, strictly speaking it seems to me it's not selling labour power but labour (as activity/service/task).

Wait, are you now saying that piecework is not a form of wage labor? I mean, if you wish to be consistent, that's what you have to say, but what I was trying to do was to convince you of the absurdity of your premises by showing you the absurd consequences. You'd be better off if you ditched the premises.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 17:06
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Well, I agree with you. There are various forms of self-employment and I said it already (this basically looks like all historical forms of pre-industrial capitalism used at the same time, not in succession).

Well, you said that a supermarket cashier is a "one-man business", and not just formally. If you still believe that, then we don't really agree.

Formally, I said I don't know how it exactly looks in other countries but in Poland it's registered (one-man) firm/busisness.

jura wrote:
The earlier/later period terminology is confusing. You are comparing "today" to the Fordist era, which lasted about 50 years if we use the weakest criteria. It's not like everyone was a permanent worker producing "stuff" in a "factory" in the 19th century.

But tendency was opposite

jura wrote:
The "shrinking" hypothesis is dubious as well. It may well apply to some of the "developed" countries, but I think the massive processes of "old-style" proletarianisation in China, India and other regions are offsetting this.

That's true there is global division of labour and it must be taken into account but Marx described England not Africa for some reason and I think you know why.

This old style of proletarisation still exists and it's even visible in Poland when we have basically two processes at once: proletarisation (agriculture->industry) and de-proletarisation (industry->services). But in the end number of people working in industry dropped like 8% since 1989 and in agriculture 12%

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:11
augustynww wrote:
Formally, I said I don't know how it exactly looks in other countries but in Poland it's registered (one-man) firm/busisness.

OK, this now doesn't make any sense. Of course it's a "one-man business" formally, and not just in Poland. That's pretty much the definition of "self-employed".

augustynww wrote:
But tendency was opposite

This is very weak. It's difficult to argue about tendencies in the space of less than 50 years, unless you accept some sort of a teleological view of history in which everything that happened before Fordism was ultimately "tending" towards Fordism.

augustynww wrote:
That's true there is global division of labour and it must be taken into account but Marx described England not Africa for some reason and I think you know why.

Let's look at the statistics for the most developed countries in the world today.

Oh wait, we just did. What did it tell us about the importance of self-employment?

augustynww wrote:
This old style of proletarisation still exists and it's even visible in Poland when we have basically two processes at once: proletarisation (agriculture->industry) and de-proletarisation (industry->services). But in the end number of people working in industry dropped like 8% since 1989 and in agriculture 12%

Poland is not exactly at the bleeding edge of capitalist development. If you want to mention Poland, you have to allow me to mention China, which today is a far more powerful capitalist economy than Poland ever was, and much more important in the global division of labor.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 17:16
jura wrote:
Augustynww, you're not responding with anything new. I'll be happy to continue discussing this, but you can't just reiterate points I've responded to:

augustynww wrote:
I probably would call it exploitation

I don't understand what do you want. You asked if I call it exploitation, yes it is exploitation if it goes only one way.

And could you stop for a moment until I respond to all your question? We're not speaking in person there delay here

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:15
augustynww wrote:
I don't understand what do you want. You asked if I call it exploitation, yes it is exploitation if it goes only one way.

Well, you're clearly using a specific definition of "exploitation" that is different from the way Marx uses it. I can't argue with you if you use your own private definitions.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 17:18
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
I don't understand what do you want. You asked if I call it exploitation, yes it is exploitation if it goes only one way.

Well, you're clearly using a specific definition of "exploitation" that is different from the way Marx uses it. I can't argue with you if you use your own private definitions.

So you can argue only with someone who uses only Marx definitions ie with Marxists? smile Interesting

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:22
augustynww wrote:
So you can argue only with someone who uses only Marx definitions ie with Marxists? smile Interesting

No, but I have to know how exactly you understand the terms you use. Note that whenever you asked me to define something, I provided the clearest definitions and examples I could. You've consistently made the impression that you're using technical terms the same way as Marx, but now it turns out you're not. This makes your posts difficult to understand. I.e., the key is in your definitions being private, unstated.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:33

BTW, as regards Poland, you are correct that the number of employed in "industry" (as defined by mainstream economics) is lower today than it was in 1989. But it has been growing in the recent years. (It's the same in Slovakia and other CEE countries.) You have to factor in the massive restructuralization during the transition. Feel free to check the GUS data.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 17:51
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Formally, I said I don't know how it exactly looks in other countries but in Poland it's registered (one-man) firm/busisness.

OK, this now doesn't make any sense. Of course it's a "one-man business" formally, and not just in Poland. That's pretty much the definition of "self-employed".

OK then and I don;t see a problem here.

augustynww wrote:
But tendency was opposite

jura wrote:
This is very weak. It's difficult to argue about tendencies in the space of less than 50 years, unless you accept some sort of a teleological view of history in which everything that happened before Fordism was ultimately "tending" towards Fordism.

I'm not talking about fordism but industrial capitalism in general. Industrialization described by Marx.

augustynww wrote:
That's true there is global division of labour and it must be taken into account but Marx described England not Africa for some reason and I think you know why.

jura wrote:
Let's look at the statistics for the most developed countries in the world today.

Oh wait, we just did. What did it tell us about the importance of self-employment?

That it's about 1/4 of workforce in average

jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
This old style of proletarisation still exists and it's even visible in Poland when we have basically two processes at once: proletarisation (agriculture->industry) and de-proletarisation (industry->services). But in the end number of people working in industry dropped like 8% since 1989 and in agriculture 12%

Poland is not exactly at the bleeding edge of capitalist development. If you want to mention Poland, you have to allow me to mention China, which today is a far more powerful capitalist economy than Poland ever was, and much more important in the global division of labor.

So mention it then What's your point?

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 17:58
augustynww wrote:
That it's about 1/4 of workforce in average

No offense, but you're either being dishonest, or you are illiterate. The EU average is around 15%. In the US it's 10%. It's higher in the less developed countries, lower in the more developed countries. The structure of self-employment is also important, for example the fact that it disproportionately affects people aged 50 or older.

augustynww wrote:
But in the end number of people working in industry dropped like 8% since 1989 and in agriculture 12%

Restating it won't make it more true, nor will it make the fact that it's growing again any less true. (Are you less keen to talk about a "trend" here? Why?)

augustynww wrote:
So mention it then What's your point?

What I had already said: that there are massive processes of proletarianization going on in regions like China, India, and Southeast Asia, which may well be offsetting the seemingly opposite trends elsewhere.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 18:04
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
So you can argue only with someone who uses only Marx definitions ie with Marxists? smile Interesting

No, but I have to know how exactly you understand the terms you use. Note that whenever you asked me to define something, I provided the clearest definitions and examples I could. You've consistently made the impression that you're using technical terms the same way as Marx, but now it turns out you're not. This makes your posts difficult to understand. I.e., the key is in your definitions being private, unstated.

OK but I'm saying what it means i.e that I use Marxist definition of labour power, what I meant by industrial capitalism etc.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 18:44
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
That it's about 1/4 of workforce in average

No offense, but you're either being dishonest, or you are illiterate.

sorry, not 1/4 but 1/3 actually.
And look at OP post. I mean, seriously? You didn't even read that?

jura wrote:
It's higher in the less developed countries, lower in the more developed countries.

true

augustynww wrote:
But in the end number of people working in industry dropped like 8% since 1989 and in agriculture 12%

jura wrote:
Restating it won't make it more true, nor will it make the fact that it's growing again any less true. (Are you less keen to talk about a "trend" here? Why?)

What restating? I told you what the trend is. Two trends actually.

http://geografia.opracowania.pl/zmiany_struktury_zatrudnienia_na_tle_prz...

jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
So mention it then What's your point?

What I had already said: that there are massive processes of proletarianization going on in regions like China, India, and Southeast Asia, which may well be offsetting the seemingly opposite trends elsewhere.

That's true. But what was starting point? China: agricultural economy with 60% people in this sector in 1960s.
I mean I don't understand your point. China is one of countries that are going through the process of industrialization, Sooner or later they will be at the same point more developed countries are.

What you're claim its like saying that there were massive processes of introducing slave labour in the same time when capitalism was introducing "free" labour (as opposed to feudal) and the two trends canceled each other so Marx was wrong about description of capitalism as based on personally free workers selling labour power etc.

(to everyone who has urgent need right now to make some dumb comment similar to Khawaga's post - that's rhetorical figure, I'm not saying those rends indeed cancelled each other and Marx was wrong in this point)

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 18:39
augustynww wrote:
sorry, not 1/4 but 1/3 actually. And look at OP post. I mean, seriously? You didn't even read that?

Don't try to divert attention, you sleazy worm. Look at the Eurostat data, look at the BLS data. I couldn't care less for the Gallup poll in this context. You yourself wanted to argue about the most developed countries, about what the general trend in capitalism is. The article from the OP says that the bulk of the self-employed live in the poorest areas of the world (BTW, this is fully consistent with even the most orthodox, dinosaur-style marxism which would argue that these are the remnants of precapitalist production; note that I'm not saying this). Moreover, the self-employed in less developed countries will include many people involved in traditional forms of agriculture. Hardly a trend of developed capitalism, quite the contrary, really. (Not mentioning the thesis, which you haven't disproved as of yet, that many, though not all, of these formally "self-employed" are actually wage laborers.)

Again, the EU24 average is 15%, the US figure is about 10%.

augustynww wrote:
That's true. But what was starting point? China: agricultural economy with 60% people in this sector in 1960s.

And? Anyway, this then means that the number of self-employed in the poor countries (mentioned above) will likely fall, when (if) these countries industrialize (a lot of them, like in Southeast Asia, where the number of "self-employed" is the highest, are still very much agricultural). Again, your position is confused, contradictory, and absurd.