DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

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

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 18:52
jura wrote:
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.

It's you who is trying to divert attention. I dont; know what sleazy worm is, nothing good I suppose? smile
Yes I'm talking about general trend but when de-industrialization is concerned. I've NEVER said there is general trend to self-employed labour as such. This is only one of forms that happen to exist in this process of de-industrialization.

This is strawman, one of yours many at your part in this thread.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 18:53
augustynww wrote:
Yes I'm talking about general trend but when industrialization is concerned.

Can you point to any time-series data that confirms the trend? So far, you have proved absolutely nothing, but made a lot of mistakes and about-turns. Admit it, the ground you're standing on is non-existent.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 19:01
augustynww wrote:
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.

The analogy doesn't work. Marx's definition of the waged worker as "personally free" etc. is an "ideal type", so to speak. It's a theoretical device; it's important for Marx insofar as it depicts the ideal "essence" of capitalism. He was well aware of the fact that at the time he was writing Capital, not only was there slavery in America (and elsewhere), but even in England such workers weren't the majority of the working population.

But what we are arguing about here are real processes. You're saying that globally, the number of wage laborers is decreasing (in favor of the "self-employed"). I'm saying I doubt this. I'm saying the "self-employed" trend is not really important, that it doesn't signify anything "radically new" in capitalism. In fact, for the umpteenth time, many of the "self-employed" are really wage laborers. You haven't disproved any of this, and the numbers for the most developed countries prove me right, and not you.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 19:10

well I gave you data for Poland, de-industrialization happened here after 1989 you just ignored it.
I'm basing my knowledge on texts in Polish like this:
http://www.project-syndicate.pl/artykul/zagrozenia-przedwczesnej-deindus...
You can translate it by machine or not do what you wish.
I could search in English but I don't know what's the point. You are just ignoring all facts that doesn't suite you

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 19:17
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
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.

The analogy doesn't work. Marx's definition of the waged worker as "personally free" etc. is an "ideal type", so to speak. It's a theoretical device; it's important for Marx insofar as it depicts the ideal "essence" of capitalism. He was well aware of the fact that at the time he was writing Capital, not only was there slavery in America (and elsewhere), but even in England such workers weren't the majority of the working population.

Well that's good he was aware. And I'm aware in China there is process of industrialization not de-industrialization.

jura wrote:
But what we are arguing about here are real processes.

We're arguing about many things. For instance for post-autonomists "models" are equally important as for Marx, for similar reasons. And yet you're saying they are wrong.

Rest are strawman arguments (again) so I won't bother answering.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 19:30
augustynww wrote:
well I gave you data for Poland, de-industrialization happened here after 1989 you just ignored it.

Ah, Poland. The pinnacle of the world-system.

(In fact, I didn't ignore it. I said you were correct. I also pointed out that the numbers of people employed in industry in Poland have been growing for the past decade.)

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 6 2015 19:37
jura wrote:
augustynww wrote:
well I gave you data for Poland, de-industrialization happened here after 1989 you just ignored it.

Ah, Poland. The pinnacle of the world-system.

(In fact, I didn't ignore it. I said you were correct. I also pointed out that the numbers of people employed in industry in Poland have been growing for the past decade.)

and you were wrong about it too, between 2007-2012 number of people working in industry dropped by 200 000

"W latach 2007 – 2012 liczba pracujących w przemyśle ogółem zmniejszyła się o 215 tys."
http://www.sobieski.org.pl/komentarz-is-157/

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 21:32

This is unbelievable. More general googling-lameness and laziness from you! I have no idea what sort of a shitty think tank "sobieski.org.pl" and I don't care what their article says. The authorities I recognize on this matter are Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Eurostat and such. The data shows that in the last decade, that is roughly 2004 – 2014, the number of people employed in industry in Poland has grown.

Here's the OECD data for the entire decade. Poland, employment in industry including construction, all persons, in thousands:

2004: 3 976 (28.8% of total employed at that time)
2005: 4 127
2006: 4 374
2007: 4 681
2008: 5 036 (this is the pre-crisis peak of the boom that strated around 2002, 31% of total employed)
2009: 4 934
2010: 4 686
2011: 4 772 (slight upturn after the crisis)
2012: 4 740
2013: 4 752 (30.5% of total employed at that time)

If we reduce the data to manufacturing only, the number for 2004 is 2 739 (18%) and for 2013 it is 2 969 (19%). The data comes from here.

You have to understand that if you select 2007 – 2012, the series is quite obviously skewed because of the crisis. Obviously you can do that if you have an agenda (like that think-tank might have), but if you want to have a realistic picture, you'd better not.

So again, like I said: of course there's been a decline of employment in industry in Poland when compared to 1989 and before that, but there's been an upturn from around 2002, and even despite the crisis, the number of people employed in Polish industry has grown when you compare 2004 with 2013 (this is equivalent with my previous claims in other posts; I couldn't find data for 2014). Here's a more long-term view, based on data from the World Bank:

355x
(click here to enlarge)

I'm surprised that as an anarchist you don't follow these topics more closely. I'd say that having correct information on what the reality is is quite important if you want to criticize any theory!

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 22:16

While we're in Poland, having fun, let's look at some further data from the period. What you're saying suggests that non-industrial jobs would be growing at the expense of industrial jobs. But as shown above, jobs in industry (whether you only include manufacturing, as the think tank did in their article, or whether you include all of industry as defined by mainstream economics) have actually grown between 2004 and 2013. What really happened?

What happened is that whereas in 2004, 2.470 million Poles were working in agriculture, only 1.867 million Poles were working there in 2013. Let's look at the relative shares of the three big sectors:

2004
- share of services in total employment: 53% (7.348 mi)
- share of agriculture in total employment: 17% (2.470 mi)
- share of industry including construction in total employment: 28.8% (3.976 mi)

2013:
- share of services in total employment: 57% (8.949 mi)
- share of agriculture in total employment: 11.9% (1.867 mi)
- share of industry including construction in total employment: 30.5% (4.752 mi)

So what really happened between 2004 and 2013 is this: agriculture has shrinked, services have expanded, and industry has expanded as well. Don't forget that "services" include sectors that fall within the "industrial capital" category.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 22:26

Don't go anywhere, because here's the data on the self-employed in Poland from Eurostat, in thousands of persons (ages 15-64). Unfortunately, only since 2008, I couldn't find earlier data:

2008: 2.854, 18.3% of total employed
2009: 2.862
2010: 2.842
2011: 2.863
2012: 2.829
2013: 2.774, 18.1% of total employed.

Massive growth indeed! But there's more.

Here are the relative shares of Poland's self-employed (2012). Sectorally, the highest proportion of self-employed (43%) was in agriculture (the EU27 average is 17.4%). Industry: 15.6%, "market service": 34.2%, "non-market service": 9.4%. The self-employed are most dominant among those 65 and older and within the 50 to 64 age bracket.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 6 2015 23:00

Finally, some charts on worldwide manufacturing employment, this time from a 2013 UN Industrial Development Organization report. It's actually a fascinating read, I'll have to find time to read it all. BTW, I am now completely determined to drown your ass in figures and charts.

Keep in mind that "manufacturing" is not "industry" or "industrial capital". It does not include mining, utilities and construction (forms of "industry"), nor the many other forms of "industrial capital" (any branch of the economy in which capital is employed to produce commodities in the form of either goods or services).

The text below seems to confirm that even if we restrict ourselves to manufacturing (and sectors directly related to it), the rise of China and other regions more than offsets the apparent "de-industrialization" in the West.

UNIDO wrote:
The direct absorption of workers by manufacturing reached 388 million jobs worldwide in 2009, up from an estimated 211 million in 1970 (see first image below). Nearly half of them were informal (jobs in small and medium-size enterprises, self-employed and workers not subject to labour legislation), a share that is growing, largely reflecting the rise of many emerging economies as new hubs in manufacturing. Failure to capture informal jobs in manufacturing is not the only way by which manufacturing jobs are typically underestimated. Perhaps more important, in view of the global economic transformations of the last few decades, is the unbundling of certain production processes that statistically used to be included in manufacturing but are now included in services. In fact, it could be argued that the very distinction between manufacturing and services has become blurred (Manyika et al. 2012). Not only are manufacturing firms increasingly outsourcing their non-core operations such as warehousing, transport, human resource management and information technology, but manufactured products are increasingly bundled with a host of services and after-market functions (such as telephone help-lines, extended warranty, and repair and retail services).

Still, manufacturing-related jobs in services over 1995–2009 appeared to grow much faster than those in direct formal manufacturing (reflecting the outsourcing approaches discussed above), reaching 95 million by 2009. Thus manufacturing – broadly defined to include formal, informal and manufacturing-related services – offered 470 million jobs, employing around 16 percent of the world’s workforce of 2.9 billion in the series peak year of 2009 (see first image below). Any assessment of the scale of manufacturing’s employment creation based purely on data from industry surveys will heavily undercount its true size. Employment data from this type of source represent, at best, half the total number of jobs directly and indirectly created by manufacturing.

476x
(click here to enlarge)

UNIDO wrote:
Although North America, Industrialized Europe and Japan still account for around 40 percent of global MVA (manufacturing value added) (World Bank 2013b), the rise in value added of East Asia and the Pacific, particularly China, over the last few decades has been dramatic – a shift even more prominent in formal manufacturing employment (see second image below). Formal jobs rose by about 67 million between 1970 and 2010 in the region. South and Central Asian, Latin American and Caribbean, Middle East and North African, and Sub-Saharan African jobs have also increased. Over the last 40 years the big winners in manufacturing employment have been developing countries, confirming the importance of manufacturing as a source of employment for these countries. With this broader view that includes manufacturing-related services, the decline of manufacturing employment in industrialized countries is somewhat mitigated. As industrialized economies shift into services, manufacturing value generation is also increasingly shifted towards business services such as design, R&D, engineering, branding, advertising and marketing. Although employment in manufacturing production has been declining in industrialized countries, employment in manufacturing-related services held steady at around 32 million jobs between 1995 and 2009, thus increasing its share from 24 percent to 29 percent of total employment in manufacturing and manufacturing-related services [...]. North America is a case in point, where the share of that total increased from 29 percent to 32 percent over the period. The growth in industrialized countries is more notable in businesses-related services.

Overall, regional employment growth patterns in manufacturing-related services confirm that manufacturing and manufacturing-related activities are shifting to Asia, particularly to East Asia and the Pacific [...]. From close to 24 million jobs in 1995, manufacturing-related services employment increased to more than 31 million jobs in 2009. Around three-quarters of this gain comes from China. Business services and transport seem to play a strong and rising role in such employment in East Asia and the Pacific, reflecting the region’s position as a manufacturing hub for the world but also growing efforts to move up the value-added ladder.

475x
(click here to enlarge)

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Feb 7 2015 09:43

"Yeah.. I gotcha good, augustynww!"

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 09:47

450x

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 11:03

Here's some more world data from the ILO on employment shares of agriculture, industry, and services. It includes data on the relative sectoral shares around the world.

Here's an album of some plots I made for different regions of the world. The data ranges from 1991 to 2012; the figures for 2013 and beyond are 2012 projections.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 7 2015 12:22

so, playing stupid? OK
Leaving year to year fluctuations or crisis aside (and small detail according to Główny Urząd Statystyczny your OECD data for Poland are like 1 million higher that should be, dynamics is more or less the same though)

This are data for Poland for 1978 which was peak of industrialization according to GUS, and 1988 (to show industry is shrinking not only because of "destroying polish industry by privatization" which started after 1989)

for 1978 peak of industrialization in Poland

industry (przemysł) 29,7%
budownictwo (construction) 8,2%

industry and construction total 37,9%

in 1988

industry (przemysł) 28,2%
budownictwo (construction) 7,9%

industry and construction total 36,1%

book published by Główny Urząd Statystyczny in 1994 "History of Poland in Numbers"
page 176 (192)
tab. 146

http://mbc.cyfrowemazowsze.pl/Content/18436/Historia%20Polski%20w%20Licz...

I don't have time to comment the rest right now, I'll be back twisted

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 13:17

Why change the subject? The ratio between pre-1989 Poland and post-1989 Poland was never an issue. The data you present now as some great revelation is already reflected in the World Bank chart I posted in #99 (you can see that for 1988/1989, it's roughly 36%, i.e., exactly what you now presented – no disagreement there).

My only claim was that in the previous decade (2004 - 2014), the share of people employed in industry in Poland has risen. It's about 8 percent down compared to 1989, but it has risen, and is probably still rising.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 13:42

Anyway, no more charts from me. My general conclusions from this debate:

- over the past 40 years, a shift has taken place in the world economy,

- this shift included a decline in industrial jobs in some regions of the world, perhaps most notably in the former Eastern bloc,

- the apparent "de-industrialization" in these regions has been offset by development in the "developing" countries, mostly in East Asia, South and Central Asia, and Latin America,

- today, the general trend in terms of shares of employment, is one of growth in "services" (which, however, include a lot of productive activities from the Marxian point of view, e.g. transportation, but also private schools or hospitals) and decline in agriculture;

- globally, as regards "industry" (narrowly defined), the trend is for it to rise (in terms of the share in total employment), albeit at a slower rate than services,

- the dynamic of self-employment is volatile, in some countries it plays a more important role, in others a less important role. The "formality" of many cases of self-employment (where it is just a guise for plain old wage labor) is recognized even by bourgeois social science, the technical term being "false self-employment" or "bogus self-employment",

- informal employment, employment in small businesses and self-employment play an important role in global manufacturing. However, even if we compare the absolute numbers of formal jobs in manufacturing, there are more of them today globally then there were in 1970.

- the reports of the death of wage labor as we know it are vastly exaggerated.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 7 2015 14:30

"Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2014" by GUS

Employment in industry and construction (in thousands) page 239-241

total:
2005: 12890,7
2010: 14106,9
2012: 14172,0
2013: 14244,3

in industry (page 240)
2005: 2857,6
2010: 2909,5
2012: 2867,8
2013: 2872,2

in construction (page 241)
2005: 661,5
2010: 865,2
2012: 867,0
2013: 810,5

now, percentage for 2005 and 2013
2005: industry 22,1 % (2857,6 * 100) : 12890
construction 5,1% (661,5 * 100) : 12890

2005 industry and construction in total 27,2%

2013: industry 20,1% (2872,2 * 100) : 14244,3
construction 5,6 % (810,5 * 100) : 14244,3

2013 construction and industry in total 25,7%

http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-sta...

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 14:52

You're comparing different years than I did, you know.

Second, the data does not include the "hidden economy". If you look at the totals, the GUS figures are lower by about one million than the OECD figures.

Third, the data is not seasonally adjusted. It's "as of December 31". This may also be the reason for the difference.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 7 2015 14:50

yeah sure
and now, listen. If you look at this and even when you assume there's some misinterpretation of data and it should be higher/lower few percent in the case of your data or mine (I'm saying this because of this difference) you see long-term trend of de-industrialization nonetheless.

Also, look at difference between industry (manufacturing and processing) and construction. Both shrinked since 1978 but in the case of industry it is large drop and not so big in the case of construction. If we assume that's true that de-industrialization is result of higher productivity (machines etc) as some theories claim, it makes sense because manufacturing and processing can be automated to high degree and construction can't.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 14:52

Again, the relationship between pre-1989 and post-1989 times is not the issue. The issue is that the "de-industrialization" fairy-tale does not hold water when you look at it globally. I've posted more than enough evidence of this.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 7 2015 15:07

That's hopeless I think grin You will be "proving" this with some charts even when industry will shrink to like 5% in more industrialized countries.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 7 2015 15:19
jura wrote:
Second, the data does not include the "hidden economy"..

oh, it include "hidden economy" based on estimations
(but if one think about it some massive "illegal work" as opposed to legal is in itself some substantial change)
that's all for my part I think, I said everything I wanted about the problem

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 7 2015 15:28

Well, you haven't disproved any of the substantial claims. Capitalism is a global system, and as such it is shifting production around, globally. Wage labor is not disappearing (I take it you now accept than even parts of the "self-employed" are really wage laborers, which was where we started.) Nor is the traditional industry. Not mentioning the fact that... a lot of the "services" are actually productive and are a part of "industrial capital" from the Marxian point of view.

augustynww wrote:
oh, it include "hidden economy" based on estimations (but if one think about it some massive "illegal work" as opposed to legal is in itself some substantial change)
that's all for my part I think, I said everything I wanted about the problem

No, it doesn't. If you look closely at the table 4, at the bottom (p. 239), there are only totals for the hidden economy. Not the sectoral breakdowns. So we know that the total amount of people working was greater by about a million every year, but we don't know the sectoral distributions. So you have one million workers unaccounted for floating around. And now you pronounce illegal work a new phenomenon, a "substantial change" in capitalism. Give me a break. You're grasping at straws.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 8 2015 09:38

Blimey, you two still at it? Boomerang, you've created a monster!

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Feb 8 2015 09:58

I went through three bags of popcorn reading that.

Jura, I'm greatly impressed by your attention to detail. Augustynww, please accept your smackdown in a sporting fashion with good grace.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 9 2015 12:43
Serge Forward wrote:
I went through three bags of popcorn reading that.

Jura, I'm greatly impressed by your attention to detail. Augustynww, please accept your smackdown in a sporting fashion with good grace.

this is highly unlikely considering the fact even paper Jura quote here states (on page 9): "employment in manufacturing production has been declining in industrialized countries"

https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Research_and_Statistics/UNIDO...

basically:
"employment–population ratio exhibits very different trends. It displays a rapid surge at low and middle levels of per capita GDP, but at high income per capita no manufacturing industries are able to sustain employment growth"

whole process of declining employment in developed countries is described in details for various industries from page 12 forward

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 9 2015 12:48
jura wrote:
No, it doesn't. If you look closely at the table 4, at the bottom (p. 239), there are only totals for the hidden economy. Not the sectoral breakdowns. So we know that the total amount of people working was greater by about a million every year, but we don't know the sectoral distributions. So you have one million workers unaccounted for floating around. And now you pronounce illegal work a new phenomenon, a "substantial change" in capitalism. Give me a break. You're grasping at straws.

Share of industry in informal economy is like 9%. Construction may be higher (I saw numbers like 20%). So even if absolute number will be higher, percentage share of industry+construction in total employment will be basically the same and what's is important here it will be declining still.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 9 2015 13:23

Aw man, how the fuck can you be bothered to keep going? Seriously, is it that important to you to prove you're right? Seriously, who gives a fuck? As with all protracted headbutting contests, the subject matter is now secondary to the importance of standing your ground regardless of how much of an ass you look or how skullcrushingly fucking dull it's become.
But hey, I guess it's really none of my business?
Still, you know what? If I'm judging this all wrong and I look like a dick I couldn't care less. From my experience it's better to just be a dick than to become one through an absolute refusal to let go.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
Feb 9 2015 13:59
Webby wrote:
Aw man, how the fuck can you be bothered to keep going? Seriously, is it that important to you to prove you're right?

what's wrong with discussing various things? This is what internet forums are for. Also this is interesting for me because if Jura is right and there's no such thing as de-industrialization/post-industrialization (i.e ongoing process which started already in developed, industrialized capitalist countries and sooner or later will manifest itself in the rest of the world) there is whole sector of contemporary radical theory which is totally wrong (like mentioned post-autonomia or others,theories about de-industrialization are popular