4 ms·
>First, it presumes a 19th-century separation of "capital" and "labor" where "capital" is a bunch of greedy pigs trying their damndest to exploit labor, with li
by ue_ 9y ago
>First, it presumes a 19th-century separation of "capital" and "labor" where "capital" is a bunch of greedy pigs trying their damndest to exploit labor, with little crossover between the two groups.
If you're talking about Marxism, you're misunderstanding the division between bourgeoisie and proletarians; stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, does not count as means of production; the division is between the proletarians, who almost always have nothing to sell but their labour-power and the bourgeoisie, i.e a class of people who own the means of production.
Further, you're using "exploit" as a prejorative, which it isn't necessarily; Marx's idea of exploitation is removed from what we think of as exploitation (in a negative sense); it's exploitation just as you'd exploit a car or something like that - you make use of it, use it up. Machines are also exploited in the same way. Nevertheless, the goal of the Marxists and indeed Communists in general is to abolish this exploitation.
Your simplification does not make the anti-capitalist plight any weaker, and in fact it just goes to show how much the ideas of the Communists are miscommunicated and misinterpreted. It could be said, with the shrinking of the number of people who are self-employed (actually, things like freelance programming forming an exception) that the model of proletarians and bourgeoisie is just as relevant if not moreso today than it was in the 19th century.
I advise you to read modern Marxist works, such as Spectres of Marx, The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord, and particularly almost all of Zizek's work (in particular The Sublime Object of Ideology), which I must recommend. Of particular note is The Culture Industry by Adorno, commonly associated with the Frankfurt School.
- eldavido 9y agoThank you for this comment. I'm sorry it got downvoted and I disagree with much of what's written, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and general tone. I have actually read and thought about the Communist Manifesto quite a lot, but not the later works you cited. I'll add them to my reading list. The biggest problem I have with classical Marxism is that it presupposes a sort of material capital that can be accumulated. While there are certain sectors in which "assets" in the traditional sense, whether physical ones like timber, rental real estate, etc. or the softer "intellectual property" play a dominant role, this doesn't seem to be what's driving the world forward today. I think "reputationism", or maybe "Hollywood capitalism", is a better descriptor for how Hollywood or SV work today. Witness the sky-high compensation of CEOs, athletes, actors, real estate developers, financiers, and others whose reputations give them access to opportunities most traditional "labor" can only dream of. In fact, if you read Piketty, he makes the point that capital's share of income relative to labor has actually decreased in the past decades, even as very highly compensated labor's share has skyrocketed. The real enemy, IMO, is "empty suits" with no skin in the game (borrowing from Taleb) - people like analysts, non-founding CEOs, private equity/VC managers who commit only 5% of the capital of their funds, and others in positions of "heads I win, tails you lose". I really admire people who stick to their beliefs and bet with their own money/credibility (like this http://longbets.org/362/ http://longbets.org/362/) - I have much less respect for the guys blabbing on CNBC every day who just talk, talk, talk.
- wdewind 9y ago> If you're talking about Marxism, you're misunderstanding the division between bourgeoisie and proletarians; stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, does not count as means of production; the division is between the proletarians, who almost always have nothing to sell but their labour-power and the bourgeoisie, i.e a class of people who own the means of production. Can you explain what you mean by this? If you own stocks, pensions, 401k, whatever, you pretty definitionally have more to sell than just your labour-power right? I guess I don't understand how it's not gradated ownership over the means of production.