3 ms·

Crucially, gig workers do not own an important part of their means of production: the platform that processes rides/rentals/etc, payments and users, which allow

Crucially, gig workers do not own an important part of their means of production: the platform that processes rides/rentals/etc, payments and users, which allows the traditional bourgeois to extract surplus value (Mehrwert) in the usual way, and the workers fit the definition of proletarians.

Illniyar 8y ago
True, but they own some of it, and there is competition between platforms for them (I.E. lyft vs uber). In fact many people "work" for multiple platforms. It's similar to a farmer selling his ware in a marketplace, which he must pay rent for. Would you say that because he doesn't own the marketplace (or store) he doesn't own his means of production? Now the question is whether they must own all of the means of production to be considered bourgeois? I would say no, especially in today's world, where most production is a complicated multi-tiered process. But even if you do think so, they are still much better off, Marxist-wise, from virtually every service worker, who own no means of production. In any case, that doesn't mean that there is no exploitation or that the gig economy should not be regulated, but it really doesn't have anything to do with Proletariat.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  What means of production do they own? Surely that's the platform app and backend, which offers a price? A farmer on a market stall can price however he likes.
  - Illniyar 8y ago
    The car (Uber,Lift), the house (AirBnB), the tools for making what they sell (Etsy,fiverr). Only Uber (and other ride-haling apps I suppose) forces a price, all other marketplaces the price is set by the seller - AirBnB, Etsy, fiverr. In Amazon Turk the seller and buyer roles are reversed and Turkers only accept work that pay enough for them. I would say it's more a product of the industry they are in - transportation is usually regulated to have a fixed price almost everywhere - then the nature of marketplaces in the gig-economy as a whole.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      I don't see how it can be. The equivalent of the capitalist's lock out, is a ban from or temporary closure of a platform. An individual driver withdrawing his car is a resignation, or declining to do a particular job, surely? Go back to pre employment legislation times and it was pretty common to require a worker to own the tools by buying them themselves and take them to work in the local factory. The factory and machinery was still the means of production. Consider a nationalisation where a state buys the means of production. They would nationalise the company that owns the factory not the individual workers and their tools. If someone decided to nationalise AirBNB or Uber they'd take the company and platform, not a thousand cars or houses.
    - billyggruff 8y ago
      Uber does not force a price. It is up to the driver to accept the fare.
      - swiley 8y ago
        I've been told that uber hides some of the information (either the price or the distance the driver has to go or both) which makes that not quite true.
        billyggruff 8y ago
        If that is true than it is no better than the US healthcare system.
        jesuschristHD 8y ago
        I currently drive for Uber and both of these are 100% true When a request pops up all I see is the estimated time it'll take me to get to the pickup point, I also have exactly 10 seconds to accept a request.
        billyggruff 8y ago
        Is this also true for Lyft?
- CapacitorSet 8y ago
  >It's similar to a farmer selling his ware in a marketplace, which he must pay rent for. Would you say that because he doesn't own the marketplace (or store) he doesn't own his means of production? This analogy doesn't hold in the Marxian framework. Gig companies adopt the "D-M-D" scheme, where they hire a worker to produce a service which the company will sell, earning part of the profits; the marketplace owner does not enter such a scheme, and its relationship with the farmer is not considered to extract surplus value. >But even if you do think so, they are still much better off, Marxist-wise, from virtually every service worker, who own no means of production. Indeed, people like the farmer - owning the means of production, and self-employed or with few employees - are a distinct class in the Marxian framework, namely the petite bourgeoisie.

Illniyar 8y ago

True, but they own some of it, and there is competition between platforms for them (I.E. lyft vs uber). In fact many people "work" for multiple platforms. It's similar to a farmer selling his ware in a marketplace, which he must pay rent for. Would you say that because he doesn't own the marketplace (or store) he doesn't own his means of production? Now the question is whether they must own all of the means of production to be considered bourgeois? I would say no, especially in today's world, where most production is a complicated multi-tiered process. But even if you do think so, they are still much better off, Marxist-wise, from virtually every service worker, who own no means of production. In any case, that doesn't mean that there is no exploitation or that the gig economy should not be regulated, but it really doesn't have anything to do with Proletariat.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
What means of production do they own? Surely that's the platform app and backend, which offers a price? A farmer on a market stall can price however he likes.
- Illniyar 8y ago
  The car (Uber,Lift), the house (AirBnB), the tools for making what they sell (Etsy,fiverr). Only Uber (and other ride-haling apps I suppose) forces a price, all other marketplaces the price is set by the seller - AirBnB, Etsy, fiverr. In Amazon Turk the seller and buyer roles are reversed and Turkers only accept work that pay enough for them. I would say it's more a product of the industry they are in - transportation is usually regulated to have a fixed price almost everywhere - then the nature of marketplaces in the gig-economy as a whole.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I don't see how it can be. The equivalent of the capitalist's lock out, is a ban from or temporary closure of a platform. An individual driver withdrawing his car is a resignation, or declining to do a particular job, surely? Go back to pre employment legislation times and it was pretty common to require a worker to own the tools by buying them themselves and take them to work in the local factory. The factory and machinery was still the means of production. Consider a nationalisation where a state buys the means of production. They would nationalise the company that owns the factory not the individual workers and their tools. If someone decided to nationalise AirBNB or Uber they'd take the company and platform, not a thousand cars or houses.
  - billyggruff 8y ago
    Uber does not force a price. It is up to the driver to accept the fare.
    - swiley 8y ago
      I've been told that uber hides some of the information (either the price or the distance the driver has to go or both) which makes that not quite true.
      - billyggruff 8y ago
        If that is true than it is no better than the US healthcare system.
      - jesuschristHD 8y ago
        I currently drive for Uber and both of these are 100% true When a request pops up all I see is the estimated time it'll take me to get to the pickup point, I also have exactly 10 seconds to accept a request.
        billyggruff 8y ago
        Is this also true for Lyft?
CapacitorSet 8y ago
>It's similar to a farmer selling his ware in a marketplace, which he must pay rent for. Would you say that because he doesn't own the marketplace (or store) he doesn't own his means of production? This analogy doesn't hold in the Marxian framework. Gig companies adopt the "D-M-D" scheme, where they hire a worker to produce a service which the company will sell, earning part of the profits; the marketplace owner does not enter such a scheme, and its relationship with the farmer is not considered to extract surplus value. >But even if you do think so, they are still much better off, Marxist-wise, from virtually every service worker, who own no means of production. Indeed, people like the farmer - owning the means of production, and self-employed or with few employees - are a distinct class in the Marxian framework, namely the petite bourgeoisie.