771
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
771 points (98.7% liked)
People Twitter
5299 readers
39 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What's up with upper class trying to destroy middle class all the time? Are middle class a threat to them? Has to be, otherwise this wouldn't matter.
Make things hard for billionaires and spread their wealth amongst the lower class to start evening shit out. Who tf needs almost a trillion unspendable dollars?
There's no such thing as the middle class. You either own means of production, you sell your labour to those who do, or you belong to the criminal class that doesn't contribute to the growth of capital. The middle class is a fairy tale capitalists tell us to keep us in the labour class instead of the far more sensible criminal class.
"There is no middle class only virgin workers and chad lumpen proles" is an incredible bit
I always wanted to ask this so might as well now, feel free to answer if you want: what are the means of production? In $cureent_year, that is.
We are not in 1870 Germany. We don't all work in huge factories owned by Rockefellers. I work in IT. My means of production is a laptop. I do own a few. I sell my labor to whoever needs IT services. Am I a capitalist or a communist? In the past I work for a big company and used their laptop. Was I being exploited?
The painter that is coming to fix my walls owns his ladder and spraygun. I assume he bought the paint with his own money. I don't know about the van, he might own it too. He sells his labor to me, who don't own anything of his. Is he a capitalist?
"what are the means of production?"
The ways in which you produce goods and services for transactions in a market.
Using a laptop (/server) to produce IT services is no different to a cobbler using a machine to produce a shoe, or a bard using a lute to produce a song.
The more you dig into it though, the more hardware and infrastructure you'll find: router, servers, storage, switches, cables, management systems (both technical and HR). Even if you work alone you still use the internet which is made up of physical computers owned by someone, and telephony infrastructure, and you'll still use a service to find work, and you'll still take payments using a bank...
It's equally applicable now to an IT worker as it was to a draughtsman at an architect firm in 1840.
Are you a capitalist or a communist? You're certainly not a communist, I believe what you are hinting at is "socialized" vs "individual" labor, and it is a historically progressive development of capitalism. How a software developer fits into the means of production is they aid in the exchange of money from the sale of commodities, and make the transactions possible. But at the end of the day some product is being sold to some end user and you help to make that possible. Without the transaction there is no sale, which means no exchange of commodities for more money than they cost to produce and bring to market (profit or surplus value) which is the basis for the whole system, it is the point where the exploitation occurs.
Everyone is always "exploited" by the system, its part of what drives competition. But to be more specific, everyone is alienated from the system of production. we are all very individuated in our thinking, which bears out in our alienated experience. In more advanced or more advantaged countries, with a higher outlay of financial or investment capital, the class character of any individual is more specific and hard to suss out. In developing or economically repressed nations, where the factories of 1870s Germany still exist, alongside the factories of 1840s England, if not in capital than in conditions, the class character of any individual might be more clear and concise. Our "class character" is determined by our relationship to production, and it is not altogether straightforward. I've seen many fights like "are cops workers" and even "are baristas workers" that have sent me.
All that to say, capitalism promotes cooperation through competition, it socializes production, so that the product of your labor is just one part of a very complex whole. Even the painter has to pay for insurance on his van, probably has a couple loans for his business. The fact that your labor is socialized doesn't make you a communist. Communism is the struggle for a classless, moneyless society. It too will presumably also have socialized production, but also socialized ownership of the means of production whereas under capitalism the MoP is privatized. This is the fundamental contradiction within capitalism and it is right that you found yourself wondering about it.
The "means of production" is a very abstract and fundamental concept. I think its right for you to question it, and how it relates directly to you. Its a very general concept, and everything you are asking of of applies to is very specific. The means of production has been well defined it seems elsewhere in the discussion, but its basically "everything that is used in human production" which is the driving force of history from a Marxist/sorta Hegelian perspective. So it is a big deal.
But what is also relevant, is how production is defined, and namely who owns its products. You work in IT (so do I) so in that example you own your work laptop? That laptop is MoP, same as the painter tools, and you sell your product to the company, who uses it to run how ever millions of transactions. Or making those transactions possible for that company, integrating some new feature. So more specifically, those tools are Capital, which is an essential mean of production under capitalism. But a ton of the infrastructure for those transactions was publicly funded, paid for with taxes. But now most if not all of that infrastructure is privately owned.
So in that way you are like the painter, in that you sell directly the product of your labor to the capitalist. Both you and the painter are workers in the same way, but youre an intellectual worker vs he is a physical laborer. but the paint and personal items in your personally owned house is for your personal use, whereas the software you sell to a company is for commercial use, in effect the software is capital, whereas the paint on your walls is not. But if the painter painted the walls at your company's office, that would be capital. The painter "bought the paint with his own money"? But you are paying him, so you are buying the paint.
The company is and always has been the means of production. Shared distribution of the profits of a company, no owner taking it all and distributing wages.
So everybody should be a contractor? I have done both and I honestly appreciate the benefits of a salary without all the risks and overhead of contracting. Or founding and managing a cooperative.
I have worked for ESOP operations before and you get all the benefits of working for a company, because it is a company, but it's owned by the people that work there, not shareholders or a singular owner. So when the business does we'll everyone makes more money.
Decimation of the middle class is a natural tendency of capitalism, but politically its highly desirable to have a middle class. So the middle class in a highly capitalist society ends up being somewhat precarious. Billionaires aren't attacking the middle classes more than laboring classes, but the "answer" to almost every problem caused by overproduction bubbles is to somehow suppress wages. The government, which needs a strong middle class for political stability, now has to find a way to lower wages or ,in the case of business owning/managing middle class, make new capital investment difficult. There are different kind of middle class, so there are different ways of accomplishing this. But as a result, middle class people are class conscious to the extent that they feel always threatened, but often aren't able to link it to the economic system, or if so then they might not be able to link global economic problems to the actions that actually caused the problems.
They have all the money. Now they want more.
Capitalism is a system that rewards sociopathic behavior, so sociopaths with no empathy or investment in anything other than themselves naturally rise to the top.
The oligarchs who control our nation are all mentally ill narcissistic sociopaths who don't care what happens to the country or to humanity or the earth after they're gone. Life to them is a story where they're the main character and everyone else is an expendable NPC.
This is why capitalism is considered unsustainable to anyone other than those who idolize the oligarchs and wish to become one themselves. This is why hierarchy and class is something we should be trying to eliminate from society, not lean into even further. When human ego and individualism is allowed to be the cornerstone of human society, it is a matter of when, not if, that society eventually crumbles to the long term effects of wealth inequality.