[lbo-talk] Classes and Strata (was Boycotting the unorganized?)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Jan 21 12:15:32 PST 2005


Michael Dawson MDawson at pdx.edu, Fri Jan 21 11:29:19 PST 2005:
>But, as Kevin Phillips explains, there is a sizable group of people
>who are "not in the top one-fifth of 1 percent. [They make up to]
>$300,000 to $400,000 a year.... Whereas the people at the top who
>make their money out of investments. The former group "are...people
>who actually work," and whose privileges would mostly disappear if
>they stopped. The latter work only to amuse themselves and sustain
>their ideology about "earning" their dividends.
>
>Recognizing the former group and explaining how it is indeed "in the
>middle" strikes me as necessary to a realistic and convincing
>analysis of this society. Telling them (and others) that doctors
>and lawyers are just workers seems to me to be as wrong as calling
>them capitalists. They are tweeners.

We could use concepts of classes (thinking in terms of relations of classes to the ownership and control of means of production) and strata (thinking in terms of incomes and other differences) at the same time, in order to keep track of, for instance, the trend of proletarianization (for which the concept of classes is indispensable) while recognizing income and other differences within the working class (for which the idea of strata within each class should be useful).

To take just one example, medical doctors who have private practices making $200,000 a year and medical doctors who earn the salary of $200,000 a year from hospitals, to take just one example, do not have the same relation to capital and the state, even though they have exactly the same pre-tax income. The former are petty producers, while the latter are workers albeit very well paid ones.

Kelley wrote:
>At 12:14 AM 1/21/2005, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>if they can't rely on their family members' self-exploitation), so Bill's
>>family members can't be said to be putting downward wage pressures and
>>eroding industry standards. I'm not even sure if we can talk about wages
>>here. Presumably, the living standards of Bill's wife, mother, children,
>>and mother-in-law are more positively correlated with the store's profits
>>than with their "wages," which puts them into a different class than
>>workers for the bigger union and non-union grocery stores.
>
>Is self-exploiation even possible? Seriously. I ask because Carrol
>once made the argument that a violinist isn't exploiting someone if
>he hires another muscian to play a gig.

Self-exploitation usually refers to the idea that market competition and financial obligations to the landlord, creditors, government authorities, etc. compel a self-employed person to work longer and harder than what's necessary for her own subsistence, often working longer and harder than a wage worker doing the same thing in the same industry would, simply to reproduce the conditions of her self-employment (i.e., not to go bankrupt, lose her business, and become a proletarian).

If neither market competition nor financial obligations to the landlord, creditors, government authorities, etc. force a self-employed person to produce more than what she needs for her own subsistence, presumably she is not exploiting herself. Are there many small business owners in such a position? Doubtful. -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and <http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list