[colinbaker62]

Thank you Bluejay for this response. Your thoughts are most interesting and my apologies for not replying a little sooner. If I may, I'd like to work through them one at a time.

I find the distinction between the owners of a business and those who work in a business (described as "classes") a bit artificial. Perhaps it has to do with connotations I have for the word "class" (implying a designation that doesn't allow mobility). But since anyone can both be hired to work for a company as well as own a company and hire others (perhaps even at the same time), painting a picture that shows people forced into one of two "classes" (where one is oppressed and chained for life) seems inaccurate to me..

I think your general conception of the term 'class' is indeed a common one. Many people view classes as relating to people who are doing one or other job. Sometimes also, it is applied to the kind of house one owns or the number of cars one owns etc..This latter phenomenon is rife across contemporary Britain at present. People seem to think they can buy a new car (often with high interest finance), add an extension to their existing home and bingo! they are middle class. I agree with you as well, when you point out that mobility is a real phenomenon under conditions of capitalism.

My own thoughts on these particular matters would go something like this. For me, class is a material phenomenon indeed, but not in the sense of how many cars you own or how many houses etc...It is to do with one's legal relationship to the social means of production and consequently, the resulting social product or a share thereof. Those who own such means (whether outright or by way of a controlling stake) for me, are capitalists and moreover, will be compelled to behave as such. Conversely, those having no ownership rights, or largely insignificant ownership rights (perhaps a few shares for example) over the means of production are, for me, working class albeit often with radically different work experiences and relationships to the property owners themselves.

As to the issue of mobility. I think the origins of such a phenomenon are to be found in the capitalist system itself. These 'mobile people' are a consequence of a social system that requires equal rights before the law for each and every individual (at least on paper) because such rights were initially necessary to help establish and consolidate the capitalist system itself. The fact still remains however, that such mobility is at best patchy. It is one thing to be told you are as equal as the next person. It is quite another to freely exercise such a right. The same goes for free speech and all the rest of it. Mobility like anything else under conditions of capitalism, will I believe, be ultimately conditioned by property rights.

There are a number of things that you attribute negative qualities to that I don't (or haven't). One is the specialization of workers. Why would it preferable to have people who know a little of everything as opposed to those who are specialists in what they do? Would things operate as well if everyone was a "jack of all trade, master of none"? For example, I've been a computer programmer for over 20 years. I love doing it, I think I'm pretty good at it, the people I work with want me to keep doing it with them, and I get paid well for it. I have thought about changing job fields just to expand myself (and, to be honest, the reduction in pay for such a switch can be a deterrent), but I don't think that being really good at what I do and letting others do what they're good at is a negative. It seems like everybody wins..

I think it would be preferable because humans are not merely creatures to be put to work in one or other task, and perhaps forever. This is, and always has been a consequence of exploitative relationships since they arose in human history. And yes, exploitation and the artificial division of labour (not only techniques but people's capacities) were necessary in their time as the only means of advancing the human species. However, we are now at a stage in which our productive forces under conditions of capitalism have become so massively powerful and on a social scale, that the need for the subordination of people to the division of labour, along with the existence of classes has become a fetter on further human development. Our potential human capacities are almost limitless given we are the only animal on the planet capable of conceptual thought. This potential is, in my view, currently thwarted for each of us is tied to a part of the productive machine. We need to become rounded human beings, and not remain atomised as is currently the case. Division of techniques, yes. Division of human capacities and the existence of antagonistic classes of people, no.

Now, obviously, that perspective is from that of the workplace. That's what helps a business be successful so that the employees have their livlihood. Is it rewarding on a personal level? That's up to the invididual. And there's no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence. My company recognizes that having people burn out is a "bad thing"; time off is encouraged as well as is a flexible schedule to allow for family needs..

I found this section of your reply very interesting, essentially because for me, it (by which I mean the issue of work) goes to the heart of capitalist society. I couldn't agree with the claim that the potential for a personally rewarding working life rests with the individual. If nothing else because such an idea for me, overlooks the objective relationship existing between the employee and the employer. Try as an employee taking time off whenevr you like and see what happens!

I would agree however, that some employers are becoming more aware of the fact that many employees are burning themselves out for one or other boss. Of course then the obvious questions arise. For example why is it, with so much science and technology available to us westerners, people are still being driven to 'burn themselves out'? It would seem that such science and technology is not primarily developed with the aim of making the worker's life any more pleasant than it need be. Similarly, what objective factors are motivating some people to work in such an inhumane fashion? Who benefits from this kind of labour intensification? Why has work become more intensified generally?

I particularly found your claim about there being 'no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence' of the utmost interest. The first thing to say on this matter is that work is indeed the be-all and end-all of human existence. Without human productive activity both with wider nature and of course, among and between one another as humans, the species would perish. Work must be undertaken and history shows us that this is indeed what we have been doing as a species since descending from the trees. The question is always there of course as to how best organise as the most efficient means of undertaking this necessary work. As I say in the above essay, this historically determined pattern of organisation has thus far in human history, arisen spontaneously and naturally on account of our lack of conscious understanding and control over the various social fiorces at work in wider society. Consequently, work assumes the natural characteristics it does in capitalist society. Work of course was of a very different kind under conditions of feudalism, and different again, in the ancient world under conditions of slavery.

When Marx argued that work must become life's prime want, he was essentially arguing that work must be brought onto the human(e) plain. Humans cannot avoid work (unless in today's world you are rich). Thus it is reasonable to try to undertake such work in a human manner. This, of course, is yet to happen and certainly cannot be the case under conditions of capitalistic exploitation. Thus do many people grow to hate their job, or else try every excuse not to work etc....Should we ever arrive at a society however, devoid of class antagonisms and ipso facto exploitation; a society based on rational and disinterested criticism and self-criticism would then become possible as the means of solving problems of a social kind. Then I think, work would indeed become life's prime want because everyone would benefit by working, and not for money, but simply for the collective sake of the species. Simply to assist one's fellow being for its own sake.

So, you may say, not all businesses are like that. For sure. But my point is that intolerable work conditions are not a necessary result of the capitalist machine. And it's in the best interest of businesses to keep their employees happy, since it's the employees who make the business a success...

This kind of reasoning reminded me a little of the pioneering work and underlying attitude of Robert Owen. In Scotland in the nineteenth century as you may well be aware, Owen asserted exactly this kind of attitude, namely to look after the workforce and they will, in turn so the theory goes, look after the property-owner. Indeed, he put it into practice. Where it ultimately failed I think, was on account of its mechanistic character. Such a belief that people who are looked after will work better is essentially a view of humanity as a mcahine. Just like a well serviced watch, keep it oiled etc and it will give good service. The trouble with this, (and Owen realised this in the end) is that it does nothing to alter the relationship between boss and worker. It is essentially an argument for a more tolerable form of exploitation. And without any doubt, if the boss felt the material need to start cracking the whip again, then crack it he or she most certainly would. Moreover, it is always worth considering what it is we are producing. Is it socially useful? Does it stand to enrich the material and cultural life of society en masse or just a small clique of society?

The notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there to me. People have always looked for ways to brighten their lives a bit, whether it be watching television, reading a book, going to symphonies, playing in the streets, etc. It has existed forever, capitalist society or no. Do non-capitalist countries not have such shows? To me, that would be dreary. ..

You may well be correct in your judgment when you suggest that 'the notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there'. Perhaps it appears this way, because only one kind of example was drawn upon. My own view is that such TV does naturally and unconsciously play a part in inducing passivity in the minds of many of those who watch these cultural offerings. And yes, the capitalist class did not invent entertainment. The point is to ask why it exists under capitalism and why in its current form? If we start from the premise that there are no such things as causeless phenomena, then the phenomenon that is, entertainment, must have a material basis somewhere or other. That was my guiding thesis throughout I suppose.

I see cooking shows as a product, just like anything else. That makes them tied into the "capitalist machine" along with everything else, but why is that a problem? Cooking shows exist because people want to watch them. ..

This is undoubtedly true. But surely the point is, to ask why? Why do millions of people warm so readily to such TV? What is the underlying reality motivating them to embrace TV as they do? In short, I believe in such circumstances we need to ask; what is the origin and ongoing source of social influence of these people's thinking?



Thank you again Bluejay for your reply. It was so interesting that it triggered many thoughts in my mind. And consequently, I have rambled for which I apologise in advance.




Colin