The Precariat – The new dangerous class

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

Added some important info to #3 be sure to reread that section.

[eric]

I think you're overestimating the problem and trying to apply historical models to a whole new paradigm while discounting the rise/role of intangible intellectual creations.

I think a prime example is that while many people focus on manufacturing (and I agree, to the extent that we manufacture air craft engines, etc) as the bedrock of the economy, the actual profit comes from the creation and intellectual property management.

the material cost for an iPhone isn't much. If you took the individual pieces and tried to sell them, you just wouldn't make much money (example, China), but when you put the components together in a certain fashion, based on an idea you have, aha! eureka! you've just become a billionaire.

While the service sector is somewhat of a problem if that's all you do, focusing on manufacturing as a solution instead doesn't really solve the problem either.

In turn, the social ills of the country stem from government marginalization of groups, and mis-alocation of resources.

[The Dharma Bum]

I'm not really saying we should return to manufacturing as a source of middle class incomes in a capitalistic society as much as I am saying we should try to move beyond consumerism and commodity fetishism. Without these factors of social control a lot of the demand for manufactured good is curtailed, which is better for the environment and the direction we should be moving.

I'm thinking more along the lines of establishing the means of production, in whatever form it may take, as a commonality rather than as private property controlled by private individuals. Whether this consists mainly of manufacturing or some other industry is of little relevance precisely because, as you correctly pointed out, the source of many social ills is due to marginalization of various groups and to misallocation of funds.

If we eliminate private property and institute common ownership of the means of production it will be a matter of taking direct action to address both marginalization of all workers, as well as the misallocation of funds that is inherent in systems of private property.

No other solution is adequate to the task at hand.

[eric]

A problem I have with moving away from consumerism is that it slows growth. Our problem, imo, is that we need another planet, not that people have a fetish with buying iPads. Without people building things, regardless of whether it's junk or not, we'd have to subsidize their living expenses, and in turn you have a group of people that are just living to live without creating wealth.

Even assuming common means, you still have to put people to work doing something, and you can't divorce the value of specialized labor from the creation of new tangible goods/ideas.

I think the end result of this is that you have common means, sure maybe that's a good thing( idk, but for the sake of argument) and no other real change. Those common means still require some sort of quasi-government to run.

Whereas in a private, anarchist system you completely remove the government and all such structures unless they are completely voluntary.

[The Dharma Bum]

I'm talking about a completely stateless libertarian socialist system.

There are many real world examples of worker managed businesses, there's no need for a quasi-governmental entity to manage production. See my thread about ParEcon. It's an alternative distribution philosophy to both market systems and centrally planned systems.

In the other hand, if you don't address the power differential between the owning class and the individual then you are ignoring a tyranny as great or greater than the state. State and owning class work together to create institutionalized systems of repression and to alienate and isolate individuals so they can't resist collectively.

At least the old proletarian class could unionize and fight back, winning concessions that lasted several decades, although that progress has been since subverted and destroyed by outsourcing. The new servile precariat class has no chance whatsoever to organize and demand conditions that would allow individuals in that class to actualize.

The jobs that are available to people in a servile economy basically turn humans into human toilet paper.

[eric]

Those businesses exist on a small scale. The issue is when you get to the level of corporations.

And yes I know you're talking about libertarian socialism. Which I'm ok with, so long as it's voluntary and it's not done as a system of government. If people decide to organize in that fashion, so be it, so long as they are not using violence or coercion to make others behave the same way.

For me? I'd never build a business and give it to the workers. It would be my creation, so it would be mine to do what I wanted with.

[The Dharma Bum]

Personally owned means of production that are worked by the owners and their families are not a problem.

[eric]

Why can't I hire somebody else then?

[The Dharma Bum]

It's not so much that you couldn't hire someone, but more why would they seek employment when they already belong to a collective society and enjoy the entire product of their labor and have their basic needs met as a basic human right? The social condition that forces someone into a subservient social role in order to survive simply wouldn't exist in a truly liberated society.

Basically you, as a potential "employer", wouldn't have the leverage of poverty to use to impose wage slavery. I guess if people believed in your vision they may do what you wanted them to. But there would be an entirely different motivating force for society. Production wouldn't be geared toward constant growth wasted to fuel a vicious circle of consumption and commodity fetishism. Products would be built to last instead of as quickly and cheaply as possible as throwaway garbage.

The waste associated with the lifestyle of gross conspicuous consumption would be eliminated. The whole rat race thing would be gone, which is the point. Humans would be free to work as they choose. Social relations wouldn't always be a commercial transaction, it would be voluntary interaction between actualized equal adults.

If you wanted to produce cutting edge tech you would have to convince people of your vision and have them share in that vision as a community to design and produce a quality product for the use of the community.