The illuminati?

[exchemist]

Class differences are an integral part of economic systems

You cannot divorce class from economics

You'll need to explain to me why you think that is so.

There is nothing I can see in an economic system that requires the existence of different social classes. Obviously you can divide any society into classes, on some basis or other, but you are saying that they are "integral" to economic systems, i.e. they must exist for the economic system to function. I can't see that, myself. Can you elaborate?

 

[Eddi]

You'll need to explain to me why you think that is so.

There is nothing I can see in an economic system that requires the existence of different social classes. Obviously you can divide any society into classes, on some basis or other, but you are saying that they are "integral" to economic systems, i.e. they must exist for the economic system to function. I can't see that, myself. Can you elaborate?

OK, let's use industrial capitalism as an example...

In industrial capitalism there is an arrangement:

Some people own the means of production but don't perform any labour themselves: the capitalists

Instead, they purchase the labour power of people who they get to work using the means of production (that are owned by the capitalists): the workers

The capitalists get to keep all the profit the workers produce. They also squeeze the workers. That's how they get rich. The workers don't get the profit they produce, that goes to the bosses. The entire relationship is essentially exploitative. And the interests of each class opposes the interests of the other class.

The entire arrangement produces two classes of people, each defined by how they relate to each other and to the means of production

Indeed, industrial capitalism itself is defined by a certain type of class relations

Every economic system is an arrangement that involves different classes of people

Karl Marx explains it better than I can. Here's a link: Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

 

[exchemist]

OK, let's use industrial capitalism as an example...

In industrial capitalism there is an arrangement:

Some people own the means of production but don't perform any labour themselves: the capitalists

Instead, they purchase the labour power of people who they get to work using the means of production (that are owned by the capitalists): the workers

The capitalists get to keep all the profit the workers produce. They also squeeze the workers. That's how they get rich. The workers don't get the profit they produce, that goes to the bosses. The entire relationship is essentially exploitative. And the interests of each class opposes the interests of the other class.

The entire arrangement produces two classes of people, each defined by how they relate to each other and to the means of production

Indeed, industrial capitalism itself is defined by a certain type of class relations

Every economic system is an arrangement that involves different classes of people

Karl Marx explains it better than I can. Here's a link: Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

But this is rubbish. Anyone with a pension plan owns some of the "means of production" of a series of enterprises. That applies to a high proportion of the entire working population.

The notion that there is a whole class of people who don't do any work themselves but just own enterprises is nonsense. And actually, even people who work in banking or investment funds do work - very hard in most most cases. Funding worthwhile enterprises is valuable work. (The idea that owners of businesses are fat, top-hatted, cigar-smoking people at the races all day is a pre-war caricature. )

And what is "labour", in a modern service economy in which half the working population works from behind a desk?

These terms, and the associated assumptions, are a century out of date.

By all means let's criticise the things that have gone wrong in the market economies of the world. God knows there is plenty that needs to be corrected. But to do that we need to raise our game beyond simplistic caricatures.

 

[Eddi]

But this is rubbish. Anyone with a pension plan owns some of the "means of production" of a series of enterprises. That applies to a high proportion of the entire working population.

The notion that there is a whole class of people who don't do any work themselves but just own enterprises is nonsense. And actually, even people who work in banking or investment funds do work - very hard in most most cases. Funding worthwhile enterprises is valuable work. (The idea that owners of businesses are fat, top-hatted, cigar-smoking people at the races all day is a pre-war caricature. )

And what is "labour", in a modern service economy in which half the working population works from behind a desk?

These terms, and the associated assumptions, are a century out of date.

By all means let's criticise the things that have gone wrong in the market economies of the world. God knows there is plenty that needs to be corrected. But to do that we need to raise our game beyond simplistic caricatures.

Yes, the illustration I used is of 19th century capitalism, because it is so much more simple

Things are obviously different in today's capitalism - much more complex, but everything is still all about socio-economic class

Look at the difference between the life and power of a retired middle-class person (with some modest investments in a tech company) and the life and power of a wage-slave toiling on a production line in some hell-hole in China (owned by the tech company) - The retiree doesn't actually do anything yet they keep a portion of the profits made by the workers. Exploitation whether you like it or not.

So yes, not all capitalists smoke cigars and wear top-hats, but class is still a thing...

...a very complex and important thing

And regarding labour - labour power is a commodity most humans have, you are still selling your time and energy when you work at a desk, just as much as if you're digging a hole

 

[exchemist]

Yes, the illustration I used is of 19th century capitalism, because it is so much more simple

Things are obviously different in today's capitalism - much more complex, but everything is still all about socio-economic class

Look at the difference between the life and power of a retired middle-class person (with some modest investments in a tech company) and the life and power of a wage-slave toiling on a production line in some hell-hole in China (owned by the tech company) - The retiree doesn't actually do anything yet they keep a portion of the profits made by the workers. Exploitation whether you like it or not.

So yes, not all capitalists smoke cigars and wear top-hats, but class is still a thing...

...a very complex and important thing

And regarding labour - labour power is a commodity most humans have, you are still selling your time and energy when you work at a desk, just as much as if you're digging a hole

Nobody denies that "class is a thing". What I am challenging is your assertion that an economics system needs a class system in order to function. I don't think you have established that, so far.

On the contrary:
i) plenty of people, from a variety of classes, own shares in companies and thus are technically "capitalists". So being a "capitalist" is not restricted to any class. (By the way, a pension plan is accumulated during the working life of the person it is intended for - that is the point of it. So it is not the preserve of just retired people - who have also worked for many years to earn their retirement, incidentally.)
ii) The existence of hell-holes in China is due to the lack of political power of the citizens of China, which is a one-party state controlled by the Communist Party. Those hell-holes do not exist in the democracies of the West, as a result of political power of the citizens over several centuries. The modern economy does not require these hell-holes to exist in order to function.

 

[Eddi]

your assertion that an economics system needs a class system in order to function.

That's not really what I meant

I meant that economic systems produce different classes of people, according to how the economy is socially orgasnized - the organisation of the economy means the some people relate to the economy in one way, and others in other ways

And I'm not talking about social status, I'm talking about socio-economic class. The two are different yet often confused - I believe that it would be theoretically possible for a capitalist system (of a given nation) with socio-economic class differentiation to be totally equal, regarding the social status of each human

 

[exchemist]

That's not really what I meant

I meant that economic systems produce different classes of people, according to how the economy is socially orgasnized - the organisation of the economy means the some people relate to the economy in one way, and others in other ways

And I'm not talking about social status, I'm talking about socio-economic class. The two are different yet often confused - I believe that it would be theoretically possible for a capitalist system (of a given nation) with socio-economic class differentiation to be totally equal, regarding the social status of each human

Ah OK, that's a more understandable point of view. However I'm not sure I understanding what you mean by socio-economic class. My impression of a market economy is that people have multiple roles as economic actors. For example, how would a postman, with a secure job and a company pension scheme, differ in socio-economic class from a middle manager in a manufacturing company, also with a secure job and a pension scheme? It seems to me both are workers and both are capitalists. Both are also customers of many other businesses. And both may have debt, in the form of a mortgage or a bank loan of some sort.

I'm not sure I see them as occupying different classes as economic actors.

 

[Eddi]

It seems to me both are workers and both are capitalists.

I would say they are - to some people they're the capitalist, to others they're the workers

If this is the case then Marx was very, very wrong about the future of capitalist societies!

 

[exchemist]

I would say they are - to some people they're the capitalist, to others they're the workers

If this is the case then Marx was very, very wrong about the future of capitalist societies!

Well exactly. We know Marx was wrong. That is one of the great lessons of the c.20th.

In my opinion he failed to see firstly how his idea would be hijacked and perverted in Russia, China etc. to lead to monstrous tyranny, and secondly, how the capitalist countries would modify their politics, via the labour movement and trade unions, to rein in the excesses of the system. It is democracy that has led to capitalism being brought under control and spread ever more widely, so that the old divisions have become blurred.

Mind you, we have new challenges now, in the form of the new socio-economic class sometimes called the Precariat. These are the people who work in the "gig" economy, without any job security, fixed hours or income and no pension provision. They have no unions to represent them and often have little economic power, unless they have a marketable skill that is in demand. Growth of the Precariat has been a byproduct of de-industrialisation and in my opinion needs further political action to tighten employment standards and ensure a better way of life for its members.

So although Marx was wrong, his way of thinking about economies and societies still has its uses, I think.

 

[Eddi]

Well exactly. We know Marx was wrong. That is one of the great lessons of the c.20th.

I still think he was right about class being the most fundamental social category, and being a thing that emerges from economic realities

But yes, he certainly was wrong about many things!