OptionalChicago Mayor Issues Defiant Call For A General Strike
It’s never happened before because the working class has never been unified nationwide before. Soybean farmers in Utah are not connected to teachers in Boston or steelworkers in Pittsburgh or auto manufacturers in Michigan or nurses in San Diego. There’s never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.
If it ever could happen, it would be because the President was a colossal dipshit who fucked every aspect of the economy across the country, except that would almost certainly cause the legislature to put an end to such rampant and corrupt tyranny.
Right?
queermunist she/herYou think soy bean farmers are working class?
Yeah, the guy who owns the farm that borders my yard is just some dude with a full time job. He spends a couple days driving a big tractor thing planting in the spring, and several more days in the fall driving a different big tractor thing around to harvest it. Soybeans and corn on rotation.
Farmers do plenty of work besides driving their tractor around, but class relations are defined by their relations to property and capital and profit rather than how much work they do. He owns the land, and the tractor, and reaps all the profit. He’s small business owner, and his politics probably align with other small business owners.
SamYeah, there's certainly a fair petite bourgeois population among farmers, but I think you overestimate its size. Many farmers might own the land... if it weren't still under morgage to the bank. The tractor is almost certainly also still on loan from the dealership since the same "trade in for new, better equipment" scam is as prevalent there as it is for personal vehicles. The corn and especially soybeans aren't something that can be sold directly at scale (farmers' markets can only support so much) unlike dairy which you can theoretically turn to regional groceries for -- you're selling to one of a small number of processors and aggregators, and if they decide they don't need as much as you sold them last year you're left scrabbling for something to do with a lot of worthless product. At the end of the year, most of the profit has gone right back to the financiers rather than to the farmer themself.
The evident situation is different for a farmer than for a factory worker, but tenant farmers are proletarian, and modern commercial farming is often closer to tenant farming than it's advertised as being. The financial systems nowdays (especially around farming) are set up to give the trappings of small business ownership, without the degree of self-determination that came with that status back when the foundational theory was being written.
re: @[email protected]
via @[email protected]
The evident situation is different for a farmer than for a factory worker, but tenant farmers are proletarian, and modern commercial farming is often closer to tenant farming than it's advertised as being. The financial systems nowdays (especially around farming) are set up to give the trappings of small business ownership, without the degree of self-determination that came with that status back when the foundational theory was being written.
re: @[email protected]
via @[email protected]
You’ve basically defined all business owners as working class if they rent their storefronts or owe money to a bank.
But a small business owner that pays rents or loans is still not selling their labor to someone else. They own the full surplus value of their labor and then can use the profits they generate from their business to pay rents and loans. That’s the key difference. The fact that petite bourgeoisie are at the whims of the big bourgeoisie does not actually change the fact that their class interests align against the working class. There’s a reason farmers, like all small business owners, are so reactionary and anti-worker and anti-tax and anti-regulation and pro-business.
EDIT All that said? Your argument is actually the basis for Yanis Varoufakis’s technofeudalism theory. As he explains it, rents are triumphing over profits and so the feudalists (banks, tech firms) are able to capture business owners into loans and rents and feudal market places where they are unable to generate profits anymore. They’re still not working class, but more like wealthy landed peasantry paying taxes to their fief. That would actually open up opportunities for alliances between workers and farmers, because class antagonisms have changed.
I disagree. They’re petite bourgeoisie and their class interests are still aligned with the ruling class, and the “feudalists” are just monopoly capital, but it’s an interesting theory. I recommend reading the book, it’s not that long.
I'd say there's a bit of a difference in that a shopkeeper's goods don't depend on any particular storefront (or even any storefront at all with the internet -- or a traveller's cart/van), while a farmer's land is a crucial part of the means of the crops' production. I'm also not saying that simply renting is sufficient to be working class, just that it removes one measure by which someone could be pushed out of it.
I also wonder if we're talking past each other due to misaligned definitions. On one end of the spectrum you have large-scale agricultural business owners who spend their days in the office managing the people who do the actual labour; they're definitely bourgeois. On the other you have the farmhands themselves who do largely fall into the proletariat. The people I'm talking about are the small farmers in between, who don't have a boss per se but also don't employ anyone in turn (at most they enlist a grown child or a long-time friend for a day or two's parnership to rush the harvest in when weather begins building on the horizon); who only have the one or two fields stretching out behind their own house and who aren't in any position to consider expanding.
And given the widespread political illiteracy driven by teamerism I don't think we can rely on what any person or group of people supports to reflect their actual class interests. How much of the reactionary, anti-worker support is because of identifying with the party, as opposed to identifying with the party because of those beliefs? (Also, anti-tax and anti-regulation positions aren't uniquely bourgeoise ones, they can also be libertarian/anarchist and intended, even if wrongly, as part of a larger system that is just as focused on empowering the working class.)
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. It does indeed sound like something paralleling my position here. The feudal->capitalist economic distinction has always been a weak point in my understanding, and it'll be interesting to see how Varoufakis characterizes them both.
re: @[email protected]
I also wonder if we're talking past each other due to misaligned definitions. On one end of the spectrum you have large-scale agricultural business owners who spend their days in the office managing the people who do the actual labour; they're definitely bourgeois. On the other you have the farmhands themselves who do largely fall into the proletariat. The people I'm talking about are the small farmers in between, who don't have a boss per se but also don't employ anyone in turn (at most they enlist a grown child or a long-time friend for a day or two's parnership to rush the harvest in when weather begins building on the horizon); who only have the one or two fields stretching out behind their own house and who aren't in any position to consider expanding.
And given the widespread political illiteracy driven by teamerism I don't think we can rely on what any person or group of people supports to reflect their actual class interests. How much of the reactionary, anti-worker support is because of identifying with the party, as opposed to identifying with the party because of those beliefs? (Also, anti-tax and anti-regulation positions aren't uniquely bourgeoise ones, they can also be libertarian/anarchist and intended, even if wrongly, as part of a larger system that is just as focused on empowering the working class.)
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. It does indeed sound like something paralleling my position here. The feudal->capitalist economic distinction has always been a weak point in my understanding, and it'll be interesting to see how Varoufakis characterizes them both.
re: @[email protected]
The value these small farmers obtain is still derived from their labor. They aren’t passively owning a profit creating assets.
But they own their labor. They don’t have to sell their labor to someone else to access land or capital or markets.
A small business owner may derive value from their own labor but that doesn’t make them working class. The important thing is whether they own their own means of production, or they have to sell their labor and be exploited to create surplus value.