yea figured out that whatever "property" intellectual skills fall under would constitute a fundamentally different social relation than the strict relation to the means of production. obviously accreditations that increase labor power is not capital.
i also figured that what i meant by language issues could more accurately be assessed as "is it possible for there to be contradictory locations within class relations?"
what do you think about the idea that the proletariat is the people that "have nothing but their labor power" ?
and what about wage earners that receive a wage in excess of the value of their labor power? like top managers of a company etc
Intellectual skills aren't property, they are just aspects of labor power, same as with physical skills. They just increase what you can achieve in any given hour of labor, for example, a trained laborer might build 5 chairs in an hour, while the untrained one builds 1 chair in an hour, things like that.
The intellectual skills also don't fall out of the sky, the doctor once was a medical student, and his professors once were medical students, and there is the whole upkeep of the hospital and the university and everything going around ... all that labor by others is "embedded" inside the laborer, the same way the value of the wood used to build the chair is embedded inside the chair's value.
As for contradictions, of course they are possible, one big contradiction is that many proletarian families become landlords as the parents age and have to think about retirement funds. Are they comparable to big landlords or real estate companies? No, they are not, they are just renting out an apartment here or there. Similar dynamics appear with home ownership, it changes the relation between proletarian and capital even if they remain mostly proletarians. "Proletarian landlords" are a such a contradiction that does exist, like pensioners having some property after a lifetime of being wage laborers.
The proletarians do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as petit bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits and/or becomes rentiers.
The top wage earners like CEOs are often owners as well, they might not own the company outright, but they have such an excess of cash that they invest into stocks, or their wages include stock options and so on. I would argue the same for very successful professional athletes - they have wages, but their wages are so vast that they can and will easily invest their capital onto non-consumption spheres and thus become bourgeois in the process
Intellectual skills aren't property, they are just aspects of labor power, same as with physical skills. They just increase what you can achieve in any given hour of labor, for example, a trained laborer might build 5 chairs in an hour, while the untrained one builds 1 chair in an hour, things like that.
The intellectual skills also don't fall out of the sky, the doctor once was a medical student, and his professors once were medical students, and there is the whole upkeep of the hospital and the university and everything going around ... all that labor by others is "embedded" inside the laborer, the same way the value of the wood used to build the chair is embedded inside the chair's value.
As for contradictions, of course they are possible, one big contradiction is that many proletarian families become landlords as the parents age and have to think about retirement funds. Are they comparable to big landlords or real estate companies? No, they are not, they are just renting out an apartment here or there. Similar dynamics appear with home ownership, it changes the relation between proletarian and capital even if they remain mostly proletarians. "Proletarian landlords" are a such a contradiction that does exist, like pensioners having some property after a lifetime of being wage laborers.
The proletarians do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as petit bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits and/or becomes rentiers.
The top wage earners like CEOs are often owners as well, they might not own the company outright, but they have such an excess of cash that they invest into stocks, or their wages include stock options and so on. I would argue the same for very successful professional athletes - they have wages, but their wages are so vast that they can and will easily invest their capital onto non-consumption spheres and thus become bourgeois in the process
definitely and i think my general confusion over the past couple days has been on those sore spots where the contradictions between these categories lies. that erik olin wright essay i posted on the last page definitely helped a lot and outlined what i also believe to be the correct methodology in "determining" class.
in short, contradictory class location can exist, determined along three axes: expropriation of surplus labor, performing the global function (domination) of capital and performing the function of the collective worker (based around the idea that the division of labor has split up the individual's control over the labor process).
where i was getting confused with doctor's and other over earning wagies is also mentioned, but there is no methodology for appropriately determining them as all a part of a single class, the petty bourgeoisie.
as marx has very scarcely provided a systematic definition of class, there is a point of specificity where marxists end up diverging. however, "Marxism is not fundamentally a theory of class structure. It is above all a theory of class struggle and social change. The a***ysis of class structure is intended not as the end point of an investigation, but as the starting point ... While it is important to decipher the structure of those empty places within the social relations of production, there is no simple one-to-one correspondence between those places and organized classes. How those places get translated into actual classes is itself and object of class struggle ... While class struggles will still shape the ways in which proletarian 'empty places' are actually organized as a class, there is no ambiguity about the class into which they are being organized. A structural class map involving contradictory locations within class relations thus makes possible the differential a***ysis of ways in which class struggle affects how the positions within that structure become formed into organized classes."
thanks for spending all the effort to respond to my very unorganized questions btw and here's the essay i think - whether you agree on the conclusions or not - you would probably find it interesting
ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/MarxistConceptsofClassStructure.pdf
Reading about how in 19th century bourgeois revolutions peasants frequently side with the monarch or the church, and its made me realize that just like how people today support Capitalism by default no matter how exploited they are, people living in other historical times probably did too. Ties in with this other thing about how people enslaved in viking society didn't think slavery was wrong they'd just think they were in unfortunate circumstances. I wonder how a slave in ancient greece would think of his circumstances.
Reading about how in 19th century bourgeois revolutions peasants frequently side with the monarch or the church, and its made me realize that just like how people today support Capitalism by default no matter how exploited they are, people living in other historical times probably did too. Ties in with this other thing about how people enslaved in viking society didn't think slavery was wrong they'd just think they were in unfortunate circumstances. I wonder how a slave in ancient greece would think of his circumstances.
in relation to the enslaved in ancient greece, you would probably find the real life history of Sparta very fascinating
in relation to the enslaved in ancient greece, you would probably find the real life history of Sparta very fascinating
Do you recommend anything?
Reading about how in 19th century bourgeois revolutions peasants frequently side with the monarch or the church, and its made me realize that just like how people today support Capitalism by default no matter how exploited they are, people living in other historical times probably did too. Ties in with this other thing about how people enslaved in viking society didn't think slavery was wrong they'd just think they were in unfortunate circumstances. I wonder how a slave in ancient greece would think of his circumstances.
I mean life as a serf wasn't necessarily always worse than as a 19th century factory worker
TPLF really needs to be defeated once and for all these mfs will always cause trouble in the Ethiopia and the horn
Do you recommend anything?
‘Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messania’ by Nino Luraghi & Susan Alcock but i can’t find a free source atm, there’s also a more stylized piece called ‘this isn’t sparta’ which is still pretty accurate
nvm found one:
chs.harvard.edu/book/luraghi-nino-and-susan-e-alcock-eds-helots-and-the-masters-in-laconia-and-messenia
@Scratchin_Bandit wanted to ask you, does that WFP food program in Ethopia actually do anything good for people who need it or nah?
@Scratchin_Bandit wanted to ask you, does that WFP food program in Ethopia actually do anything good for people who need it or nah?
I'm sure they do some actual aid but it seems like their biggest contribution is providinh fuel for terrorists
I'm sure they do some actual aid but it seems like their biggest contribution is providinh fuel for terrorists
TPLF really needs to be defeated once and for all these mfs will always cause trouble in the Ethiopia and the horn
bro explain this to me coz I must have this all messed up
my understanding is
am I way off?
even some of the Amhara people seem to be quite disgusted with whats happening and have shown some support for Tigray which looks like it usually doesnt happen
And the UN kept repeating the TPLF narrative about fuel shortages for the WFP
Honestly at this point it wouldn't surprise me at all if it wasn't just a coincidence but an actual conspiracy.
TPLF always used these dirty tactics funneling humanitarian aid for their fighting as rebels, they did the same thing with the money raised by we are the world
even some of the Amhara people seem to be quite disgusted with whats happening and have shown some support for Tigray which looks like it usually doesnt happen
I'll respond to your other post but absolutely no amhara supports the TPLF, nobody does except the OLA out of convenience rn
I'll respond to your other post but absolutely no amhara supports the TPLF, nobody does except the OLA out of convenience rn
Talking about Amharas in the diaspora and not the TPLF but I suppose just the people of Tigray
Have seen a few people who have been cut off from communication from their family for several months at a time
Also the reports of mass and systemic rape which seem to be substantiated by a few sources
bro explain this to me coz I must have this all messed up
my understanding is
am I way off?
None of the exact facts are wrong per se but you're missing a lot of context, which is unferstandable, Ethiopian politics is a mess and there really are no good guys, only worse guys (among whom the TPLF is by far the worst). But the support from Tigrayans for the TPLF goes back further than the war, the thing is among many ethnic groups there are a lot that don't subscribe to ethnonationalist politics, but those that don't are excluded from politics, the extremists are the ones most involved. This is the worst in the diaspora.
Talking about Amharas in the diaspora and not the TPLF but I suppose just the people of Tigray
Have seen a few people who have been cut off from communication from their family for several months at a time
Also the reports of mass and systemic rape which seem to be substantiated by a few sources
Amharas in the diaspora supporting the TPLF you mean?
There have definitely been atrocities, but the exaggerated claims only directed at the Ethiopian government, as if the TPLF of all parties here is the one that wouldn't stoop to that level is just atrocity propaganda. A lot of these reports are also done by westerners like Alex de Waal or Martin Plaut who have openly expressed their support for the TPLF.
Btw the reason many amharas are again turning more sour on Abiy is because of the Wollega massacre.
Amharas in the diaspora supporting the TPLF you mean?
There have definitely been atrocities, but the exaggerated claims only directed at the Ethiopian government, as if the TPLF of all parties here is the one that wouldn't stoop to that level is just atrocity propaganda. A lot of these reports are also done by westerners like Alex de Waal or Martin Plaut who have openly expressed their support for the TPLF.
Btw the reason many amharas are again turning more sour on Abiy is because of the Wollega massacre.
Nah Amharas in the diaspora supporting Tegarus in the diaspora because they get along quite well here and I suppose the Amharas are sad to see some of the stuff happening in Tigray
Would you say Tigrayans got preferential treatment during that 27 year TPLF run of power? Is that why they're so upset about getting pushed out of government?
I was quite surprised when I tried to read about the history and saw that like all the groups fighting each other at least say they subscribe to Marxist ideology, and that the conflicts are more about ethnic beef and beef over federalism
Nah Amharas in the diaspora supporting Tegarus in the diaspora because they get along quite well here and I suppose the Amharas are sad to see some of the stuff happening in Tigray
Would you say Tigrayans got preferential treatment during that 27 year TPLF run of power? Is that why they're so upset about getting pushed out of government?
I was quite surprised when I tried to read about the history and saw that like all the groups fighting each other at least say they subscribe to Marxist ideology, and that the conflicts are more about ethnic beef and beef over federalism
Oh well yeah the people of Tigray definitely get sympathy, it's the TPLF that people have their hate for.
And yeah the TPLF did give preferential treatment to them, but honestly it's more the elites that really got the most preferential treatment, most of the Tigrayan people themselves didn't really benefit from it so much.
And yeah the Marxist ideology part is a joke lmao. The TPLF claimed to be Marxist for support, but Meles went to the US to meet with CIA agents and other officials to clarify that he's not a Marxist to get US support
The conflict is entirely about ethnic tensions. When the TPLF came into power they did a lot of revisionist history to stoke or at least worsen ethnic grievances of the past and use that as a strategy of divide and conquer. Meles was scum, but he was competent and able to keep this house of cards together and stable, now it's all falling apart.
Where in the world are you btw Scratchin?
I know there's a huuuuge pocket of Habesh people in the DMV but you seem to be up during Euro hours
Where in the world are you btw Scratchin?
I know there's a huuuuge pocket of Habesh people in the DMV but you seem to be up during Euro hours
Yeah im euro hrs i live in the Netherlands
Got a lot of family in the DMV and north america in general
Oh well yeah the people of Tigray definitely get sympathy, it's the TPLF that people have their hate for.
And yeah the TPLF did give preferential treatment to them, but honestly it's more the elites that really got the most preferential treatment, most of the Tigrayan people themselves didn't really benefit from it so much.
And yeah the Marxist ideology part is a joke lmao. The TPLF claimed to be Marxist for support, but Meles went to the US to meet with CIA agents and other officials to clarify that he's not a Marxist to get US support
The conflict is entirely about ethnic tensions. When the TPLF came into power they did a lot of revisionist history to stoke or at least worsen ethnic grievances of the past and use that as a strategy of divide and conquer. Meles was scum, but he was competent and able to keep this house of cards together and stable, now it's all falling apart.
Man are there any socialist groups who are trying to overcome ethnic divisions and build a broad workers' movement? I wanna start getting my news from them. If they f***ing exist