Contrary to the claims of many, most unions (at least in the last 50 years) aren’t anti-capitalist. They’re more than happy to always be what one might call the "loyal opposition." As long as they’re outsiders they can rant and rave against management while always sounding pro-worker but never, ever, sounding like they opposed capitalism. Most unions are been quick to disavow any idea that the workers themselves should own and manage the shops and factories. The majority of unions are content with negotiating for better pay and more benefits. Sure, there are a few, like the International Workers of the World (IWW), that go beyond but they’re the exception and not the rule.
Finally, there now seems to be a change for one union.
In October of 2009 the United Steelworkers Union announced they were collaborating with the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) of Spain to explore increasing the number of worker-owned cooperatives here in the US.
According to the USW International President Leo W. Gerard, “We see today's agreement as a historic first step towards making union co-ops a viable business model that can create good jobs, empower workers, and support communities in the United States and Canada.” He went on to say, “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants. We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.”
(Source: SolidarityEconomy.Org)
The MCC President of Mondragron Internacional, Josu Ugarte, stated: “What we are announcing today represents a historic first--combining the world's largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world's most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complimentary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America. We feel inspired to take this step based on our common set of values with the Steelworkers who have proved time and again that the future belongs to those who connect vision and values to people and put all three first.”
There’s simply no way to predict what will come out of this collaboration. As I mentioned in my blog entry of March 30th there is also the Cleveland Model in which several cooperatives haven been formed. One can hope that maybe, just maybe, that collaboration between MCC and the USW along with the Cleveland Model are examples that the dream of an economic democracy is starting to become more than just a dream.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
2012
“The end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.” R.E.M.
Forget all the reports about the world coming to an end in 2012. What everyone should be taking note of is that back on December 21, 2009 the UN declared 2012 to be “The International Year of Cooperatives.”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/dev2784.doc.htm
Leaving aside how generally impotent the UN is at achieving its goals one can’t help but hope that their declaration is a premonition of something great to come.
Forget all the reports about the world coming to an end in 2012. What everyone should be taking note of is that back on December 21, 2009 the UN declared 2012 to be “The International Year of Cooperatives.”
NEW YORK, 21 December (Department of Economic and Social Affairs) -- The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives, highlighting the contribution of cooperatives to socio-economic development. In adopting resolution 64/136 on 18 December, the Assembly noted that cooperatives impact poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration.
A cooperative is an autonomous voluntary association of people who unite to meet common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations, through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. In general, they contribute to socio-economic development.
As self-help organizations that meet the needs of their members, cooperatives assist in generating employment and incomes throughout local communities. Cooperatives provide opportunities for social inclusion. In the informal economy, workers have formed shared service cooperatives and associations to assist in their self-employment. In rural areas, savings and credit cooperatives provide access to banking services that are lacking in many communities and finance the formation of small and micro businesses, promotes inclusive finance.
The cooperative sector worldwide has about 800 million members in over 100 countries and is estimated to account for more than 100 million jobs around the world. The strength and reach of cooperatives are illustrated in the following examples:
* Under the umbrella of the World Council of Credit Unions, 49,000 credit unions serve 177 million members in 96 countries, and 4,200 banks under the European Association of Cooperative Banks serve 149 million clients;
* Agricultural cooperatives account for 80 to 99 per cent of milk production in Norway, New Zealand and the United States; 71 per cent of fishery production in the Republic of Korea; and 40 per cent of agriculture in Brazil;
* Electric cooperatives play a key role in rural areas. In Bangladesh, rural electric cooperatives serve 28 million people. In the United States, 900 rural electric cooperatives serve 37 million people and own almost half of the electric distribution lines in the country.
International Years are declared by the United Nations to draw attention to major issues and encourage action. To commemorate the Year, regional conferences will raise awareness of cooperatives and seek ways to leverage their contribution to socio-economic development and foster regulatory frameworks. A research agenda will be proposed and Member States are to form national committees that will serve as focal points for the Year’s activities.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/dev2784.doc.htm
Leaving aside how generally impotent the UN is at achieving its goals one can’t help but hope that their declaration is a premonition of something great to come.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Cleveland Model
Due to my health problems this entry is shorter than I had hoped. I apologize to my readers for its brevity.
There’s something exciting happening in the Buckeye State. While most of the corporate media is fixated on the crass politics going on in Congress there are some events taking place in the American heartland that are important in the movement towards creating an economic democracy. The few articles that are appearing in the media, while brief, are providing glimpses into these exciting developments.
The Evergreen Cooperative Initiative of Cleveland, Ohio is actively creating worker-owned cooperatives based on the Mondragon Cooperative. According to an article in Time Magazine this Initiative, which has been dubbed the Cleveland Model, the Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund provides to co-ops, “low-interest, long term financing. In the future, a financial institution more aligned with the Caja Laboral, which also handles consumer savings and lending, might be developed.”
(Source: Time Magazine)
Several of the cooperatives started by the Evergreen Cooperative Initiative are getting special attention in the press. The one that gets the most coverage is the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, which specializes in providing laundry service for the healthcare industry of Cleveland. Another co-op that’s received interest by the press is the Ohio Cooperative Solar (OCS) which specializes in installing large-scale solar panels. According to the Nation the Initiative isn’t stopping with just these two co-ops. It’s creating other co-ops in the Cleveland area such as the Green City Growers (which has a hydroponic garden that’s larger than a Wal-Mart superstore) and a community newspaper “Neighborhood Voice,” which will start printing later this year. (Source: The Nation)
The Cleveland Model is using the principles of Economic Democracy to solve one of the serious problems for starting co-ops, which has been access to investment. The Nation goes on the report that, “each of the Evergreen co-operatives is obligated to pay 10 percent of its pre-tax profits back into the fund to help seed the development of new jobs through additional co-ops. Thus, each business has a commitment to its workers (through living-wage jobs, affordable health benefits and asset accumulation) and to the general community (by creating businesses that can provide stability to neighborhoods).”
Another important feature of this is that it’s occurring from the grassroots level. Historically every change in any mode of production has originated from the bottom up rather than the top down. The potential for the Cleveland Model to be the start of a movement that could someday threaten capitalism is amazing.
Without a doubt the events in Cleveland are fantastic. Yet the Evergreen Cooperative Initiative is just one of several developments that are appearing not only in America but on the international scene. In the future I plan to draw attention to some of the other important developments.
For more information Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, Ohio Cooperative Solar and Green City Growers all share a web site: http://www.evergreencoop.com/
There’s something exciting happening in the Buckeye State. While most of the corporate media is fixated on the crass politics going on in Congress there are some events taking place in the American heartland that are important in the movement towards creating an economic democracy. The few articles that are appearing in the media, while brief, are providing glimpses into these exciting developments.
The Evergreen Cooperative Initiative of Cleveland, Ohio is actively creating worker-owned cooperatives based on the Mondragon Cooperative. According to an article in Time Magazine this Initiative, which has been dubbed the Cleveland Model, the Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund provides to co-ops, “low-interest, long term financing. In the future, a financial institution more aligned with the Caja Laboral, which also handles consumer savings and lending, might be developed.”
(Source: Time Magazine)
Several of the cooperatives started by the Evergreen Cooperative Initiative are getting special attention in the press. The one that gets the most coverage is the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, which specializes in providing laundry service for the healthcare industry of Cleveland. Another co-op that’s received interest by the press is the Ohio Cooperative Solar (OCS) which specializes in installing large-scale solar panels. According to the Nation the Initiative isn’t stopping with just these two co-ops. It’s creating other co-ops in the Cleveland area such as the Green City Growers (which has a hydroponic garden that’s larger than a Wal-Mart superstore) and a community newspaper “Neighborhood Voice,” which will start printing later this year. (Source: The Nation)
The Cleveland Model is using the principles of Economic Democracy to solve one of the serious problems for starting co-ops, which has been access to investment. The Nation goes on the report that, “each of the Evergreen co-operatives is obligated to pay 10 percent of its pre-tax profits back into the fund to help seed the development of new jobs through additional co-ops. Thus, each business has a commitment to its workers (through living-wage jobs, affordable health benefits and asset accumulation) and to the general community (by creating businesses that can provide stability to neighborhoods).”
Another important feature of this is that it’s occurring from the grassroots level. Historically every change in any mode of production has originated from the bottom up rather than the top down. The potential for the Cleveland Model to be the start of a movement that could someday threaten capitalism is amazing.
Without a doubt the events in Cleveland are fantastic. Yet the Evergreen Cooperative Initiative is just one of several developments that are appearing not only in America but on the international scene. In the future I plan to draw attention to some of the other important developments.
For more information Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, Ohio Cooperative Solar and Green City Growers all share a web site: http://www.evergreencoop.com/
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Importance of Nonviolence
“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time- the need for people to overcome oppression…Nonviolence is not sterile passivity but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation”- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
In recent postings I attempted to define what capitalism is. Most of my previous postings consisted of laying out arguments for what I believe to be a system that would be far better than capitalism: economic democracy. An important issue that needs to be addressed at this time is a detail about changing the system: the necessity of nonviolence.
First, it’s delusional to think that it’s possible to change America through violence. Joseph Stack’s attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas was a nothing more than cowardly act of evil. All it did was terrorize the hard working government employees in the building and murdering an American hero, Vernon Hunter, 67, who was laid to rest with full military honors.
Even if there was a remote possibility, which there isn’t, of success by such means what would a change by violence show from an ethical standpoint? Do we really want a system changed by violent means? Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.”
Then there is a purely patriotic reason. Rev Norman Thomas once said, “If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." The drive to change America from a capitalist system to an economic democracy should come from a sense of true patriotism in which, out of love, we hope to “wash” our nation of the wrongs that exist rather than burn it.
It’s also important that as we write and discuss concepts such as class, and toss around terms such as “capitalists” or “workers”, that we avoid demonizing any one person or group of people. In all socio-economic classes there are individuals who are morally good and morally bad. Being a laborer doesn’t make one a saint nor does being a capitalist make one a villain. We need to emphasis that it’s the degrading and dehumanizing system of creating dominating relationships based on capital and the private control of marketable wealth that we strive against and not the individuals within the system. If we begin to demonize people then we run the risk of creating “The Other”, which often leads to violence.
A brief comment is needed here about the efficacy of nonviolent methods. Some, especially on the radical Left, claim that nonviolence is weak and ineffective. They point to all of the past changes in the modes of production and that they all were the result of violent means. What they fail to consider is that all of the prior changes occurred prior to the development of the modern democratic state. It’s the power of parliamentary, democratic institutions that has since shown to be the key to a modern peaceful transition.
On a summer day in 1963, standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr King said, “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” The only choice available to us is a dedication to the use of peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary procedures. We won’t give up our right to protest and publicly demand change but our chosen means will be peaceful. We owe this to our ancestors, to our descendants, and to the nation that we love.
In recent postings I attempted to define what capitalism is. Most of my previous postings consisted of laying out arguments for what I believe to be a system that would be far better than capitalism: economic democracy. An important issue that needs to be addressed at this time is a detail about changing the system: the necessity of nonviolence.
First, it’s delusional to think that it’s possible to change America through violence. Joseph Stack’s attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas was a nothing more than cowardly act of evil. All it did was terrorize the hard working government employees in the building and murdering an American hero, Vernon Hunter, 67, who was laid to rest with full military honors.
Even if there was a remote possibility, which there isn’t, of success by such means what would a change by violence show from an ethical standpoint? Do we really want a system changed by violent means? Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.”
Then there is a purely patriotic reason. Rev Norman Thomas once said, “If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." The drive to change America from a capitalist system to an economic democracy should come from a sense of true patriotism in which, out of love, we hope to “wash” our nation of the wrongs that exist rather than burn it.
It’s also important that as we write and discuss concepts such as class, and toss around terms such as “capitalists” or “workers”, that we avoid demonizing any one person or group of people. In all socio-economic classes there are individuals who are morally good and morally bad. Being a laborer doesn’t make one a saint nor does being a capitalist make one a villain. We need to emphasis that it’s the degrading and dehumanizing system of creating dominating relationships based on capital and the private control of marketable wealth that we strive against and not the individuals within the system. If we begin to demonize people then we run the risk of creating “The Other”, which often leads to violence.
A brief comment is needed here about the efficacy of nonviolent methods. Some, especially on the radical Left, claim that nonviolence is weak and ineffective. They point to all of the past changes in the modes of production and that they all were the result of violent means. What they fail to consider is that all of the prior changes occurred prior to the development of the modern democratic state. It’s the power of parliamentary, democratic institutions that has since shown to be the key to a modern peaceful transition.
On a summer day in 1963, standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr King said, “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” The only choice available to us is a dedication to the use of peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary procedures. We won’t give up our right to protest and publicly demand change but our chosen means will be peaceful. We owe this to our ancestors, to our descendants, and to the nation that we love.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
What is Capitalism? – Part 5
Capitalism: A Definition
Historically, the definition of capitalism depended on what source one used. According to the Brooklyn College Core web site, “the term capitalism was first used to describe the system of private investment and industry with little governmental control which emerged, without an ideological basis, in the Netherlands and Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries.” Most Marxists define capitalism as the, “socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.” David Schweickart defines capitalism as consisting of three components: the bulk of the means of production are privately owned, the products are exchanged in a market, and that most of the people work for those that own the means of production. David Ellerman reduces capitalism to being defined by one primary feature, which is “the legal relation for the voluntary renting or hiring of human beings.” When one combines all of the previous installments of this series one can see that, in my opinion, Schweickart’s definition is the closest of them all in providing a complete and accurate definition of capitalism, which is that capitalism is a socio-economic system that has essentially three co-dependent elements: Capital, a Two-tiered Class System, and Market Domination.
One element is private investment known as “capital” from which capitalism gets its name. Capital is, by its very nature, always striving to expand and reproduce itself. When reproduction isn't possible, such as an economic downturn, it then strives to at least survive until the day when it can again begin to reproduce. It’s an essential nature of capital to attempt to grow.
A second element is that capitalism is a class system in which there are two primary socio-economic classes. There is an upper class (“capitalists”) whose members control the capital and who maintains power in society due to their ownership of the majority of the marketable assets (i.e. wealth). In addition, there is a lower class that has limited power and survives largely through wages acquired from employment by the upper class along with the self-employed, entrepreneurs and sole proprietors. (The homeless make up a hidden underclass who have little productive role in capitalist society and is essentially powerless.)
The third element is the absolute domination by the markets, which molds the culture to service the capitalist system; using the force of the State if necessary. This domination by the markets provides a vital means by which the capitalists appropriate the fruits of the labor of the lower class so that they can increase their own wealth and the market provides a mechanism by which capital is able to reproduce itself. Ultimately the domination of the market provides the means by which the capitalist class is able to obtain its wealth and hence to maintain its position of power.
Historically, the definition of capitalism depended on what source one used. According to the Brooklyn College Core web site, “the term capitalism was first used to describe the system of private investment and industry with little governmental control which emerged, without an ideological basis, in the Netherlands and Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries.” Most Marxists define capitalism as the, “socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.” David Schweickart defines capitalism as consisting of three components: the bulk of the means of production are privately owned, the products are exchanged in a market, and that most of the people work for those that own the means of production. David Ellerman reduces capitalism to being defined by one primary feature, which is “the legal relation for the voluntary renting or hiring of human beings.” When one combines all of the previous installments of this series one can see that, in my opinion, Schweickart’s definition is the closest of them all in providing a complete and accurate definition of capitalism, which is that capitalism is a socio-economic system that has essentially three co-dependent elements: Capital, a Two-tiered Class System, and Market Domination.
One element is private investment known as “capital” from which capitalism gets its name. Capital is, by its very nature, always striving to expand and reproduce itself. When reproduction isn't possible, such as an economic downturn, it then strives to at least survive until the day when it can again begin to reproduce. It’s an essential nature of capital to attempt to grow.
A second element is that capitalism is a class system in which there are two primary socio-economic classes. There is an upper class (“capitalists”) whose members control the capital and who maintains power in society due to their ownership of the majority of the marketable assets (i.e. wealth). In addition, there is a lower class that has limited power and survives largely through wages acquired from employment by the upper class along with the self-employed, entrepreneurs and sole proprietors. (The homeless make up a hidden underclass who have little productive role in capitalist society and is essentially powerless.)
The third element is the absolute domination by the markets, which molds the culture to service the capitalist system; using the force of the State if necessary. This domination by the markets provides a vital means by which the capitalists appropriate the fruits of the labor of the lower class so that they can increase their own wealth and the market provides a mechanism by which capital is able to reproduce itself. Ultimately the domination of the market provides the means by which the capitalist class is able to obtain its wealth and hence to maintain its position of power.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
What is Capitalism? – Part 4
The Dominance of Markets
At this point we’ve established that capitalism is a two-tiered class system based on capital (i.e. private investment), which provides wealth and hence power to an upper class (‘capitalist’). Now we need to look at a vital feature of capitalism, which is the domination of the market. Much of what I’ll cover here I’ve addressed before. But the because of the unique role of the market in the capitalist system one cannot define capitalism without discussing the role of the market.
Ever since humanity left the tribal system (what Marx erroneously called “primitive communism”) markets have existed in some fashion. But, as has been shown by Karl Polanyi, the market in the prior modes was “embedded” within the social relations of their societies. Capitalism changed this in that in a capitalist system the economic and market relations define social relations. Polanyi was able to show that prior to capitalism the relations of reciprocity, redistribution, and communal obligations dominated while market relations were secondary. Capitalism, according to Polanyi, irreversibly destroyed the first three relations resulting in an “ascendency” of market relations to be the position of being considered the sole relationship. He called this ascension the “great transformation.”
In capitalism there are essentially three major types of markets: the exchange of goods and services; a labor market; and financial markets that include stocks, bonds, along with money markets as well as a variety of other investments. These three markets either directly or indirectly touch nearly every aspect of life in a capitalist system.
The market for goods and services was the world’s first market, appearing shortly after humanity left the tribal system. It is through the market for goods that today we acquire everything from food to cars to yachts. It is nearly impossible to survive in capitalist society without buying goods or services from the market. One simply cannot avoid this market and retain contact with civilization. It’s through this retail market that the upper class appropriates the residual resulting from the production process as wealth is distributed from the lower class to the upper.
The upper class (i.e. capitalists) needs the labor of the lower class to create goods for sale or to provide services in the before mentioned retail market. Therefore, there also exists a labor market by which people of the lower class are rented, using Ellerman’s term, by those in the upper class. To a limited degree this practice of renting people for their labor was found in the ancient world as well. But nowhere in the ancient world did labor markets play the dominant role that they do in capitalist society.
The third type of market is the securities market, which is the primary realm of capital. The stock market deals exclusively with the public buying and selling of shares of ownership of the means of production. Originally this market was simply to provide capital investments for businesses (“primary market”) though increasingly today the stock market serves the purpose of doing nothing more than making profit through the trading of already issued shares among the capitalists (“secondary market”). In addition to the securities market there are markets for commodities, futures, and money. There are many types of investments and not all of them involve tradable securities. Recently there has been a rise in “private equity firms” in which stocks are not listed on the various security exchanges and are not overseen by government regulators as publically traded stock companies are.
Simply identifying these markets and who reaps their profits does not by itself establish their dominance. Polanyi was able to show that in capitalism, unlike prior socio-economic systems, it is the culture that is expected to be subservient to the market. If the culture does not naturally mold itself to the market then capitalism forces it to change through the power of the State. By the market dominating culture and forcing it to bend to its will the capitalists can increase their wealth and hence increase their power.
In the next, and last, installment of this series I’ll pull all of these components together to present a definition of capitalism.
At this point we’ve established that capitalism is a two-tiered class system based on capital (i.e. private investment), which provides wealth and hence power to an upper class (‘capitalist’). Now we need to look at a vital feature of capitalism, which is the domination of the market. Much of what I’ll cover here I’ve addressed before. But the because of the unique role of the market in the capitalist system one cannot define capitalism without discussing the role of the market.
Ever since humanity left the tribal system (what Marx erroneously called “primitive communism”) markets have existed in some fashion. But, as has been shown by Karl Polanyi, the market in the prior modes was “embedded” within the social relations of their societies. Capitalism changed this in that in a capitalist system the economic and market relations define social relations. Polanyi was able to show that prior to capitalism the relations of reciprocity, redistribution, and communal obligations dominated while market relations were secondary. Capitalism, according to Polanyi, irreversibly destroyed the first three relations resulting in an “ascendency” of market relations to be the position of being considered the sole relationship. He called this ascension the “great transformation.”
In capitalism there are essentially three major types of markets: the exchange of goods and services; a labor market; and financial markets that include stocks, bonds, along with money markets as well as a variety of other investments. These three markets either directly or indirectly touch nearly every aspect of life in a capitalist system.
The market for goods and services was the world’s first market, appearing shortly after humanity left the tribal system. It is through the market for goods that today we acquire everything from food to cars to yachts. It is nearly impossible to survive in capitalist society without buying goods or services from the market. One simply cannot avoid this market and retain contact with civilization. It’s through this retail market that the upper class appropriates the residual resulting from the production process as wealth is distributed from the lower class to the upper.
The upper class (i.e. capitalists) needs the labor of the lower class to create goods for sale or to provide services in the before mentioned retail market. Therefore, there also exists a labor market by which people of the lower class are rented, using Ellerman’s term, by those in the upper class. To a limited degree this practice of renting people for their labor was found in the ancient world as well. But nowhere in the ancient world did labor markets play the dominant role that they do in capitalist society.
The third type of market is the securities market, which is the primary realm of capital. The stock market deals exclusively with the public buying and selling of shares of ownership of the means of production. Originally this market was simply to provide capital investments for businesses (“primary market”) though increasingly today the stock market serves the purpose of doing nothing more than making profit through the trading of already issued shares among the capitalists (“secondary market”). In addition to the securities market there are markets for commodities, futures, and money. There are many types of investments and not all of them involve tradable securities. Recently there has been a rise in “private equity firms” in which stocks are not listed on the various security exchanges and are not overseen by government regulators as publically traded stock companies are.
Simply identifying these markets and who reaps their profits does not by itself establish their dominance. Polanyi was able to show that in capitalism, unlike prior socio-economic systems, it is the culture that is expected to be subservient to the market. If the culture does not naturally mold itself to the market then capitalism forces it to change through the power of the State. By the market dominating culture and forcing it to bend to its will the capitalists can increase their wealth and hence increase their power.
In the next, and last, installment of this series I’ll pull all of these components together to present a definition of capitalism.
Monday, February 1, 2010
What is Capitalism? - Part 3
Class Structure of Capitalism
The class system in America is a largely two-tiered structure that is based on a socio-economic power relationship in which, as we saw in the previous posting, the ownership and control of wealth plays a defining role. There are several distinguishing features of the American class system.
First, the two classes, while roughly correlating to income, are not based necessarily on income. Instead each class is largely based on the type of property owned and the degree of power welded by that ownership. Second, while there are, of course, circumstances where there’s been movement of individuals from one class to another the two classes are, for the most part, stable over the generations.
There’s an upper class that holds the reins of economic and political power through the ownership of marketable wealth (i.e. stocks, bonds, non-occupied real estate) and which therefore has a dominating power over society. This class can be sub-divided between the heavily propertied families that call the shots and the wealthy elite that manage those operations and implement the propertied family’s wishes. The upper class acquires its wealth largely through a combination of inheritance and the claim to the residual of production and management of the production process. This upper class largely segregates itself socially from the lower class by often sending their children to exclusive private schools, participating in exclusive social clubs, and appearing on social registers.
The other American socio-economic class is a lower class that lacks substantial ownership of marketable assets and survives largely on the upper class for wages. This lower class also can be sub-divided. There are three essential sub-groups to the lower class, though it is possible to sub-divide it even finer.
One major division of the lower class is the famed “middle class” that often owns some personal-use property, such as a house or a car. Most of the members of the middle class don’t own controlling marketable assets and, as a result, most do not have access to any substantial amount of the profits of the various firms or to the governance of those firms. The majority of their children attend public schools though some do attend private schools. Few middle class children attend the exclusive schools that the elite upper class sends their children to. Members of the middle class are likely to have some college, tend to work in white collar occupations, and often achieve mid to low level management jobs. The power of the middle class, while praised by pundits and politicians, is relatively limited in comparison to the power of the upper class.
Another division of the lower class is the “working poor.” This sub-group rarely owns property beyond possibly a car and usually rents their housing. The working poor rarely attends, much less completes, college and usually works until death in blue collar fields as low-level workers in which they occasionally rise to become managers. Needless to say the working poor have little power in the American system.
Finally, there’s the poorest of the poor, the “underclass’, who are often homeless and impoverished. Members of the underclass tend to work day jobs and are highly dependent upon charity and public assistance for their survival. The existence of this sub-class is nearly invisible to most of society and is certainly powerless in nearly all aspects.
This is the reality of the American capitalist class system. Some, especially conservatives, deny this reality. Others will acknowledge most aspects of it but complain that we’re instigating class warfare by bringing it up. To the former they’re simply hiding their heads in the sand. Those who accept it but refuse to address it are doing nothing more than telling us to ignore the man behind the curtain.
While it’s important that we understand the role of class there’s one last important piece of the puzzle to understanding capitalism, which is the unique role of the market in the capitalist socio-economic system.
The class system in America is a largely two-tiered structure that is based on a socio-economic power relationship in which, as we saw in the previous posting, the ownership and control of wealth plays a defining role. There are several distinguishing features of the American class system.
First, the two classes, while roughly correlating to income, are not based necessarily on income. Instead each class is largely based on the type of property owned and the degree of power welded by that ownership. Second, while there are, of course, circumstances where there’s been movement of individuals from one class to another the two classes are, for the most part, stable over the generations.
There’s an upper class that holds the reins of economic and political power through the ownership of marketable wealth (i.e. stocks, bonds, non-occupied real estate) and which therefore has a dominating power over society. This class can be sub-divided between the heavily propertied families that call the shots and the wealthy elite that manage those operations and implement the propertied family’s wishes. The upper class acquires its wealth largely through a combination of inheritance and the claim to the residual of production and management of the production process. This upper class largely segregates itself socially from the lower class by often sending their children to exclusive private schools, participating in exclusive social clubs, and appearing on social registers.
The other American socio-economic class is a lower class that lacks substantial ownership of marketable assets and survives largely on the upper class for wages. This lower class also can be sub-divided. There are three essential sub-groups to the lower class, though it is possible to sub-divide it even finer.
One major division of the lower class is the famed “middle class” that often owns some personal-use property, such as a house or a car. Most of the members of the middle class don’t own controlling marketable assets and, as a result, most do not have access to any substantial amount of the profits of the various firms or to the governance of those firms. The majority of their children attend public schools though some do attend private schools. Few middle class children attend the exclusive schools that the elite upper class sends their children to. Members of the middle class are likely to have some college, tend to work in white collar occupations, and often achieve mid to low level management jobs. The power of the middle class, while praised by pundits and politicians, is relatively limited in comparison to the power of the upper class.
Another division of the lower class is the “working poor.” This sub-group rarely owns property beyond possibly a car and usually rents their housing. The working poor rarely attends, much less completes, college and usually works until death in blue collar fields as low-level workers in which they occasionally rise to become managers. Needless to say the working poor have little power in the American system.
Finally, there’s the poorest of the poor, the “underclass’, who are often homeless and impoverished. Members of the underclass tend to work day jobs and are highly dependent upon charity and public assistance for their survival. The existence of this sub-class is nearly invisible to most of society and is certainly powerless in nearly all aspects.
This is the reality of the American capitalist class system. Some, especially conservatives, deny this reality. Others will acknowledge most aspects of it but complain that we’re instigating class warfare by bringing it up. To the former they’re simply hiding their heads in the sand. Those who accept it but refuse to address it are doing nothing more than telling us to ignore the man behind the curtain.
While it’s important that we understand the role of class there’s one last important piece of the puzzle to understanding capitalism, which is the unique role of the market in the capitalist socio-economic system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)