"Condition of the Working Class in England", says that the pre-Industrial Revolution textile worker had a much more desirable or acceptable life than did his post-Industrial Revolution proletariat counterpart had or enjoyed. And the gist of his argument is in "condition" and "amount" and "tempo" of the "labor" and not in the "labor" itself. I would argue that leftists today, should work toward arguing "conditions" and "pressures" and "volume", work-loads, and time-spans - as apposed to "tasks" or "job descriptions" when speaking of real workers jobs and livelihoods. The negatives is in the conditions, not in the labor. Thank you and go forward...

Strange that the more there is, the less anyone worries about "conditions."

But that's the classism. (What is a "real worker?") It's assumed that the more a wage slavery job pays, the better the "conditions."

As an aside, I find it fascinating that whenever the subject of a guaranteed minimum, or basic, income is mentioned among good liberals the FIRST thing they say is "but who would pick up the garbage? who would clean the toilets?"

They NEVER say "but who would perform the surgeries? who would fly the planes?"

not because the quality of the work being done or the hard-working nature of labor themselves, but the reason for the labor itself. Labor is the first rung of the plan of the business elites. I mean labor could be doing great work making stealth bombers for the military but they shouldn't be making weapons of mass destruction in the first place.

Who is deciding what gets built? Not the workers. "...the reason for the labor itself.." In fact, in the case of stealth bombers it is the government in cooperation with the owners of capital/corporations. 'Labor' has no control over this. But it sure benefits the capitalists.

From the article in this thread (which I am currently reading):

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=100070


Something else had happened during the years of the long boom (post-WWII in the US)which had enabled the economy to expand continually, without being punctuated by deep recessions. This in turn had then provided a situation in which capitalists could have 'expectations' of future profits and invest accordingly, so providing the sort of stable environment which enabled other capitalists to be optimistic about their investments.

What was this 'something' which underlay the long boom, but which clearly had not been present in the inter-war years and was to be absent again from the mid-1970s onwards? During the long boom itself two of Keynes's former collaborators, Michal Kalecki and Joan Robinson, had suggested that its roots did not lie in government expenditure as such, but in a special form of that expenditure, spending on armaments.77 Arms production, they argued, was a form of government organised investment which was acceptable to private capital and which could explain the operation of a capitalist economy at near full employment for a long period of time. It could provide private capital with an expectation of ready markets and high profits, so encouraging private investment. This dependence of the capitalist economy on armaments was, for Kalecki, one reason to object to it: 'He thought the post-war American experience illustrated the role of armaments expenditure as wasteful and dangerous, and saw the apparent need to resort to this form of expenditure to maintain high levels of demand as a major shortcoming of capitalism'.78

but that doesn't necessarily justify their actions, except for the fact that many of them might not be able to sustain their own lives without the only opportunities afforded to them. It's the same sort of postulation that Ward Churchill (and Hannah Arendt) made about "little Eichmann's" Obviously, labor is much less able to stand on principle than middle and upper middle-class folks.

Much of the weapons building in Germany during the war was done by prison labor. Were they to blame? Only those relatively well-off and comfortable have this luxury to take moral stands such as you recommend, and historically they usually decide the wrong way since their comfort and perks and status are dependent upon the ruling class.

There are many ways that we are all complicit. Blaming those working in weapons factories is a very narrow and inaccurate view of the situation. Only those who have options, and wouldn't be welding missile fuselages in any case, can "choose" to not do that work and then point fingers at others. Those people who enjoy that luxury have much more important work to do in the service of the empire - writing and speaking caution and moderation and working within the system. That is much more crucial and vital work to ensure that the bombs land on peasant villages than the work being done by the people in the bomb factories. One ruling class apologist and antagonist of the Left is worth a couple of hundred laborers in the munitions industry.

I clearly stated that those on a lower economic rung are less able to reject their jobs based on whatever it is they're doing. I also said those in the middle or upper class are the only ones who might refuse, should they choose to.

You said "I think the negatives are in the labor not because the quality of the work being done or the hard-working nature of labor themselves, but the reason for the labor itself. Labor is the first rung of the plan of the business elites. I mean labor could be doing great work making stealth bombers for the military but they shouldn't be making weapons of mass destruction in the first place."

was that the actual work being performed was much the same: turning wool into yarn and thread and turning those into cloth. It was a "yeoman's" occupation and he and his family would work at this trade or occupation as they deemed fit. They would also do a little farming, a little husbandry, and participate in the life of the country folk and village citizens. Freddy describes it as quite idyllic. Then the descriptions of the life of the proletariat is given and they are horrific. But if you look closely (Freddy doesn't "harp" on the point) you will notice that the actual work being performed is the same - what is different are the conditions under which the work is done; the hours required to do the labor; the compensation for the work; and the "free time" allowed to the worker to pursue his or her life. This is what I am talking about when I say that it is not the work being performed that is "onerous" or "dehumanizing", but the conditions (in totality, including the compensation) that can be described as such.

and this was a discussion of the nature of physical labor that was started a week or two ago. This trying to bring some sort of "middle-management" guilt and moral anguish into it makes no sense, I think.

In fact he and Marx saw that the nature and character or work had changed dramatically because of the division of labor. This preceded industrialization by a while as well.

Instead of piece work and individual craftsmen you had managers/overseers and time clocks and large number of people operating in close quarters or each other, each with their own assigned job that was more or less detached from being concerned with what the final product was.

Thats not a surface coat of "conditions" under which things otherwise remain fixed or about the same as always. Nope, Marx/Engels realized the capitalist system for what it was: the ultimate dual-edged sword. And there was literally no chance of going backwards, no matter what hell the forward horizon might offer.

Its the division of labor that they considered "dehumanizing": no more is man intimately connected with the fruits of his own labor.

How is what you said different than what I said. I think that you are making a distinction without a true difference. I will concede that the "division of labor" was one of the conditions that changed with industrialization (even a major condition). The loss of the "fruits of his own labor" is the reason the workers conditions changed - right? The steady erosion of the society that supported the "yeoman" craftsman and turned him into the proletariat is what made this loss possible and was a result of your (and Karl's and Fred's) inexorable historical certitude of capitalism's growth and establishment.

The division of labor only preceded industrialization, because of the means of powering industries. The larger, wealthier landowners and squires would hire wage-earners to work in "hand-powered" (or foot-powered) "mills" at looms and spindles and, of course, that enabled the division of labor and other changes in conditions that were precursors to the changes brought on by the advent of steam-powered industry - the, so-called, Industrial Revolution. I do not see how this greatly alters my take on Engels' meaning; as a matter of fact the rest of "The Condition of the Working Class in England", to me, does not mitigate against my interpretation. I think that you want to defend Marx and Engels for their apparent elitist attitudes toward manual labor; but I would say that that "elitism" is only apparent and not real, at all.

(By the way, being a Parmenidean, I can easily draw the distinction between the "real" and the "apparent" :aetsch: )

and I think he would be completely right :D

As to the meatier side of the discussion, you are seeing something contentious and to me it is tomato/tomatoe. I am still not convinced we are saying anything strikingly different from each other.

About Parmenides, there was a thread we did ages ago called Plato Sucks. I don't think it was my best work by a longshot but, hey, I was young and naive. I think it only matters for one reason: it took philosophers the longest time to come around to the idea that making shit up might not be the only way to go or even the best way to go. Its not even clear that philosophers proper have EVER taken this lesson.

Its why many of the posts here made by the "refugees" are still kinda flaky even though they carry a superficial socialist veneer.

that he had improved Kant. But since Nietzsche despised Kant, it was a compliment "of a kind"...

Yeah, I think we are saying close to the same thing. It just has always burned me to hear persons denigrate manual labor - it is something that I need to get over, but if by my advanced age I haven't, it doesn't look good for my chances.

And a pretty good definition of "philosophy" might be "The making up of shit that causes other people to stop and say, "Whoa!"; and then proffer money."

but it seems to me that he just doesn't matter. I know people who throw a shit fit over the suggestion that Nietzsche is largely irrelevant (and manufactured after the fact as I understand) it..but what important advance came from Nietzsche or any of the blowhard jacktards that claim him as a Muse (aren't they mostly French?)

(with "blowhards, jacktards" as descriptors, wouldn't they almost HAVE to be French? It was a joke...)

I have heard folks say almost the same about Kant and almost everyone says it about Plato, but I think that philosophy has contributed as much or more than any other discipline, academic or otherwise to us humans and our endeavors.

Because a particular philosopher pisses you off or is of no interest to you doesn't mean that philosophy is therefore pointless or just "making shit up". We all stand on their shoulders, whether we like them or not, whether we "get" them or not. I mean, come-on! Wittgenstein? I loath Wittgenstein, but I once spend four hours with a lawyer who wanted to have Wittgenstein's babies! I threw-up as much as I could make myself and then cried in my wife's arms for the rest of the night. Even Wittgenstein needs to be there...

The Kid made me do it!

I was looking over the thread and saw the "duel-edged sword" comment again. Talk about that for a moment, if you would. I get the "no going back" idea - capitalism had become the new 'thesis' so historically it was a done deal. But capitalism as the two-edged sword - elaborate, a little...

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

..
..

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

I have produced an excerpt but its forth going to the source and reading that part in its entirety

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

they're giants for a reason. I don't think 20th century philosophy has produced jack personally, but thats beside the point. The thing that sticks out to me is how differently the issues necessarily appear to us in hindisght than they did to those who were embroiled in them at the time.

And when you look at it from that perspective, all of the "system building" that went on (goes on, unfortunately) is just so much noise. Its Socarates and his tree, man. Old Socs was right, the tree teaches us nothing.

The advancement of "civilization" and "progress" and...what else? The other edge would be the enslavement or impoverishment of the vast majority of human kind, so that a small minority can avail themselves of the greatness or enjoy the wonderment of it all...that is some sword...

the positive side. Developing the forces of production to undreamt of heights is no light matter..it is "only" the necessary preparation, precondition, and foreward to a classless future.

And, you have to remember that Marx meant "progress" in the Hegelian sense. However, I don't think he saw any of what transpires under capitalism as "civilized" except in the words most vulgar usages like "civil society". We get civilized when we find our humanity and that happens when we realize that all of our relations are among men and not things. This is very hard to do, even on a conceptual level..Chlamor is about the only dude I know who consistently pounds on this theme.

I think Marx sometimes uses "Division of Labor" to talk about societal organization more than workforce organization. In that case, its more like there are philosophers (those who don't work) and grunts (those who must work). I've read secondary commentaries that treat this as synonymous with Marx's earlier use of the term "alienation" which he adapted from Hegel. I'm not sure, and I'm not even sure what the import of that distinction is other than grafting some of the BS parts of Hegel onto Marx.

I really want to hit you with some stuff on Spinoza (Hegel was right that he was an Eleatic "with benefits") but it'll keep