Self-employed, the Bourgeoisie and Private Capitalism
Redrafted and Reproduced Article
The expression “self-employed workers who hire workers” is a negation in itself. “Self-employed” doesn’t begin with the word “self” by mere chance; it is work carried out by oneself, for the sustenance of oneself and one’s family. It does not involve the exploitation of other people’s wage labor, as a norm, and nor does it entail working for someone else.
Self-employment is an individual form of economics. It is a form of self-management that has always existed in all socioeconomic formations since the decomposition of the primitive communal system, which had small farmers, artisans, vendors and free providers of services as its clearest expressions.
Marx referred to self-employed work as “simple commodity production” because it could not be expanded beyond its own reproduction since it did not involve the exploitation of other people’s labor (it involved no salaried labor from which surplus value was appropriated).
When in their workshops “master craftsmen” had “apprentices” to whom they taught their arts, and these individuals began to produce in guilds for those grandmasters, there appeared the first historical forms of organized capitalism (though paid labor dates back to ancient times, back to slave-based Rome itself, where the terms “salary” and “proletarian” had already been used.)
The person who systematically hires wage labor becomes the exploiter of other people’s labor under private capitalism. If these concepts are not clearly grasped, one can confuse self-employed workers with the petty bourgeoisie; or simple commodity production with expanded commodity production or with private capitalism. These other forms of production are for profit in the marketplace, not for the satisfaction of the specific needs of producers and society. The petty bourgeoisie is a stratum of the bourgeois class, only on a smaller scale given its lesser amount of capital and the fewer number of wage-laborers they exploit.
When Lenin pointed out that the petty bourgeoisie always engendered capitalism, he was referring to those who exploited other people’s labor on a small scale; those who through the exploitation of their wage-laborers constantly expand their production, their capital and their means of production: everything that comes from surplus value (the surplus labor that those wage workers created and contributed, and that was appropriated by the petty bourgeois owner).
The relationship between ownership and the means of production
What determines the membership in a social class is not whether one lives better or worse, or whether they possess these or those personal goods, but the relationship between ownership and the means of production. Class position has to do with the way those means are exploited; how one’s sustenance is obtained (if it’s through one’s own work, through working for others or through the work of others). It has to do with who becomes enriched (who appropriates the profit) from the wage labor of others – be it through private property, public property or a state functioning like a capitalist.
Among the self-employed workers (who were included among almost all professions and occupations) were many who were part of the so-called middle classes: people who lived in neither poverty nor opulence. However, nor were these self-employed workers petty bourgeois, since they didn’t exploit other workers.
Some say that professionals who worked for themselves exploited through prices, though this overlooks the fact that those prices were (and are) determined by the market and by the value of the labor power used by those professionals to create their products or offer their service.
Among self-employed workers there have always been people who never hired wage-laborers (or did so only occasionally), never ended up accruing capital to exploit and/or were never interested in obtaining this, as they lived decorously. They were not capitalist because they didn’t exploit anyone. We found this to be the case in history with some doctors, dentists, teachers and other professionals who worked for themselves and who didn’t work for others or for the State. Some had some assistants, domestic employees, or aids or drivers who often served the family, but they were often integrated into these families or were dealt with like other family members; therefore, they could not always be considered as exploited, based on the treatment and benefits they received.But there were also self-employed workers who were able to form small businesses in which they gave jobs to a few wage earners. The owners were allowed to “expand” their profits thanks to these hired workers, the owners’ “good noses for business” and the investments they made. These owners were the people who rose from self-employment to the stratum of the petty bourgeoisie.
Among self-employed workers, a large portion was able to achieve viability, but many others weren’t. They conducted their self-employed work while also working in jobs for other people or for the State; or they also became involved in some form of criminal activity. That’s why they oscillated between the working class, the self-employed, criminal elements and the lumpenproletariat.
Many self-employed workers (ones who never had a license, a fixed business address, or a small amount of capital and who lived only from their “informal” work) were not organized into any private company, cooperative or under the State. They lived in a “subsistence economy” and were the relatively suffering majority and maybe the fuel of social revolution.
For the sake of clarity, I should specify that the petty bourgeoisie is a member of those owners of the means of production who systematically exploit other people’s labor, although they often work alongside their workers. More than a few of these small private businesses, which historically have relied on a minimum number of workers in their practical operation, have functioned more like families or a cooperative businesses —sharing ownership, administration and profit— than like a capitalist business. This explains the ambivalent behavior of many petty bourgeois and the confusion among some people regarding self-employment.
The true self-employed workers
Looking at them from any angle, the owners of the means of production are capitalists, be these means substantial or small, of high or low technology, involving the stable or infrequent exploitation of wage labor, or having few or many workers. The size of their assets and the greater or fewer number of workers they exploit are what characterize them as petty, medium or the big bourgeoisie.
Private producers who do not exploit other people’s labor, who do not hire wage laborers or who turn to this form only occasionally, cannot be considered part of the petty bourgeoisie. They are the true self-employed workers. Neither economically nor socially do they have anything to do with that stratum of the bourgeoisie, and they are —truly— workers who work in a self-managed manner (most of the time with the participation of family members, where the descendants learn the occupation and many of them also wind up becoming independent workers).
Generally self-employed work is realized in occupations that, for different reasons, demand individualized or specialized labor that requires certain dexterities that, so far, still cannot be performed by machines or that owing to their characteristics can be carried out without requiring any other type of direct cooperation from other workers.
They themselves are able to determine the price of their labor power, and —though they are always competing in a market— they are not subordinated to specific capitalists who exploit their labor.
A form of concealing exploitation
To put venders, service providers, artisans, professionals and other types of self-employed workers into the same sack as private owners of the means of production (who usually exploit wage labor), can only serve to hide the exploitation to which these owners subject their workers, the private capitalism that is promoted with this form of work.
History teaches us that the production methods of private capitalism were imposed on feudal ones since they were more efficient. State capitalism, by its very nature (as amply explained in other articles) will never achieve greater efficiencies than private capitalism. Socialism will prevail because freely associated forms of production, if they are allowed to develop and are completely free, will be more efficient in all senses (economic, human, ecological), and not because of some wish to impose them arbitrarily.
Consequently, to give private wage-labor companies the first opportunity, as an escape route backwards from the statist debacle, without at least attempting the cooperative company in industry and services, and with agricultural cooperatives handcuffed by an infinite variety of regulations, and without at least mentioning workers’ control, self-management or co-management, all of this is like opening a door to private capitalism and closing it on socialism.
Many people have not come to understand that in essence a new socialist socio-economic system bears a new form of organizing production; it is a new way of performing work. It is distinct from wage labor under capitalism; it doesn’t depend on distribution or on the state control of property, the market or prices. Yet nor does it involve arbitrary monetarists maneuvers that are imposed in search of macroeconomic balances, if not precisely the other way around. All of this depends on the production relations. Please, read Marx and try to interpret his words wisely.
State-owned property controlled by a bureaucracy that exploits wage labor is a capitalist form of the state, though its general “aims” are to spread well-being and wealth obtained along that path. It functions like the capitalist welfare state that many social democrats defend, since it seeks an equitable distribution based on the taxes that are collected at the expense of both capitalists and workers. How long will they continue confusing statism with socialism?
To be socialist and to have true social content, a state property must meet two basic conditions:
1 – it must be operated in a way different from that based on wage labor; it must involve direct control by its workers through a co-managed form involving them and the State, with the workers somehow participating in ownership or usufruct, and where the workers democratically choose their leadership as well as negotiate the production and distribution of their profits and;
2 – state property must serve the general interests of the nation and the people, which would be demonstrated in its social contributions to the participative budgets of the municipalities and the nation, as well as in complying with regulations regarding public health, ecology, labor and all concerns established by the local governments and national legislature.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Friday, 18 February 2011
Academy rules are too strict and maybe become a totalitarian system.
Friday, 18 February 2011 by Joe Bloggs 12:01
Landau Forte Academy has started to become a totalitarian system. It seems, there is no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of students and their private life wherever feasible, and where ordinary students have less significant share in the decision-making.
On browsing my weekly newspaper, yet again I find another article about Laundua Forte Academy. Last time it was about Academy's students’ policy on smoking either on the campus or in the street within sight of the campus and the highly questionable action of using CCTV as surveillance and monitoring of any such indiscretions. If the students were workers and this was done in the workplace, I'm sure the Academy would be heading towards an industrial tribunal or possibly to the European Supreme Court on human rights of privacy.
Last week's letter by a female student from the Academy explains that her experience of the new changes in rules and the expectations that have been created of these is becoming increasingly hard and quite irritating to follow. I get the impression because of the repressive new rules this student feels stressed, harassed, worried, and anxious. I fear that she is not the only one. There is a fine line between discipline, harassment and bullying.
It cannot be constructive for students to study and learn effectively whilst under the added pressure of repercussions if they do not conform to the dictatorships requirements of appearance. Already the female student is brainwashed by the dictatorship by being under the impression that teachers have a higher status than the students. Maybe the academy would be better teaching mutual appreciation, respect and above all equality.
She believes that the students of the Academy have a fair right to be listened to and I wholeheartedly agree but democracy has never existed within our schools and I doubt academies will be any different. I urge the young student to look towards the history of the Burston School Strike for inspiration.
A democratic approach with mutual appreciation and respect can maintain order more effectively than dictatorial authorities. The upholding of discipline or order is easier and more efficient than other authoritarian approaches because essentially the rules and regulations are agreed by the community as a whole, therefore the atmosphere is of persuasion and negotiation and not confrontation, where rules are arbitrary, authority is absolute and punishment is impulsive. Remember repression can lead to rebellion.
I understand there is a student leadership team within the Academy, but does it possess any power needed to create change or as I expect “a talking shop” where student views are discussed but a lack of power or democracy prevents the ability to remove the executive team if necessary.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Why I don't like most of the men I've met in my life.
by Joe Bloggs on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 at 14:40
Why I don't like most of the men I've met in my life, because most that I've met lack integrity, responsibility, accountability and are cowards.
My reasons behind my views are from my experiences of how men in our society conduct themselves and their behaviour towards women within relationships, friendships and generally within our society.
Variant of a quote from Gandhi “Society can be measured by how we treat their women”.
Before you start to conceive your preconceptions on my family background, I am heterosexual male from a loving family and stable two-parent childhood.
Integrity
Men who regularly make their partners feel mistreated or devalued. Partners that maybe arrogant or play mind games or act selfishly over and over again but he is better aspects may make you feel that he is miles away from being an abuser. Please don't let them in my language put you off this is my personal description.
Men that only speak too, or acknowledge attractive women.
Controlling or angry men.
Responsibility
An expectation of entitlement and belief that they have a special status that it, provides them with exclusive rights and privileges that do not apply to his partner.
Responsibility to offspring that they are a father to and acknowledging. If they choose not going to continue in a relationship with the mother that happens every day, but still ownership to provide and take responsibility for any children.
Accountability
The belief of freedom from accountability,
“Were, you having an affair?
Well,....... yes but she had no proof, she shouldn't go on saying things like that when she has no proof!”
Cowards
The need to seek medical assistance and don’t , the dentist is a prime example or the discovery of lumps. Of course the biggest confirmation of cowardice is MAN FLU.
I believe in equality for all people within our society, my relationships and my friendships. I believe in supporting one another, encourage, inspire confidence, believe in each other, care and protect.
Changing the Concept of Recruitment Techniques
by Joe Bloggs on Wednesday, 16 Feburay 2011 at 10:02
The primary online processes used to recruit and screen a candidate has not really changed for the last decade.
Most, if not all recruitment consultancies and agencies will post their vacancies via the many job boards for candidates to submit their CV's.
Another option to recruitment businesses is to search through the ever mounting pile of harvested curriculum vitas which candidates have submitted in the past.
I have often wondered how else we could screen candidates without the CVs?
Modis international, a recruitment business boasts a database of 290,000 screened Europe-wide candidates and can delivery branded or anonymous mail shots to internal and external databases.
Currently in the United Kingdom the recruitment market there is an abundance of applicants for each role. Currently recruitment businesses receive between 100-500 applicants for each role advertised.
Over time databases will become out of date and nobody knows if the individuals contained within are seeking new employment. More importantly somebody has to search for the CV’s and match them to the job specification.
So somebody has to read through all the CVs within the database? Which is never going to happen and because of this the “keyword search” process was created or in some cases the more sophisticated approach of using SQL database queries.
Keywords Searches do not interpret the context of the true meaning of the word and in practice are unpredictable and arbitrary. Keyword searches does not, and cannot, find or match work skills/experience.
The minority will manual review and skill code each candidate within their database and skill codes can be reviewed every time the candidate provides an updated CV or informs of a change in their role. This is time consuming, but maybe a good investment of time, as you do not rely on "Keyword" searches or other algorithmic searches of CVs. Searches become based on qualitative data rather than quantitative data.
We know the recruitment sector is very competitive and timescales are a big driver on locating the best applicant with the CV that matches the client’s specifications in the shortest possible time. Currently Recruitment consultants receive between 100-500 applicants for each role advertised and have access to hundreds of thousands of CVs within their databases.
It is conceivable that they would more likely review or search 100 to 500 applicants as we have established they are looking for new employment as they have responded to the job advertising, and more increasingly less likely to search the antiquated database.
“Likely to scan or glance the CVs”
Recruitment consultants are becoming more likely to scan or glance the CVs. In my experience they do not read, study, examine, interpret, understand, consider, research, analyse or investigate. This could be because of time scales and they are becoming more prone to not possess any work experience in the sector they are recruiting. This is a great example of where experiences and knowledge of older employees could be of great advantage to the recruitment sector.
Personally I do not believe that reviewing CVs can be completed constructively or objectively to assess individuals. Also at interviews people's personality, demeanour and persona are contributing factors to the recruiter's decision.
“Overwhelmed with the quantity of responses”
Recruitment consultants are becoming overwhelmed with the quantity of responses to vacancies and the current methods used are not constructive towards screening processes.
Contained within the candidate sourcing suite are other techniques such as develop relationships with niche groups to source hard to reach/executive candidates, employ vertical networks to improve exposure to a client and host networking events including roundtables, seminars and recruitment days.
Currently within the marketplace it could be perceived that recruitment consultancies and businesses are not interested in “transferable skills”.
Quote from a leading recruitment consultant "We only get paid if we place a candidate so, why I am going to try and convince my client that they should appoint a candidate with transferable skills when my competitor has three candidates with the matching skills requested by the client".
Also it could be said that recruitment consultancies are only interested in candidates with a similar sector experience to the vacancy.
For example, if you apply for a position outside the sector experience detailed within your CV then you may not be put forward for the position as apparently you do not possess the relative experience needed. "I have worked in the IT sector for mainly health and pharmaceutical companies over the last six years, therefore when I try and apply for other IT positions within other sectors like retail, banking, finance, automotive and the public sector I am told that I do not have the correct sector experience. It’s astonishing as working for pharmaceuticals meant I had access to most up-to-date, expensive IT infrastructure, applications and developed experience/skills other sectors could only dream to have because they lack the financial ability of the pharmaceuticals”
Therefore candidates can only apply for positions where they have direct skills and direct sector experience?
Which means if you have worked for most of your career within the public sector or finance you’re unlikely to secure a position outside of your work experience, regardless of your skills.
This limits the number of opportunities you can apply for and therefore impact on the likelihood of unemployment for the masses of our society.
“Advertised for more than 36 hours as its highly unlikely that your CV will ever be seen”
It is common knowledge within the long term unemployed that it is pointless to apply for vacancies which has been advertised for more than 36 hours as it’s highly unlikely that your CV will ever be seen due to the other 450 CVs which have been submitted before yours.
Having spoken to a number of long term unemployed senior directors, managers and technical consultants the general consensus within the group is pretty damning “due to be way we have been treated and our experiences as candidates by recruitment companies we will not use them in the future and in some cases indefinitely, when we return to full employment”.
It is best practice that candidates should be matched to the job specification and not compared or judged against one another.
When recruiting in best practice we require the selected candidate to be the individual who is the best match to the job specification. Therefore in the early stages of selection we need to remove our prejudices from the process so we could start utilising psychometric, aptitude testing and customised sector assessments which will measure, evaluate the candidates’ experience/skills and compare it to the requirements in the job specification.
Psychometric, aptitude tests and the Sector assessments are only going to be of benefit if they are set up correctly in the first instance and each role is there for accurately profiled to create the right balance. This is something that cannot be achieved without sector knowledge and experience.
Analysis above shows the limitations of using CVs to try and discover the person. The use of psychometric testing could add a new dimension to the recruitment process. We know psychometric tests have been around for a long time, but I believe there is a quantum leap that can be made by recruiters in finding the most cost efficient way to use psychometric testing in the selection and screening processes used. The CV shows only skills and experience but says nothing about the person behind the CV.
It seems there may be great potential for explaining to recruiters the limitations of the CV approach. There is no doubt a CV and discussions are essential parts of the process, but the psychometric test tells us about the behaviours needed to fit into a team and make a success of the job. For those that have been unsuccessful you can provide constructive specific feedback which will highlight the areas and criteria which they did not meet, instead of a standard generic auto generated impersonal e-mail which contains no feedback.
By using the job specification to create the psychometric, aptitude tests and the "Sector assessments" we will be able to create screening charts which enables the results to mark which candidate meets the criteria. It allows a score by each key criterion.
You will be able to quickly see which candidates best meets the job without needing to refer to the candidates CV. This will be a benchmark, where we can determine who will be accepted and continue within the interview process.
“Business intelligence”
All candidate tests and assessment data could be kept for future use and within time this data will replace the current "keyword search" technique. Good business intelligence databases should be able to monitor and record the future career of the candidates by utilising synchronisation tools with social media for example LinkedIn.
Techniques of behaviour modification should be used to bring the candidate back to you if they are seeking a new position or looking to hire/recruit for themselves. This can be done by creating an environment which holds their employment history, experience, test results, skills matrix, career achievements, awards, qualifications, business contacts, references and CV. With this data, business intelligent opportunities will be more sophisticated and the ability to find the candidate with the correct skills and experience should be easier.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Lacking Credibility
Recruitment Sector
An example of my suspicions that the recruitment sector lack integrity, credibility and maybe motivated by greed.
by Joe Bloggs on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 18:04
A pretty frank and open statement topic, plenty of individuals dislike working with recruiters. I believe there is a perception that some recruiters are only out to make fast money and will go to any lengths to make a placement and do a deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
