@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
theory
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
me showing up for my scheduled class like a good boy.
Thanks as always, comrade.
@[email protected] I hope it's okay to ping you? I just wanted to say like, this part in section 4 really reminded me a lot of what you said last week about like, underemployment
The third category of the relative surplus population, the stagnant, forms a part of the active labour army, but with extremely irregular employment. Hence it furnishes to capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labour power. Its conditions of life sink below the average normal level of the working class; this makes it at once the broad basis of special branches of capitalist exploitation. It is characterised by maximum of working-time, and minimum of wages. We have learnt to know its chief form under the rubric of “domestic industry.” It recruits itself constantly from the supernumerary forces of modern industry and agriculture, and specially from those decaying branches of industry where handicraft is yielding to manufacture, manufacture to machinery.
Yeah, I don't mind being pinged, especially for interesting topics like this.
I think for the section you quoted, when Marx is talking about "domestic industry," he is talking about pre-capitalist manufacturing, or maybe very early capitalist manufacturing. What I mean is that, before capitalism, people had to make everything themselves. Moms and sisters would usually sew all the clothes for the family, and fathers and brothers would make/repair tools and equipment they needed. The first industry that really jump-started capitatim in England was clothing, as home-made clothing was replaced by factory-made clothing. Of course, this involved a huge world-wide network with cotton coming in from the American south, India, and Egypt, where raw materials were turned into finished goods, and exported for profit.
Before factories existed, capitalists would actually just contract out what were basically "gig workers" to make clothes in their own home. This was often "piece work," where people would be paid per unit of clothing sewed, instead of hourly work. Centralizing everything in factories then led to the rise of "Taylorism" and then eventually "Fordism," as clothing factories were joined by all sorts of other factories (cars, glass, chemicals, etc.).
It recruits itself constantly from the supernumerary forces of modern industry and agriculture, and specially from those decaying branches of industry where handicraft is yielding to manufacture, manufacture to machinery.
Marx is talking about the death of this home-made industry (handicraft) and the rise of factories with machines. Because these small, individual producers are being replaced by factories, they basically become jobless. Factories are just more efficient and thus more cost-effective, lowering prices, so handicraft workers can't make a living anymore. It's the 1800s version of Wal-Mart putting mom-and-pop stores out of business. Marx is emphasizing that these people, now unemployed, are forced to join the ranks of the proletariat, alongside rural workers who lost their farms when they were bought up during the enclosure period. We can see the same thing happening today -- AI replaces software engineers, so those unemployed programmers have to find another job. We don't have "elevator operators" or "switchboard operators" because a microchip can do their job now. Bowling allyes used to have "pin boys" who reset the pins, also replaced by machines. It's interesting to think about what will happen when automation replaces almost all the jobs. That could result in "luxury socialism" (good ending) or neo-feudalism (bad ending).
I'm assuming section 4 also included? Also this sounds extremely familiar to today time. Mainly with employers talking about how "no one wants to work anymore"
The contradiction is not more glaring than that other one that there is a complaint of the want of hands, while at the same time many thousands are out of work, because the division of labour chains them to a particular branch of industry
Fixed