Own Your Job


I have, in the past, identified as an anarchist.  Really, none of my opinions or positions on any major issues have changed since then.  But I think the label "anarchist" is misleading and unhelpful for a lot of people and so I usually avoid using this label (see my essay on the "Eminem strategy").  But for exactly the same reasons, I think it's mostly unhelpful to use terms like "communist" or "socialist".  If I need to sum up my political opinions, I can do so in a three word phrase: Own Your Job. 

I've asserted before that I believe in worker ownership of the means of production.  But this is a bunch of jargon.  What does it mean?  What is the "means of production"?  Most people picture buildings, machines, and raw materials.  And that's true, in a way.  When Marx writes about the "sublation" (Aufheben) of private property, he distinguishes private property from personal property.  In a just social order, people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects - this personal property would be sacrosanct, and one would truly own them.  We should be absolutely opposed to the people who say "You will own nothing, and you will be happy," and want to put everything on a corporate subscription service.  No.  We will own our personal property - our persons, houses, papers, and effects - and we will also own that which formerly had been private property, that is, capital - which includes both (1) constant capital: buildings, machines, raw materials, and the "faux frais" of production, but also, and far more to the point, (2) variable capital - that is, the set of social relations of production.  Marx thought that it was variable capital, that is, labor power, which was chiefly responsible for the self-valorization and exponential accumulation of capital.  Labor power is the commodity that produces more commodities.  In other words, it's your job.  If other people can own your job, why can't you?

What would it mean, practically, to own your job?  First of all, clearly, job security.  It would mean that you cannot be suddenly and unceremoniously "laid off" or "let go" - an obviously important immediate goal in this era of AI and other forms of automation, when many corporations are going to look for their earliest opportunity to replace their human workers.  And you cannot be fired, at least not by dictatorial fiat.  It should require, at minimum, a trial by the jury of your peers before you have your job confiscated - and even then, you should not have your job taken away without just compensation.

Under capitalism, labor power is a commodity.  I'm suggesting that an initial step towards a different mode of production would be, rather than veiling our social relations in religious and political illusions, simply to see our social relations for what they are, and to recognize that our labor power has been commodified and is a commodity, and then to re-examine our power relations on the basis of that fundamental recognition and adjust our strategy in political struggle accordingly.  Once workers realize our power and own our jobs, perhaps there would be the opportunity to sell them.  If an employer wants to eliminate your job, they would have to pay you for it.  They would have to negotiate a settlement with a large enough payout in pension, healthcare, and benefits to make it worth to you to surrender your job.  If a handsome severance package is worth it to them, fine - and maybe this consideration would make them slow their transition to an all-AI workforce, which might be better for everyone involved, for a variety of reasons.

Why not take this a step farther?  If you own your job, maybe you could trade it for another job. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
  Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hardly matters;...
Read more

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
  CURTIS YARVIN IS A POSTMODERNIST  "They Hate Us For Our Freedom"   Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all thes...
Read more

Lenin the Moralist

  "Unprincipled practical politics are the most impractical politics."  - V. I. Lenin  It will probably cause me to lose friends all across the political spectrum when I say that the problem with Lenin was that he was too moral.  Deal with it.  Moreover, modern-day soi-disant Leninists are even more moralistic than he was - and therefore, all the more romantic and delusional, and their analyses all the more pointless. I do not mean to imply that Lenin was not responsible for the deaths of many people - he was.  Nor am I saying that Lenin did not commit enough atrocities - that he was not violent enough, not ruthless enough, too timid to accomplish his goals, or anything of the like.  No, no, no.  My point is that Lenin's ideology diverted sharply from Marx's critique of political economy, and in part this was because he tried to reinterpret Marxism into a kind of moral campaign, when Marx had intended nothing of the kind - and, by the way, Lenin...
Read more