Today I spoke with a coworker who has been working with corporate clients in a particular foreign country (for confidentiality reasons, I'm trying to give as few details as possible). The coworker expressed surprise at the different attitude exhibited in this country toward their employees. In essence, they view their employees as costs, and try to minimize the costs as much as possible. Education and training, for example, is not quite as popular there as in the U.S. because it is perceived to not have much bang for the buck.
I tried (as much as it is possible in an office setting to express "anti-capitalist" ideas.... I tread lightly) to suggest that this particular attitude may not be confined to that one particular foreign country.
In fact, it is the quintessential attitude of capitalism. As capitalism is defined by wage labor, labor is central to profitability in a capitalist system. A capitalist profits only to the extent that they can obtain surplus labor (labor in excess of what they are paying). Technology, contrary to popular belief, does not increase profitability in the long run; in fact, it decreases the rate of profitability as it decreases the proportion of human labor embedded in a product (and thus, decreases the possible surplus labor embedded in a product). A capitalist may try to maintain profitability by creating a monopoly. However, monopolies tend to be difficult to sustain the in the long run. At the foundation, profitability derives from keeping the cost of labor low.
What this means is that, it is absolutely a capitalist's most basic and primary interest to contain the cost of labor. This can be accomplished by preventing the rise of wages parallel to inflation (a more systemic solution); organizing and managing the workplace to increase productivity; simply not paying employees for all hours worked (a common complaint leveled against some major corporations like Walmart); and trying to minimize "extra" costs (benefits, overtime, training, etc.). It is due to the nature of capitalism, where labor is a major component of the "input" side of the equation, that employees are viewed as "costs."
If this seems strange or nonapplicable in the U.S., it is because a large portion of the U.S. occupies a more specialized role in the global capitalist system, and the consent of a majority of its citizens to capitalist ideology is necessary for the functioning of the system. In other words, it is more necessary in the U.S. and other industrial powers to maintain an illusion of capitalism that conceals what is really going on, than in places where the sweatshop and the plantation are more blatant. The consent of Western and middle and professional classes is the lynchpin to the whole system.
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society
It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?" There are so many competing ideas about what education should be. Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex. However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is. The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)