The capitalists – 1% of the population?
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I noticed this statement put out by the Media Committee in response the proposed Trade Union Bill:
"The only hope of establishing for all time a good standard of living for all mankind depends on bringing an end to the political and economic control of society by the “one-percent” and in its place the establishment of a world in which all wealth is owned and shared in common by all its people. We call upon all workers to unite to bring this about as soon as possible”, the statement concluded."
Coincidentally I was engaged in a debate with someone over on the Socialism v Capitalism FB website who posted an article asserting that someone on an income of £32K pa would fall within what would constitute the richest 1% in global terms.
Now clearly someone earning £32K a year is nowhere near to being a capitalist so in a sense it is quite misleading to talk of the 1% exerting economic control over the world's resourses. 0.1% would be closer to the mark.
I think we need to be wary about figures bandied about which in this instance originated from the Occupy movement and also to be sensitive to the context n which such figures are cited. In global terms, taking the global population as a whole, 1% is far to large a figure to capture the true extent of the capitalist class
Ah sorry the figure should be 32K US dollars not pounds. So the threshold of entry to the top 1% in global terms is even lower than the one I citedI couldnt find the orginal FB article but found this instead which corrobrates what I said above"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut.Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:29,100 euros2.1 million Indian rupees, or200,900 Chinese yuanSo if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top one percent worldwide"Read more: Are You In The Top One Percent Of The World? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz3salV7NLiFollow us: Investopedia on Facebook As an afterthought I suppose it could be argued that wjat essentially characterises a member of the capitalist class is the possession of capital rather than a high income stream as such. This is true but I would imagine there is a significant degree of correlation between these two things…
Yes, this is often the argument i have heard on Fox TV. That most Americans are part of the 1% so why should the poor be complaining… Actually 0.01% is closer the mark in global terms, i believe. But we do use political and economic short-hand and i think most folk understand what is meant by 1% versus the 99%. In the USA, the 1% earned an average of $1.2million in 2012, the most recent year data is available for. The 0.1% earned almost $6.4million but the top 0.01% earned over $30million.The 1% incomes have remained mainly flat. The 0.1% have seen earnings double what they were 20 years ago, and many multiples higher than in the 1970s but the super rich 0.01 per cent have seen incomes sky rocket by 1,300 per cent since the early 1990s. The top 1 % might be the primary target of the masses anger , but it's actually the top 0.1 percent who are grabbing a bigger slice of wealth The 0.01 percent has essentially quadrupled its share of the country's wealth in half a century. They don’t work for their money. Their money ‘works’ for them.The top 0.01 percent of Americans amount to fewer than 14,000 households. In Canada the threshold to reach the top 1 per cent in 2010 was $201,400, while the median income in the middle of the 1-per-cent pack was $283,400 and the average income of 1 per centers was $429,600.
'Income', meaning 'earnings' or 'earned income', has nothing to do with 'class'. The belief that 'income' relates to 'class' is a liberal individualist belief, and comes from bourgeois sociology.'Class' is a 'social relationship' which is 'exploitative'. So, a boss who has a poorly-performing firm, and continues to pay their workers more than they receive themslef, is in a different class from the workers, and is still exploiting those workers, even though they have more income than the boss.This example may be an extreme one, which doesn't often occur, but is used to bring out the exploitative relationship at the heart of the Marxist definition of 'class'.It is not defined by 'income', but by 'exploitative relationship'.Even if the firm is about to go down the pan, and the workers' income is greater than the boss', there are still two classes in that firm: bourgeoisie and proletariat.If I was pressed to put a % figure on classes, I would probably put it at 5% bourgeoisie, 15% petit-bourgeoisie, and 80% proletariat. Of course, these are estimates, and subject to changes in capitalism, and location in world production, but they help us to get away from the liberal nonsense that only 1% (or even less) are our enemies.That is, perhaps 1 in 5 people have a socio-economic interest in capitalism continuing, at present. That's why they are still very powerful and influential. Things will change, but it doesn't pay to underestimate the difficulties facing us at present.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Yes, this is often the argument i have heard on Fox TV. That most Americans are part of the 1% so why should the poor be complaining…Maybe Fox TV sees eye to eye with Lenin on the question of the Labour aristocracy LOL
LBird wrote:'Income', meaning 'earnings' or 'earned income', has nothing to do with 'class'. The belief that 'income' relates to 'class' is a liberal individualist belief, and comes from bourgeois sociology.'Class' is a 'social relationship' which is 'exploitative'. So, a boss who has a poorly-performing firm, and continues to pay their workers more than they receive themslef, is in a different class from the workers, and is still exploiting those workers, even though they have more income than the boss.This example may be an extreme one, which doesn't often occur, but is used to bring out the exploitative relationship at the heart of the Marxist definition of 'class'.It is not defined by 'income', but by 'exploitative relationship'.Qualifying it as "unearned" income would certainly be strongly indicative of an exploitative relationship, though Also the income stream generated by a capitalist's investment does not all go towards funding the personal consumption needs of that capitalist. Much of it wlll be reinvested as capital.The proportions may vary according to circumstances So the above boss may pay himself less than his workers but the other part of his income which you overlook will go towards keeping the business – HIS business – afloat
.LBird wrote:If I was pressed to put a % figure on classes, I would probably put it at 5% bourgeoisie, 15% petit-bourgeoisie, and 80% proletariat. Of course, these are estimates, and subject to changes in capitalism, and location in world production, but they help us to get away from the liberal nonsense that only 1% (or even less) are our enemies.That is, perhaps 1 in 5 people have a socio-economic interest in capitalism continuing, at present. That's why they are still very powerful and influential. Things will change, but it doesn't pay to underestimate the difficulties facing us at present."Petit-bourgeoisie" is category that can and ought to be dropped in my opinion though some leftists love to use the term as a handy form of abuse. It is also ironically a divisive term that divides workers form each each other , makes the working class seem smaller than it is,and thereby serves the interests of capital. If you want to be pedantic about it, most workers own a little bit of capital anyway – even if its just a savings account tucked away in a post office. Many also contribute to one or other pension fund. The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession. This is where quantitative differences become qualitative onesFrom that point of view there are only two classes in society – the capitalists and the workers – but there is a grey area where one class shades into the other.The figure of 5% for the bourgeosie is far too high in my opinion – certainly in global terms. Though you dismiss income as an indicator of class – I tend to think of it as a proxy indicator – 5% would include a lot of people on a substantially lower income than the $32K threshold required to get you into the top 1% of income earners globally. I dont think it is remotely plausible that a member of the bourgeosie or capitalist class would have an income of $32k per year let alone substantially less.Consequently a more realistic figure would be something like 99.9% workers (we will disregrard the position of peasants for the sake of the argument) and 0.1% capitalists. There are sociological gradations within the working class of course but at end of the day the vast majority are working class because they possess little or no capital to live upon
robbo203 wrote:The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.[my bold]No.It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Once more, robbo, your philosophical basis is individualist liberalism, not democratic communism.You are interested in 'personal possession' that can be mathematised, counted, quantified, by a method open to individuals, especially an elite of individuals.Social relationships, which are as much 'ideal' as 'material', can't be 'counted'.The act of estimating relationships requires social theory and practice, and so is open to democratic controls.We workers determine what 'exploitation' is: it is not 'a thing'.FWIW, this issue is also related to your mistaken views about 'science'.Science is class-based, and is also relational. Science is not an numerical account of 'reality'.There is an unacknowledged ideology behind your views, robbo, and you should examine them, the better to expose it.
LBird wrote:It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Nearly, but if income from capital is insufficient to avoid needing to sell your labour power then you aren't a capitalist. So, yes, there is the qualitative element, but it has a quantitative corrolary. So, in reality you'd need to have sufficient capital to live as an average social person, so you'd need to have, in the UK capital taking in a return of about £26K, yes, you could work a plot of land, live in a shack, etc. but the minimum is enough to pay your council tax, so about £1K p.a.To take another example, a footballers wages: though millions of pounds are still wages[*] tt would be difficult (though not quite impossible) to not turn a sum of money that large into working capital (you really would have have to piss it up the wall Brewster's Millions style). [*]Excluding image sponsorship and other Intellectual Property rights income.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.[my bold]No.It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Once more, robbo, your philosophical basis is individualist liberalism, not democratic communism.You are interested in 'personal possession' that can be mathematised, counted, quantified, by a method open to individuals, especially an elite of individuals.
FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.Yes LBird we all know that "exploitation is a social relationship" Stop trying to teach us how to such eggs! The relevant question is how do you differentiate between the two parties that make up or constitute this dyadic relationship? What distinguishes a capitalist from a worker?If you were a Marxist then you would know the answer to that. A capitalist is someone who possesses sufficient capital to enable him or her to live off the proceeds of his or her investments. If you have another definition of a capitalist then lets hear itThere is no such thing as a free-floating social relationship that does not occur between empirical flesh and blood people. Just as there is not such a thing as the individual outside society so there is no such thing as a society without individualsYou have never understood that and that is the same reason why you do not understand that exploitation is both qualitative and quantitative. You claim to be a Marxist but what was Marx thinking of writing about the "rate if exploitation" is he imagined it could not be quantified after a fashion?And the biggest joke of all is that you then proceed to solemnly inform us that the bourgeoisie constitute 5% of the population. Pray do tell us – how did you arrive at this …er…quantitative figure and on what basis did you differentiate between the bourgeoisie and the rest of us if not in some quantitative fashion?Over to you LBird
The important thing here, robbo, is not your inability to understand philosophical subtleties, but that other comrades get to reflect on their own understanding of 'class', by comparing their present views with our opposed theories of class.I'll leave it at that, because I keep getting banned for patiently trying to explain to you, to no avail.
robbo203 wrote:FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't transparently a strawman/aunt sally technique. We didn't know that expoitation is a social relationship ffs.
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't transparently a strawman/aunt sally technique. We didn't know that expoitation is a social relationship ffs.
Exactly Vin. And the fact that it is a social relationship does not mean it is not quantifiable. These things are not mutually exclusive. LBird imagine for some strange reason that he is a Marxist but no Marxist would take up the peculiarly nonsensical position LBIrd has taken which would rule out the possibility of a Marxian economics altogether. Like I said, if exploitation cannot be quantified how could you begin to talk about a rate of exploitation as Marx did. In fact, by LBird's reasoning there is no way of telling whether it is the capitalist exploiting the worker or the worker exploiting the capitalist and the whole notion of surplus value or even value must fall by the waysideI would like for him to have explained what exactly he think defines a capiutalust if not someone who has a considerable amount of capital – a quantifiable thing – but as usual he has fled the stage leaving a trail of unanswered questions and the distinct whiff of red herrings in his wake
He must reject Capital because there is an auful lot of Math in it lol
robbo203 wrote:Ah sorry the figure should be 32K US dollars not pounds. So the threshold of entry to the top 1% in global terms is even lower than the one I citedI couldnt find the orginal FB article but found this instead which corrobrates what I said above"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut.Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:29,100 euros2.1 million Indian rupees, or200,900 Chinese yuanSo if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top one percent worldwide"Read more: Are You In The Top One Percent Of The World? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz3salV7NLiFollow us: Investopedia on Facebook As an afterthought I suppose it could be argued that wjat essentially characterises a member of the capitalist class is the possession of capital rather than a high income stream as such. This is true but I would imagine there is a significant degree of correlation between these two things…Yes, but shouldn't the absolute income value be related to prices? 32k dollars is a lot more for someone in a 3rd world country. Or is this figure somehow smoothed – an average, net disposable income figure? Obviously it makes no sense from a capitalist/worker point of view.
rodshaw wrote:Yes, but shouldn't the absolute income value be related to prices? 32k dollars is a lot more for someone in a 3rd world country. Or is this figure somehow smoothed – an average, net disposable income figure? Obviously it makes no sense from a capitalist/worker point of view.I think it must be a global average. The link I posted goes on to say this:Of course, Americans live in the United States, contending with U.S. prices. Who constitutes the one percent if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: You’d have to make $434,682 in adjusted gross income to make the cut, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.And to rank amongst the highest one percent of Americans by wealth? That requires net assets of more than $7 million, based on the latest Federal Reserve figures.This is why I think we need to be careful about using the Occupy movement term the "the top 1 percent" in a way that suggests this refers to the capitalists. As Alan suggested, it can play into the hands of people like Fox News who use it to argue that most Americans are in the top 1% and are therefore capitalists . Which is of course nonsense
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.