12
Book Discussion: Dialectics of Chinese Labor by Immanuel Ness - Critical Theory Workshop (www.youtube.com)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/china@lemmygrad.ml
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 3 days ago* (3 children)

I wanted to ask if anyone has read this book, but forgot to include it in the post. Personally I found the part of the discussion regarding gig-workers extremely interesting and noteworthy.

I know some people stuck in the gig economy due to the current economic situation here in the US, and I've been trying to understand what could be done to organize against their exploitation.

Personally I find the relationship to production very interesting for gig workers, and would also like to know if my analysis of it is incorrect, and if a comrade could correct me.

Let's take an Uber driver as an example, we'll name them "Driver" and also for the sake of argument say that the car used by Driver is owned by them.

Thought ExperimentDriver uses his own car, his personal property, as a tool to produce profit for Uber. Driver picks up passengers who pay a fee on the Uber app, and Uber pays the driver a portion of that fee (including the tip) to Driver as commission.

If this is the case, Driver's car is now being transformed into private property. However, because the surplus value is going to Uber, then that means that Driver's car is being transformed into Uber's private property, not Driver's. However, legally, and outside of hours when Driver is accepting passengers for Uber, the car is personal property owned by Driver.

And in cases of accidents that occur when Driver is working for Uber, the car is still treated as Driver's personal property, and Driver is responsible for repairing the damage.

So the whether or not Driver's car is their own personal property or Uber's private property is fluid and entirely in favor of Uber's interests.

Apologies if this analysis is very basic and obvious to anyone else, or if it has a major flaw, but I was wondering if my understanding of this property relation is correct. It's genuinely a little fascinating to me how effectively the capitalist class in the US has managed to privatize its citizens personal property while reaping none of the pitfalls of acquiring that property, and instead reverting it to personal property the moment it's no longer productive for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I think this analysis is pretty spot on, especially when considering what Capitalism itself means and how it evaluates things. A car is a form of "durable asset" much like a home is. And, in fact, I think this is the way Capitalism was intended to work from the get go when it asserts that the labor is being done by the tool rather than by the person operating the tool, and therefore by the "owner" of the tool. The Uber driver example works very well, and we can probably apply this to things like an AirBnB too! It's not about the driver or the home owner doing the work, it's about the car or the house doing the required work that their owner happens to be supplying for the job. There are a lot of "bring your own equipment/device" jobs like this that we can apply this to, in fact. Field technician jobs, long haul freight, even working at home can be considered under this exercise.

    It's overall a good display of how Capitalism kind of works around people rather than with people, and in my opinion it's a good pathway to get people to understand what needs to fundamentally change. Capitalism working around people, instead of with, insinuates that the person doing the job is irrelevant. They are just a part of the machine that makes the machine do the work at that point, and if the value is being put on the device doing the job rather than the worker... then it explains the heavy emphasis on automation. Removing the pesky worker from the system so that the work can still be done is a logical thing for a Capitalist to pursue.

    We can turn that upside-down, though!

    A co-op is a good short-term tactic to use to work against this, and it can do good to assert "we don't need these middle-step companies that take our money". This is actually a super great start, and a good step to slowly acclimate people away from the reliance on things like Lyft or Uber.

    But my mind drifts towards long-term, since our movement must focus on a long term in order for these tactics to amount to much.

    In the long term, would it not be better for the State to supply the vehicle for a driver to drive? A bus comes to mind immediately. The State supplying the bus is responsible for the maintenance of this bus, for outlining what the route is, and for making sure that the route is safe and efficient for the worker operating it as much as it is meant to be for the passengers. The State is responsible for making sure the bus is accessible to wheelchairs, and for those who are hard of hearing or struggle to read the signs or can't see at all. Of course, a bus is very different from a specialized cab or taxi! And in truth there will probably still be some use for that kind of specialized service... but why not make that service the State's responsiblity too? If for some reason a bus isn't suitable to a person's needs, then ideally a State should be able to see to this need accordingly.

    In a State such as this, Uber just... wouldn't be a thing, would it? It wouldn't need to be. The State already does this. And if The People, the Workers, are the ones that run this State, then it's at its simplest... workers working for workers. Working with the State against capital, rather than working against the state. Which, if my memory is right, are exact words said in the linked video in the original post. :)

    I know this was long, but I didn't want to JUST be like "yeah that's a good analysis!" I also wanted to tackle the question of how to end the exploitation. And it seems to me the answer to end gig worker exploitation is the same as anywhere else: seize the means by which a gig is carried out, and remove the private capital from the equation.

    I can even apply all of this to concert performance and sports competition, but this response is long enough as it is and I have some uh, doubts that anyone is gonna read all of what I've typed out! x)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 days ago

    Thank you for the detailed reply, I was scared that my analysis was too simplistic, but I'm glad that it was accurate. Obviously seizing the means of production is the necessary measure to ensure gig workers are properly cared for, but I'm especially interested in how to organize them in an effective manner in the West. The trade union and party alliance discussed in the video is obviously the optimal pathway, but building that party-union relationship is a task still being worked on here in the US, though European comrades may have greater success in that area.

    I think the way China's trade union movement is approaching the problem is definitely something that needs to be studied. Forcing companies to recognize gig workers as their workers, and therefore be responsible for the assets they use when on the job, along with including gig-workers in local collective bargaining of the trade unions both seem really effective at reversing the uncaring nature of capital.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent