lupine/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Import old blog posts

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nick Thomas
2016-06-06 01:42:13 +01:00
parent 17829f42fa
commit 7fcae24b52
13 changed files with 1096 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

155
content/post/pig-dog-03.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+++
title = "The Capitalist Pig-Dog Blog: Income"
date = "2015-05-01"
tags = ["politics"]
categories = ["pig-dog"]
+++
#### Payday!
I get paid at the end of each month, from my job at [Bytemark](https://bytemark.co.uk).
This is a typical employment contract, nothing special, but it bears thinking
about anyway. Bytemark's a pretty standard for-profit company; people hand over
cash for hosting, some of that cash is handed over to me in exchange for labour.
I never see some of the cash nominally handed over to me, because of
[taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYE), which go to various things - some
of which I like, some of which I don't. More on *that* another time.
Work is how I pay the bills; bills are how I live. The job ensures that I have
somewhere to live, food, water, energy, transport... everything. It's possible
some of this can be changed in the future, and I'll look at that when I get around
to it, but this is the situation right now.
Fundamentally, I'm quite happy to accept the Marxist analysis of employment (go
back and read Das Kapital if you haven't already). The job that I have is pretty
nice to me, personally, but it's an exploitative contract (see: surplus value),
which works towards the reproduction of capital, and so ensuring these kinds of
contracts continue on forever.
The usual free-market objections to this analysis that I encounter have been
deeply unconvincing; usually, they revolve around the idea that labour is a free
market (or it would be, if it weren't for that pesky government), and people are
free to exchange their labour for wages, or not, as they prefer. Nobody would
willingly allow themselves to be exploited, so employment cannot be exploitative.
QED.
#### Compulsion
Unfortunately, if I don't work, I'm in a bit of a sorry state. Refusing to work
means no wages. We live in a vaguely civilised society, so if you're out of a
job there are welfare payments. Of course, you're not eligible for those if you
refuse to work - and it's generally argued amongst those *not* on welfare
(and even many who are) that "conditionality" - as the DWP now calls - is a good
thing.
The switcharoo here is that I'm actually fine with working in principle - what
I'm not fine with are the employment terms on offer. But if I don't accept those
terms, I'm left in the fairly precarious position of needing to find a new way
to acquire, at a minimum, housing, food, water, energy and transport. If there's
no sane way for me to do this, the idea that the labour market is a free one is
ridiculous; a choice of X or death is no choice at all.
It's worth noting that I could quite conceivably go on doing exactly the same
job with no complaints, if the background issue of compulsion went away; I am in
effect complaining, right now, about having no option but to do something I don't
really mind doing anyway. Other people may hate their jobs, of course, but if I
weren't being paid to write code, I'd do more of it at home for fun.
#### Alternatives
So, is there a current (or conceivable) alternative that could render the current
situation unexploitative? From my point of view, the simplest hack is to make
the social security net unconditional. This normally takes the form of a
[basic income](http://basicincome2013.eu/) or
[negative income tax](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html).
Without the threat of death if I refuse to accept the commonly-offered contract
terms in my field, the contract can be freely negotiated and entered into (or
refused, of course), and free-market logic starts to line up with reality. In
this model, employers desperately need employees to survive; but potential
employees can scrape along, more or less, without employers for as long as they
feel they're being exploited. (In my case, that might not be any time at all, of
course). It's a complete inversion of the currently-existing power relation
between employer and employee, and this is for the better, in my view. However, it's
[not happening anytime soon](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-switzerlands-basic-income-initiative-works-2013-11?IR=T).
It's also worth noting that people are supremely good at not noticing that they're
being exploited; I'm taking a marxist analysis here almost as a given, but it's
the height of barmy radicalism to a lot of people. I'm fine with that.
Entrepreneurs in the audience are, at this point, jumping up and down and shouting
"why not start your own business, or become a contractor?" - and I have given
both of these options serious thought in the past. Ultimately, however, neither
option does much - as a contractor, I'd still be subject to extraction of surplus
value; I'd just be throwing away a whole bunch of protections in employment law.
Becoming a business owner is identical to being a contractor, if the business is
a sole trader; and once I employ someone else, I'm just swapping around who
is the exploiter, and who is exploited. If I don't like the contract style,
there's absolutely no way I'd want to impose it on someone else, right?
So far, I've assumed that surplus value (and all the other standard aspects of
a capitalist business) is actually happening. Could I construct (or join) an
organisation that lacks these characteristics, and so salve my conscience that
way? I've not come across anything that would allow me to pay the bills, but
[non-profit](http://socialcoder.org/), [Free](https://gnu.org/) or otherwise
worthy software development is generally available (reskilling might also be an
option, allowing me to change jobs completely, but that's not something I can do
immediately).
Joining a [worker's cooperative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperativ)
would also do the trick, but I'm not aware of any in my current skill set. I've
already enquired about the possibility of converting Bytemark into one; it's a
no-go. Do get in touch if you're running one ;). Could I start my own up? Quite
possibly, but not this year, and probably not next year either. Starting a business
(of any sort) requires more capital than I have at the moment. That's changing,
of course, but I'm still quite ambivalent to this option; running a worker's
co-operative really does come under reskilling, I suppose!
Evidently, I should have looked harder; there *are*
[some](https://www.co-operativehost.com)
[web-hosting](https://www.webarchitects.coop)
[co-operatives](https://web.coop/) in business. Eeeenteresting.
#### The nuclear option
Finally, I could just pack it all in, withdraw from the current market system
for housing, food, water, energy and transport, and join a long, honourable list
of people who've taken up [homesteading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesteading).
All I need is enough land to support me, either individually or as part of a
commons.
Back in the day, this was a viable living choice. Hopefully it's entirely obvious
that it's not the option it used to be - all the land is claimed, owned, parcelled
out, unavailable. If you want to live off the land, you need to acquire the land
first. And not just any land - you'll need permission. Really, this option has
the same problems as "start a worker's co-operative". Prohibitive levels of
reskilling, and large initial capital requirements. Another one for the future.
It's worth noting that this state of affairs hasn't come about by
[chance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts), and nor is it
[equitable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers).
Land reform is [more popular in some areas than others](https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/land-reform-and-tenancy-unit/land-reform-scotland);
maybe this can be fixed in time.
#### Full circle
That's a lot of words, and not all of them are particularly encouraging. Would I
want to grub in the dirt for food every day of the week, even if it were an
option? Would a worker's co-operative be a success in any of the fields I could
work in? Am I brave enough to switch jobs *right*now*? Only possibly!
Leaving that last one aside, is there anything at all that I can do to improve
matters here? The fundamental issue is the imbalance of power between employee
and employer; the traditional remedy for that has been unionisation.
there is no union shop at work, nor do I suspect there ever will be; but I can
always join a union as an individual - [so I will](https://prospect.org.uk).
I don't expect it to change any aspect of my current employee-employer relationship
in the short to medium term, but if nothing else, maybe the dues will help somewhere
else; and unions really need a shot in the arm. They really
[aren't](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute) the mass movements they
[used](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike)
[to](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week) be, and they're not going to
improve if someone as in favour of them as myself can justify not joining one,
are they?
So, membership form sent. That makes this post worthwhile all by itself! I'm only
7 years late in joining... and hey, it's [May Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day)!