05-09-2019, 07:51 PM
Reading this thread I am reminded of a point Marx makes in Vol 1, C 26, of Das Kapital.
In order for the capitalist system to work, there have to be two kinds of people:
1. People who own means of production (e.g., factories) and capital to pay people to work them. ("Job creators" as these are now sometimes called.)
2. People who own only the labor of their bodies, which they must sell to stay alive because they have no MoP or capital. No choice.
This distinction between haves and have nots is a structural requirement of capitalism as an economic system (mode of production). Or certainly was in mid-19th century Britain, France and Germany.
People in category 1 are very happy when people in category 2 don't unionize or work together to make collective demands on 1.
From the perspective of 1, it is good that people "know what they signed on for" and "stick to what they agreed to" when they take a job, but not good if they know any more than that about the larger social/economic arrangements which create people with capital and people without--i.e., not good when people in 2 know things that change what they are willing to agree to. Not good when they won't agree to less when it suits 1.
That's why it is a good idea to keep public education focused on job training "opportunities" and not on all this civics/history crap that most will never use on the job.
In order for the capitalist system to work, there have to be two kinds of people:
1. People who own means of production (e.g., factories) and capital to pay people to work them. ("Job creators" as these are now sometimes called.)
2. People who own only the labor of their bodies, which they must sell to stay alive because they have no MoP or capital. No choice.
This distinction between haves and have nots is a structural requirement of capitalism as an economic system (mode of production). Or certainly was in mid-19th century Britain, France and Germany.
People in category 1 are very happy when people in category 2 don't unionize or work together to make collective demands on 1.
From the perspective of 1, it is good that people "know what they signed on for" and "stick to what they agreed to" when they take a job, but not good if they know any more than that about the larger social/economic arrangements which create people with capital and people without--i.e., not good when people in 2 know things that change what they are willing to agree to. Not good when they won't agree to less when it suits 1.
That's why it is a good idea to keep public education focused on job training "opportunities" and not on all this civics/history crap that most will never use on the job.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
