Notes & Reflections on “Why Do Socialists Talk So Much About Workers?” with Vivek Chibber
In my time philosophizing, I've familiarized myself with Leftist thought (Marxist and Socialist, not so much Anarchist). Recently, I discovered Jacobin and Verso's series of lectures about common questions surrounding Socialism, and I want to provide summaries and responses to each.
This is the first in a series of blog posts in response to the four online ABCs of Socialism lectures. The lectures can be found here, and the socialist info booklet that they are a part of is here. The relevant chapter to this lecture/post is on page 121 of the booklet.
Vivek Chibber concisely and engagingly summarizes the socialists' main aggrievements of capitalism, and argues for why workers are a the primary strategic social group when trying to bring about change. He divides his lecture into a "diagnosis" and a "prognosis" — the problems caused by capitalism and what our response should be.
Chibber criticizes how the contemporary Left mainly puts its focus on minorities and minority rights—on problems such as anti-blackness, undocumented immigrants, and refugees. He claims that only focusing on these issues and not also the working class is a practical mistake that leads to an inefficient movement for change. I will summarize his lecture and give my response to his argument. Finally, I'll cover the Q&A portion of the video, where Vivek is asked about defining social classes, automation, and trade unions.
My Issue with Vivek Chibber's Argument
The drawback to his argument is that while he makes a case that workers are mistreated and are an important source of economic and political power, he does barely anything to address how this is useful for the tangentially related progressive minority movements like the three I listed above. His argument is only half finished, and I'll try to fill in the second half. I will argue for why a focus on workers would also be beneficial to social movements of marginalized groups, and where this argument falls short.
Diagnosing the Injustices of Capitalism
If you're familiar with basic Left theory about worker exploitation in capitalism, you can probably skip this section. Here, Chibber describes the injustices the working class faces before describing why he thinks progressives should focus on these injustices.
Chibber says that although the concept of justice is not well-defined, it seems like most people agree that justice requires two things. First, "some guarantee of material security—things like having an income, housing, and basic health care." Second, "being free of social domination—if you are under someone else’s control, if they make many of the key decisions for you, then you are constantly vulnerable to abuse." He argues that capitalism actively denies both of these to the working class.
Capitalism Deprives workers' basic necessities and autonomy
Because businesses and their owners and managers are driven by profit maximization, they are incentivised to pay workers as little money as they can get away with. People are left exploited, working for far less than they make for the company, afraid to demand more for fear of being fired because someone else can do the job more cost-efficiently. People must subject themselves to this anxiety and ill-treatment because otherwise they wouldn't have an income to pay for basic necessities. Even after putting yourself in such demeaning situation to survive, capitalism makes these basic necessities come and go at the whim of the market.
Chibber also points out that capitalists (read: cost-cutting managers) control what you do as you work, when and how intensely you work, and are managing without your best interest in mind. They care primarily about creating profits. Workers therefore lose autonomy while they work, and because they need to keep the job, sometimes when they are outside of the workplace as well.
Chibber claims that capitalism doesn't deliver those two basic tenants of justice. People lack security of mind that they will continue to have basic, important things like an income, food, housing, education, and healthcare. People lack autonomy because they don't have large say in what they do with their time, both in and out of work. The line between work and having personal time is blurred when people don't control their hours, can have their schedule changed without much advanced notice, or have to prepare considerably for work outside of work hours because they need to keep the job.
These two tenants recognizably mirror the common political concepts of individual freedom and equality. Liberalism's political economy claims that it provides freedom from domination, admittedly at the cost of equality. Chibber, as Leftists do, claim that Liberalism fails at both. I tend to agree.
Capitalists Actively suppress justice
Capitalists, those who earn their income by effectively increasing profit margins and cost-cutting on workers wherever they can, are opposed to any change that would threaten these cost-cutting techniques. They control workers by lowering job security through various methods like non-compete clauses. Workers need the job for their living essentials or to maintain their standard of living, and so comply. Capitalists also influence life outside of the workplace, using their wealth to fund and influence politicians. Lobbyists cost money—money that capitalists have and individual workers do not.
Money accumulated through injustice is used perpetuate that injustice. Chibber thinks there needs to be a break in this viscous cycle, and that uniting workers holds the key.
Prescribing a Concerted Working Class Response
In the previous section, Chibber outlines why the working class is being treated unjustly and therefore has incentive to demand social change. Now, he goes into why the working class has the power to make change, unlike marginalized groups that he thinks modern socialists focus on too singularly.
Workers hold great strategic power
The reason why demanding justice for workers is so difficult is because it goes against the driving force of capitalism to increase profit margins, and capitalists have the money and resources to maintain the status quo. Simply by being rich, they have influence over how cities and the government is run. They can hire lawyers and lobbyists. They can fund campaigns for pro-business, anti-union politicians. Capitalists are terrified of what would happen if workers had a voice in how things are run.
The thing is, workers do. Their labor is what makes profits possible, let alone increases in profit. By going on strike, collectively deciding to refuse to work, the capitalist class, still driven by profit, must come to the bargaining table. Workers, as a voting block, can be more powerful than the influence that money can buy.
The working class holds the power to create meaningful change within our lifetime, in the economy and in politics. Socialists need to put their focus there at the very least as a strategic move to wield power in society. Progressive movements have been pushed into a smaller demographic, fighting primarily for rights of marginalized groups. Chibber claims this is because progressive movements themselves have become marginalized and can only exist in these niches.
Minorities and all oppressed groups are important...
. . . but, Chibber remarks, these marginal groups are precisely that: marginal. It's not that their issues aren't important, or that the workers have it worse, it's that marginal groups have marginal social influence, unlike the power that workers possess by being the central cog in the profit machine. Workers have the power to enact social change that minorities lack, and bringing them into the conversation seems necessary if we want to see change any time soon. Whereas the working class consciousness has faded over time, the capitalist class consciousness has stayed incredibly strong, influential, and exploitative. We need to shift the balance; socialists need to begin fostering a new working class consciousness.
My Reflection on the Link Between the Working Class and "Marginal" Movements
Hey. I get where Chibber is coming from. Workers are worthy of our attention not only because they are exploited but because they have the power to create real change relatively quickly. I strongly agree that the modern Left should focus more on the working class. But I also recognize that fighting for workers' rights is tangentially related to issues of discrimination by race, gender, sex, or sexuality. Chibber makes a compelling argument, and says that the issues of the margins are important, but doesn't show how 'Socialists talking so much about workers' can help these other causes. I'm afraid that as we help the working class out, not much will change in terms of anti-blackness, police brutality, overflowing prisons, de facto racial segregation of neighborhoods, gender and sex discrimination, etc. The working class's motivation to create social change could very easily extend only as far as the working class is disadvantaged, and not an issue further. Chibber's point that we have to focus more on the working class is only half of the story; we also need to find ways to co-opt their social leverage to help other progressive movements.
The working class's motivation to create social change might extend only as far as the working class is disadvantaged, and not an issue further.
I have my own ideas of how a focus on workers would help "marginal" progressive movements. There are two main reasons. The first is that economic issues are issues that affect marginalized communities. The second is the fact that working class consciousness is built around recognition of the shared injustices they face. Their realization that the status quo is flawed at a systematic level will make the working class more sympathetic to other progressive movements. However, I realize that these two outcomes of working class consciousness do not guarantee that the social heft of the working class will heavily influence other progressive movements.
First, economic issues are still issues faced by marginalized groups. A focus on improving working class conditions improves conditions for minorities that are influenced by the job market. More job security, better wages, and control over hours worked can help anyone, and people will have more time and capacity to focus on marginal problems when they are less worried about getting by month by month. Minorities might be disproportionately helped by a powerful laboring class. The way that injustices accumulate intersectionally means that, for example, black people will be more likely to be pushed into the most exploited areas of the job market. Solving economic issues is inextricably linked to enfranchising minorities. A collective workers movement would be a step towards achieving racial and other "marginal" economic justice, not just economic justice.
In another interview, Chibber emphasizes this point that enfranchising minority groups is necessary, possibly even prior to addressing other issues.
"Now, if you’re an African-American in this country, it’s absolutely true that you face all kinds of discrimination. It’s absolutely true that you have a much higher likelihood of being incarcerated than a white person in the same class as you. That’s absolutely true. But, how do you expect to address the real plight of African-Americans in this country around their everyday lives without a jobs program, without universal healthcare, without decent and universal public education? To think that these are matters that, by virtue of being economic, are not relevant for people of color is not just wrong. It is fantastically dishonest."
— Vivek Chibber, Unauthorized Disclosure Podcast
A labor movement would undoubtedly help minorities, probably helping marginalized communities more than it would their majority counterparts. And after basic necessities are securely available to minorities that are systematically denied them, these minorities will have more economic and political clout to wield. But I don't think that this newfound power is enough! Even Chibber's main argument is that workers, and workers alone, are the source for social change due to their centrality in the economic system. It seems like non-economic progressive movements would do well to tap into the working class's leverage to reach their goals.
That brings me to my second point: that it is possible to leverage the working class in such a way. Society's "typical" workers, by recognizing working class injustices, will be more open to understanding other structural injustices. Because workers are acting together as a group, people will organize and chat with others and learn about these other structures of oppression. It sucks that many people need to be affected personally before they are able to care about structural issues, but hey, at least things are getting done. Of course it would be preferable if people would care from the start, but nonetheless, the working class is a tool for change that we would be remiss to pass over. A working class consciousness could, for many people, act as a gateway introduction to caring about other social justice issues.
Of course, it could just as easily not be that perfect gateway. It'll be tough to direct a working class consciousness into social issues that don't seem to directly affect the working class. Fostering a working class is a step in the right direction, but when Chibber claims that a focus on workers is not ignoring other marginal movements, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Unions have had a troubled history with racism, and in the past, class consciousness of workers has had trouble crossing over into other social issues. Race has been used in the past as a wedge within the workers movement, as it still is used today. The unfortunate clash between labor unions and race once lead W.E.B. Du Bois to speak out against "the practice of labor unions of proscribing and boycotting and oppressing thousands of their fellow toilers" (Ravitch). It is good to note that unions are far better integrated now than they were back then.
Social change isn't easy, but combining the social, economic, and political influence of the working class with the movements of race, sex, gender, immigrants, etc. is something socialists must figure out as they foster class consciousness among workers. Solving economic issues are relevant to people of color and LGBTQ, but the solutions don't seem to translate much into combating things like anti-blackness or gender discrimination. These are issues we need to take on simultaneously, and wherever possible, as a united effort.
Q&A Extras: Notes and Reflection
99% Versus the 1% - Is 'Petty Bourgeoisie' an outdated term?
The difference between classes is usually framed as the 99% versus the 1%, in terms of wealth. However, for Socialists, this isn't the line that should be drawn, because it implies that the 99% is able to come together as an effective social group. Chibber hearkens back to the term of 'petty bourgoisie' when he says that there is a large percentage of society who can't be considered workers—the managers who have a great deal of autonomy and own means of production. They might not have as much wealth as the 1%, but they aspire to be because there is a possibility that they or their children can cross the wealth class barrier.
The working class line has to be drawn at the level of who is being exploited, and who is earning wealth through exploitation.
This class line is getting more and more blurry, especially in large corporations in which there are many levels of management, and very noticeably occurs in tech companies. In these cases, it comes down to the attitude of managers. Does the manager emphasize cost-cutting and worker exploitation in a bid to rise in the corporate ladder? Or do they try to insulate their group from the corporate machinations that exist throughout the rest of the company? This is what makes the difference between whether a manager will be sympathetic to a working class movement. The anxiety of capitalism permeates all classes in capitalism, as observed by Marx.
Some might argue that all managers are bad because it is built into the business structure that managers remove the worker's self-determination. And this is true, but for the resons discussed above, it doesn't necessarily exclude them from the working class, especially if they themselves have to answer to their own managers.
how does increased AUTOMATIOn play into this?
People have been worried about increased automation running people out of a job for around a century. But, people always argue, this lets people find and create jobs elsewhere. It's what Chibber argues.
Automation poses a problem because it means that the working class can no longer go on strike and shut down the economy. I think it's a real problem—the U.S. has shifted from a manufacturing economy to a service and logistical economy, and with AI, I really am concerned about where we'll go next. I might be worrying about nothing, but I don't think so. The effects on the economy are going to be sudden and drastic.
A common example of the effects of AI is how self-driving cars will overturn the truck driving industry essentially overnight:
According to the American Trucker Association, there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the US, and an additional 5.2 million people employed within the truck-driving industry who don’t drive the trucks. That’s 8.7 million trucking-related jobs.
— Scott Santens, Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck
And,
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 1.6 million American truck drivers in 2014 earning a mean income of $42,000. That’s more than half a percent of the country, and $67 billion dollars in income – about 0.3% of the US GDP.
— Joel Lee, Self Driving Cars Endanger Millions of American Jobs (And That’s Okay)
The obsolescence of the working class, replaced entirely by an unemployed class is untenable. Businesses need people to have money to pay for what they sell, and will push automatization as far as they can without entirely breaking the economy. Without a Leftist labor movement, inequality is only going to become more extreme.
Whatever the case, autonomous trucks will be a huge hit to the economy, let alone other forms of AI outsourcing. This economic shock and inequality might in-part trigger the working/unemployed class consciousness, something we've seen shadows of in the Occupy Movements. I don't want to see people in economic turmoil, but it seems to be the main export of capitalism. And if this turmoil leads to a socialist, structural, change to our economy, at least one broad good has come from it.
Are trade unions still the best way to create class consciousness?
Chibber says yes, that although they are much weaker now, he hasn't seen a better alternative.
There are some things to be said about how working class consciousness has become more difficult to foster, whether it be in tech companies that pamper their workers, or in the fight to weaken the strength of labor unions. That's something I'll leave for a separate blog post.
Links and References
“Why Do Socialists Talk So Much About Workers?” with Vivek Chibber - Chibber, Jacobin, Verso
The ABCs of Socialism Booklet - Jacobin, Verso
Clinton Manipulates Language of 'Intersectionality' to Preserve Support from Minority Voters - Unauthorized Disclosure Podcast
Diane Ravitch, ed., The American Reader: Words That Moved a Nation (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), 381.
The Most Common Job In Every State - Quoctrung Bui, NPR
Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck - Scott Santens
Self Driving Cars Endanger Millions of American Jobs (And That’s Okay) - Joel Lee
