Disenchanted?

A couple of years removed from the formal sphere of academic theory I find myself frequently contemplating the day to day manifestations of anger and depression of many in my social circles.  Regardless of what class analysis would point towards, I don't really see frustration directed towards the wealthy elite, that is, the appropriators of the surplus are not the target of the youngest working generation's frustrations.  It would seem that those becoming insanely wealthy off of appropriating labor are at most an abstract concept that exist elsewhere, and can't really be fought.  For most of the working class, the wealthy elite have become, at best, an object of scorn.  There seems to be a general (if unspoken) consensus among many of my peers that there is no point in fighting against something that cannot really be changed.  Just a few years after the occupy movement the "1%" have become non-relevant to most people as a place to manifest discontent as we search for meaning in our day to day lives.   

Throughout history a person who is unsure of the source of their next meal will not fight for the well-being of their fellows, they will fight to find dinner.  A better life is an abstract concept when faced with a major obstacle (such as subsistence calorie intake), trumped by the immediate need...  The major obstacle for most American workers is not material survival, but rather relevance and meaning. The average working American does not rile against the abstract concept of a wealthy elite stealing their surplus labor, rather they fight for meaning in their day to day processes.   These manifestations, albeit often misplaced, can be witnessed in attitudes towards the role of labor in life.  Most Americans do not want to be defined by their work (which historically has been very different), instead most of us fight to leave their work "at work" whenever possible.   Modern wealth and production gains have replaced physical needs with the need for meaning in labor.  Or when meaning is not perceived as possible, the intentional stripping of all meaning out of labor.  

Meaning, and therefore fulfillment, will not necessarily be found in the tasks preformed as wage labor (although that remains a common desire), but if not defined by our labor then defined where?  If meaning does not come from the labor preformed for a wage, then the meaning of laboring to build a better life/standard of living for one's self and loved ones becomes an option.  Sadly in modern capitalism both of these forms of meaning is generally lacking for a majority of those who are forced to labor without ownership of the means of production.    

When survival is not really in question, but material meaning (growth of standard of living) beyond surviving paycheck to paycheck is unobtainable for most, what is left for the average working person? The work itself is generally viewed as something to be forgotten as quickly as possible after the wage is earned....  If society is not ready to change the system of production to one of non-exploitative labor perhaps smaller changes towards greater individual control in the work place?

I witness people, day to day,  becoming more depressed, if not economically, certainly in spirit, by the perceived notion that change is not possible, and that they just "do as they are told" for fear of losing the ability to reproduce their own labor.  From the first days of industrial capitalism to the present people have been working to earn enough to survive to get back to work.....Perhaps now that basic physical needs are easily met for most workers the point has been overlooked that other needs of the working class are not even on the radar.

The plight of the worker in modern American capitalism is not one of physical starvation but rather a starvation of power and control.  The youngest working generation only knows of the middle class as a concept from history and reacts by treating their lack of relevance (in the work place and in society) by medicating themselves (or allowing their anger to build without any concrete direction).

American society may be a long way from a class based revolution, but I see more class consciousness in the generation just entering the labor force in statements such as "do I really want to go out again tonight?  What's the point? " than I have ever witnessed in my own generation.  I don't know if mass worker ownership will appear suddenly.  However, I have witnessed small amounts of empowerment and hope in worker self management processes.  These processes are not widespread and even where they exist are not presumably not that entrenched or strong but they do have potential.  Convince a young worker to sacrifice for a communist revolution?  Never happen.  Convince a young worker in a capitalist enterprise that they deserve more of a say in the direction of their enterprise as well as their own day to day?  Might actually be something the masses are ready to embrace?  

Disenchanted?  Sure.  Find a Marxist who isn't?  Hopeful?  Always.      

Marvin Miller: The End of Slavery in Major League Baseball. Fondly Remembered

Marvin Miller: Fondly Remembering the Man Who Ended Slavery in Major League Baseball

 

 

Marvin Miller (April 14, 1917 – November 27, 2012) passed away a week ago.  I intentionally waited a few days for this post so as to not be lumped into the discussion of his (non) selection (thus far) into the Baseball Hall of Fame despite his massive influence on the history and development of Major League Baseball. Also, if I get on a rant about economists getting into the baseball hall of fame I may never stop. 

Prior to the late 1960s professional baseball players were not represented by a union.  There had been numerous attempts (I believe dating back to the late 1800s) to unionize.  The  first time the players were successful in a unionization attempt was with the formation of the Major League Baseball Player's Association, that according to their website negotiated the first successful collective bargaining agreement in professional sports in 1968.  

Marvin Miller headed the MLBPA from 1966 until the early 1980's.  Prior to running the player's union Miller worked with The United Steel Workers of America. It was shortly after the beginning of his tenure in baseball that Miller won contract arbitration and free agency for players.  This matters because prior to this victory baseball players were essentially operating under a class structure of slavery, owned and exploited by the owners of the team that they played for.  

I am not meaning to conflate baseball with the social aspects of some of the the other slave systems in human history, the US slave trade, modern sexual slave trades, the East African Slave Trade, and lots of other examples of people being horribly mistreated. However, in terms of class analysis baseball players were essentially slaves. Once under contract a player had no ability to "jump" their contract to play for another team (even if a higher money offer was made).  Players in the early era of baseball were paid their salary (just as a slave is typically given room, board, medicine, etc.) but were not free to leave the employment of the club/team that they played for.  

Generally speaking any baseballer who violated a contract could not legally play professional baseball again.  Also, once signed a baseball player remained the property of the team that signed him for the duration of his career.  Like other pieces of property (bats, balls, cars, houses, etc.), the owners could legally sell and trade their players and the player would have no choice in this other than to pick up and move their family and go play for their new team.  

Finally, it was illegal for baseball players to prematurely end their contract with the owner of their team.  There are documented cases of players being forced to return wages, and even going into debt to owners after suffering injuries, or being involved in other life events that left them unable to play baseball any longer under the terms of their contract.   

In terms of the Marxian language of class structures prior to collective bargaining baseball players were slaves.  They were pieces of property (capital) that were employed by their owners in order to realize surplus (generally speaking,  in the form of tickets and concession sales in the early years of the sport.  Players could be bought, sold, traded, with no say in the matter, and were forced to work when and where their owners told them to.  (Not to mention that in this era salaries of players were quite low). 

Returning to Marvin Miller:   Arguably, Miller did more to change the game of professional baseball than any single player / manager, etc. has ever done.  He ended the existence of the class structure of slavery for baseball players.  Players today, (overpaid or not,) function essentially as capitalist workers.  Team owners pay the player a salary, after the player signs a contract.  After the expiration of the contract the player becomes a free agent and is able to sign with another organization.  Through collective bargaining the MLBPA has won the rights to contract arbitration, no trade clauses, and numerous other rights for their member players.  All of these cornerstones of worker's rights in baseball were enacted under Miller's tenure as the head of the MLBPA.  

Today, it is true that baseball players are very well paid at the major league level (this is not so for the far greater number of players in the minor leagues).  In the Marxian theory modern players are still exploited by the owners.  The form is capitalist exploitation, not slavery.  Modern players are paid for their necessary labor.  The owners of the teams are the first appropriators of the surplus generated by the players (through tickets, merchandise sales, television, etc)  My guess would be that a good sized portion of this surplus is then transferred back to the few players with top contracts by the owners, but that does not change that the class structure of Capitalism exists between owners and players today in Major League Baseball.  

It seems fitting that "America's Game"  should be dominated by America's favorite class structure (capitalism) and Marvin Miller was a big part of why that transition took place.  May athletes, in all the major sports, baseball was the first to unionize; (and non-athletic union members as well), in fact, the whole American labor movement owes a debt of gratitude to Marvin Miller.  


If there is a heaven, I am sure there is baseball being played. Perhaps Marvin can help Jesus renegotiate his contract.