>>72116> I suggest reading this essay by Graeber for some wider perspective on what is called cottage industry:
i'll try reading the article, i'm sure there is something i'm missunderstanding, after all my readings on the matter come only from marx and some other secondary sources, but to me iif you come to the third world, empanada stands do sure look like cottage industries. We are not talking here about a guy and his empanada truck, that is way too much capital for this, we are talking people who live in abject poverty,who happen to use their family and put them to work long hours, in the double digits long, to make empanadas, these people usually live in the very edges of urban centers, in conditions more akin to cattle, they operate with almost no capital, their fixed capital being reduced to like a couple of aluminium pans, a spatula, a glass counter, and some often improvised bowls for salsas, some even using shit like improvised kitchens with burning wood, and oil that is quite literally toxic. there is a series of industries that operate like that here, i'm only using the example of empanadas because it is quite iconic, so with this in mind
>If I were a small pork running an empanada truck or a guitar amplifier repair shop in my garage, I would sell what I could and move out of the country. The service would remain unprovided as too small for porky to care about
these people cannot move out of anywhere, they can't even move out of the 3 km radius where they were born, and there is already existing proper mass scale, "bourgeois versions" of these industries, operating with actual fixed capital, that would fill these niches, they just can't because people in the cottage version of them are so hyper exploited that they can sell below the value. the reason why the government keeps them like that is because this industry just kinda stores people, so when there is a boom of something they can be used there, otherwise they would just die out, and any boom would fuck the capitalists
>You may be underestimating the level of surplus labor that could be done without. Porky doesn't really need much of a working class anymore to provide for social reproduction, and hires many, perhaps most workers simply to absorb their labor and prevent it from being used outside of the market economy.
this might be the case in the first world, which has dynamic labour markets, but absolutely nobody wants to move to the third world, so if there is a call center boom in here, it cannot be met with immigrants, it has to be met with the native population, which means that there is supposed to be a ready to use population
The whole point about this type of industry being comparable to cottage industries of the past is secondary, my point is that these industries store surplus population, and thus are a means of controlling it, which was the exact role of cottage industries to marx, even if the relationship between both is not exact the point stands
>Centralization is only progressive if you believe that porky wouldn't simply write off and destroy the fixed capital and do his business in a more pacified neighborhood
for this type of business, they can't. see above
>Especially if porky has learned to use surplus labor via immigration as a downward wage pressure tool, and you've only just given him that? Porky can include contradictions within his concessions to split you and he can always find a place in Asia to build a factory and hire cheaper labor, and do the same all over again if they make too much noise.
i mean to be fully honest i don't know, but if i were to guess, that much capital can't travel forever, specially if it keeps growing, eventually iit is going to get so big that it has to ocuppy both asia and the usa, just out of sheer neccesity to avoid a huge crisis