Professionals

[Module]

How do you consider professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects etc.) to relate to the class system?

[Durruti's Ghost]

I think that professionals are the big "question-mark" in the class system. Depending on their position, they could be either members of the proletariat (e.g., a doctor working for a hospital), the petit-bourgeoisie (e.g., a doctor running and working at a private practice and employing nurses, etc.), or the bourgeoisie (e.g., a doctor running a hospital). They are where all the superficial "class mobility" of capitalism exists.

For another example, a lawyer first starting to work for a law firm would belong to the proletariat; a practicing lawyer who hires paralegals would belong to the petit-bourgeoisie; and a non-practicing senior partner at a law firm would belong to the bourgeoisie.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would generally consider most of them Petite-Bourgeois or Proletariat, depending on their position. For example, a teacher would be considered Proletariat since they don't own the means of production nor control them. However, they do work for a school which would act as their "boss" thus putting them into the Proletariat category. Somebody such as a lawyer often works independently so would be considered Petite-Bourgeois. They're not working to produce profit for a boss, but rather provide their services to those who need it for profit. However, if there was a professional who owned their own business and employed others they would then be considered Bourgeois. It's like a dentist opening up their own office and then employing others to work there. The people working for this particular dentist would be Proletariat.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Calling a dentist bourgeoisie seems to ignore the distinct difference between the Bill Gates(es) of the world and the local restaurant owned by family X. While some similarities can be drawn, their approach to the means of production and the state aren't distinctly related. Keep in mind most professional "business owners" like dentists rent their facilities.

[bricolage]

Where do people think journalists fit in? Once again I guess it will probably depend on how high up the ladder you are.

[ComradeOm]

Where do people think journalists fit in? Once again I guess it will probably depend on how high up the ladder you are.Part of the intelligentsia

[Durruti's Ghost]

Calling a dentist bourgeoisie seems to ignore the distinct difference between the Bill Gates(es) of the world and the local restaurant owned by family X. While some similarities can be drawn, their approach to the means of production and the state aren't distinctly related. Keep in mind most professional "business owners" like dentists rent their facilities.

I don't really think that a dentist would fit into the category of bourgeoisie either, or that a privately practicing lawyer who hires no one would fit the category of petit-bourgeoisie. The dentist actually performs a substantial portion of the labor in addition to employing others, making him petit-bourgeois (as opposed to, say, Bill Gates, who performs little to no labor and makes practically all his money by exploiting others)--although the people he hires would definitely be proletarians. The lawyer seems like he would be classified as a proletarian who has managed to escape wage-slavery but has not yet ascended into the petit-bourgeoisie because he hires no one.

Am I misunderstanding the concept of the petit-bourgeoisie?

[x359594]

...The lawyer seems like he would be classified as a proletarian who has managed to escape wage-slavery but has not yet ascended into the petit-bourgeoisie because he hires no one...

My companera is a "contract" attorney, that is, she is hired by another attorney to do the drudge work of taking depositions, filing motions and researching case law for the attorney of record. She does this work so she can offer her services pro bono to the working poor, especially women of color.

There is a layer of professionals such as doctors, lawyers and dentists who offer their services free or at nominal fees to working people and poor people while earning their income as staff for law firms or medical conglomerates. There are also outfits like Doctors Without Borders and the American Civil Liberties Union. So the fact that someone is a professional does not automatically designate a particular class membership, as you and other posters in this thread have noted.

[zerozerozerominusone]

(as opposed to, say, Bill Gates, who performs little to no labor and makes practically all his money by exploiting others)--although the people he hires would definitely be proletarians. The lawyer seems like he would be classified as a proletarian who has managed to escape wage-slavery but has not yet ascended into the petit-bourgeoisie because he hires no one.

So let me get this straight - I have a large amount of work to do - so large that I cannot possibly do it all myself. I place an ad for help and a person shows up to interview. I decide I find him adequate (or possibly even better) to my needs and offer him $X/hour to help me get this job done. Either he accepts, bargains perhaps for more, or walks away. Let us say we bargain a bit and he agrees to $Y (Y>X) per hour. We have reached a mutually agreeable price for his services, which is to say that we have each agreed that he will do the tasks I need done at a rate that satisfies him. We are exchanging value for value, which constitutes equity. Nobody has forced anybody to accept anything except by informed consent between two adults. In this case each is exploiting the other in a positive sense of the term. "Exploitation" is not just a nagative term - all it means it to take advantage of something. I may exploit good weather in order to bale and load the hay from my fields, etc.

Given this, how is it exploiting this new employee is something bad? Why is his exploitation of me not bad?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Given this, how is it exploiting this new employee is something bad?
Wage slavery is a ramification of societal conditions, not a case of chattel servitude, although for individuals it functions the same as any forced command hierarchy. The difference being one gets to "decide" a master.

You bring up a good point that exploitation is not inherently bad if the term is taken to its limit, and it could be further argued that an organization established around a collectively-owned motif may try to exploit the ignorance of certain users with wage discrepancies. There is some "subjectivity" to address, as is true with any system of ethics - including, as we see, capitalism. However, the problem of wage slavery remains just as real a limitation on freedom to accomplish as servitude.

The marginal revenue one can associate to the labor of the business owner (whether expressed in actual labor or capital) in all cases will diminish as the firm grows in size. This becomes more apparent even in contemporary society where many working-class citizens feel completely screwed by the upper echelons of medium to large-sized organizations, but can and do exist on friendly terms with small business owners (pending character flaws).

One fact that capitalists seem to ignore is that "choice" can be a pathway to abuse. Let's use another, related example of societal slavery: say, for example, I am entrapped by four landlords on every side. They have "ultimate" property rights - meaning, no state apparatus will terminate or suspend their authority. For me to escape, I have to negotiate a bargain with one of the landlords. The ability to negotiate alone is not an eradication of negative exploitation. I may not even need to subject myself to the will of any landlord, if I manage to make use of the available resources to build some flying contraption. But as we see with capital, the ability to excel requires mutual help - so then why is it we disavow mutual power?

[mel]

So let me get this straight - I have a large amount of work to do - so large that I cannot possibly do it all myself. I place an ad for help and a person shows up to interview. I decide I find him adequate (or possibly even better) to my needs and offer him $X/hour to help me get this job done. Either he accepts, bargains perhaps for more, or walks away. Let us say we bargain a bit and he agrees to $Y (Y>X) per hour. We have reached a mutually agreeable price for his services, which is to say that we have each agreed that he will do the tasks I need done at a rate that satisfies him. We are exchanging value for value, which constitutes equity. Nobody has forced anybody to accept anything except by informed consent between two adults. In this case each is exploiting the other in a positive sense of the term. "Exploitation" is not just a nagative term - all it means it to take advantage of something. I may exploit good weather in order to bale and load the hay from my fields, etc.

Given this, how is it exploiting this new employee is something bad? Why is his exploitation of me not bad?

Where did you get the purchasing power to pay him to get the job done? Do you own some sort of company? If so, anybody who does not own a company is at the mercy of anybody who does own a company, or rather, to the group of all of those who own a company. A person who does not have capital (the means to start a company), and who needs to survive has certain basic requirements (food, shelter) which cost money. This person must find somebody who owns a company to hire him in order to continue subsisting. Everyone who owns a company knows this, so for any task which the skills are common (anybody can do it) the wage is low. The business owner has undue bargaining power over the non-business-owner because despite that they need workers to continue to exist and grow, workers are easily replaceable and they will always be able to find somebody desperate enough to "agree" to their terms.

In addition, the boss of a business adds absolutely no value to production. If you can't do the job yourself, and you hire somebody to help you with it for X% of the amount of money that you will make for the job, where X is less than the percentage of the work they did in comparison to the whole job (if you pay them a flat wage, or 30% of the profit even though they did 50% of the work) even though they "agreed" (you may have been the only employer, they may not have in-demand skills, they may be hungry and have been looking for a job for 6 months and agree just to put food on their plates), you are exploiting their bad situation for your own profit and gain. That is extraction of surplus value. You take more than the value of your own labor because you have the privilege of having capital (the money you were going to use to pay the guy you hired) and therefore a better bargaining position.

That is the situation capitalism forces.

[New Tet]

How do you consider professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects etc.) to relate to the class system?

The question you raise has been dealt with before. A long time ago:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1900/03/socint.htm

You know, discussions like these would be helped a great deal if the proponents of the question went to the literature first instead of simply typing it here the moment it popped into their inquisitive minds.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Wage slavery is a ramification of societal conditions, not a case of chattel servitude, although for individuals it functions the same as any forced command hierarchy. The difference being one gets to "decide" a master.

Forgive me - I must be thick because I don't understand a word you wrote here.


However, the problem of wage slavery remains just as real a limitation on freedom to accomplish as servitude.

Is my accepting a position at company X on an uncoerced basis "wage slavery"? If so, how?


The marginal revenue one can associate to the labor of the business owner (whether expressed in actual labor or capital) in all cases will diminish as the firm grows in size.

This is most eminently arguable. I would say that you do not understand the importance of the roles of bosses. Sure, some are real assholes. Some are not.


This becomes more apparent even in contemporary society where many working-class citizens feel completely screwed by the upper echelons of medium to large-sized organizations.

In some cases screwing occurs, to be certain. In most cases that I have seen, it is the attitude of entitlement, rather than any transgression on the part of management that leads to such feelings. Many people want something for nothing and if it becomes convenient to that desire to start feeling entitled, many people will adopt that position in short order.


One fact that capitalists seem to ignore is that "choice" can be a pathway to abuse. Let's use another, related example of societal slavery: say, for example, I am entrapped by four landlords on every side. They have "ultimate" property rights - meaning, no state apparatus will terminate or suspend their authority. For me to escape, I have to negotiate a bargain with one of the landlords. The ability to negotiate alone is not an eradication of negative exploitation. I may not even need to subject myself to the will of any landlord, if I manage to make use of the available resources to build some flying contraption. But as we see with capital, the ability to excel requires mutual help - so then why is it we disavow mutual power?


Again I must beg your pardon - I cannot make a whit of sense of this.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Where did you get the purchasing power to pay him to get the job done?

Probably by saving money until I had enough... or borrowing on a short term credit basis.


Do you own some sort of company? If so, anybody who does not own a company is at the mercy of anybody who does own a company,

What is your evidence of this?


or rather, to the group of all of those who own a company. A person who does not have capital (the means to start a company), and who needs to survive has certain basic requirements (food, shelter) which cost money. This person must find somebody who owns a company to hire him in order to continue subsisting.

That is sometimes so. Most of the time it is not - at least not in the USA. Tens of millions of people own their own small businesses. Some thrive and some fail. Most do OK (except these days in the wakes of the various mega-screwings that have been executed upon us).


Everyone who owns a company knows this, so for any task which the skills are common (anybody can do it) the wage is low.

Well DUH. Not all labor is equal in value - that's a hard glaring truth about life. If you think a shit shoveler should make the same wage as a brain surgeon, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and rethink that.


The business owner has undue bargaining power over the non-business-owner because despite that they need workers to continue to exist and grow, workers are easily replaceable and they will always be able to find somebody desperate enough to "agree" to their terms.

Pardon me, but this is a great load of ignorant crap. I used to get paid $200 per hour for my expertise. It was a seller's market in those days. Would you say I had undue bargaining power over my clients?


In addition, the boss of a business adds absolutely no value to production.

You obviously have no idea at all what you are talking about. It sounds like you are regurgitating some crap that another ignoramus tossed at you. Give it a rest. Here's an idea for some of you - go get yourself an MBA and then come back and let us talk about how business is run and what value bosses play. Until then it seems your opinions are not even remotely credible.


If you can't do the job yourself, and you hire somebody to help you with it for X% of the amount of money that you will make for the job, where X is less than the percentage of the work they did in comparison to the whole job (if you pay them a flat wage, or 30% of the profit even though they did 50% of the work) even though they "agreed" (you may have been the only employer, they may not have in-demand skills, they may be hungry and have been looking for a job for 6 months and agree just to put food on their plates), you are exploiting their bad situation for your own profit and gain.


Good grief. What do you know about cost structures? Do you even know what it is that I am talking about? So far. nothign you have said is even remotely correct.

That is extraction of surplus value. You take more than the value of your own labor because you have the privilege of having capital (the money you were going to use to pay the guy you hired) and therefore a better bargaining position.

That is the situation capitalism forces.

No, it isn't. You need to go to school and learn something real because your understanding of how business works is less than nothing. No offense, but being someone who has been in business going on 30 years I can tell you that judging by what you have written here, you could not run a lemonade stand. I am not trying to be mean - just cutting through the bullshit in the hope that you may take this to heart and actually go learn something that is true. Go get a business degree or one in economics. Hell - just read a book on microeconomics and financial accounting and you should be able to see just how far from the truth your opinions are.

[New Tet]

Pardon me, but this is a great load of ignorant crap. I used to get paid $200 per hour for my expertise. It was a seller's market in those days. Would you say I had undue bargaining power over my clients?

You obviously have no idea at all what you are talking about. It sounds like you are regurgitating some crap that another ignoramus tossed at you. Give it a rest. Here's an idea for some of you - go get yourself an MBA and then come back and let us talk about how business is run and what value bosses play.

Only if you promise not to charge $200 an hour for it!

Tell me, how do you go about losing a $200/hr gig? The shock of it must be unbearable!

It would send me out searching for answers, I tell you!

Hey, that's probably what brought you here in the first place: A search for the answer of why the fuck, after busting my ass for six or eight years to acquire an MBA so I can secure 200 bucks an hour, I'm now in an anti-capitalist forum debating people who in my, estimation (and my own self-estimation), know nothing at all about making money?

You came to the right place, zero minus. The answer is here.

I have one part of it in three words:

Because you're a putz!

Well.., four words, actually, if you count the contraction as one...

[mel]

Probably by saving money until I had enough... or borrowing on a short term credit basis.

Many people don't have any of those options. Congratulations on starting from a position of privilege!


That is sometimes so. Most of the time it is not - at least not in the USA. Tens of millions of people own their own small businesses. Some thrive and some fail. Most do OK (except these days in the wakes of the various mega-screwings that have been executed upon us).

10s of millions out of hundreds of millions of people in total. When I looked up the number of small business in the US, it was roughly 25,000,000 as of 2004 (which includes business with no employees, but I'm being generous to your position) and there are roughly 300,000,000 people in the US...so roughly 8% of people in the US are employers of any size, and the remaining 92% of the population are subject to their whims.


Well DUH. Not all labor is equal in value - that's a hard glaring truth about life. If you think a shit shoveler should make the same wage as a brain surgeon, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and rethink that.

And you should rethink it if you think they shouldn't. I'm sure more people would be effected if there were no longer any shit shovelers than if they were no longer any brain surgeons.


Pardon me, but this is a great load of ignorant crap. I used to get paid $200 per hour for my expertise. It was a seller's market in those days. Would you say I had undue bargaining power over my clients?

I have no idea, I don't know who you are, what you were doing, or how long ago it was but realize that given roughly the average wage of a worker at $15 an hour, you were making more in one hour than the average worker made in two days. I don't think you're that special.


You obviously have no idea at all what you are talking about. It sounds like you are regurgitating some crap that another ignoramus tossed at you. Give it a rest. Here's an idea for some of you - go get yourself an MBA and then come back and let us talk about how business is run and what value bosses play. Until then it seems your opinions are not even remotely credible.

And you're a capitalist trolling a forum for leftists, presumably to stroke your own ego since I see no other reason you would want to be here. I don't care what kind of degree you have, because my best guess is you won't be posting here much longer.


You need to go to school and learn something real because your understanding of how business works is less than nothing.

And you need to be restricted to OI.

I don't need your condescension.

[New Tet]

And you need to be restricted to OI.

I don't need your condescension.

Calling for his restriction?
That's how I started my reply too. I changed my mind halfway through my first draft when I noticed the inherent sense of tragedy in the story of someone who achieved $200 an hour and lost it. It's so sad it's almost funny. In fact, it's pretty mother-fucking funny when you throw in the absurd component of someone victimized thusly and who still defends the capitalist system as basically infallible and irreplaceable.

So I find it more interesting to try and find out how much wiggle-space this guy has allowed for himself after a monumental failure like that. By the looks of it, not much.

[mel]

Calling for his restriction?
That's how I started my reply too. I changed my mind halfway through my first draft when I noticed the inherent sense of tragedy in the story of someone who achieved $200 an hour and lost it. It's so sad it's almost funny. In fact, it's pretty mother-fucking funny when you throw in the absurd component of someone victimized thusly and who still defends the capitalist system as basically infallible and irreplaceable.

So I find it more interesting to try and find out how much wiggle-space this guy has allowed for himself after a monumental failure like that. By the looks of it, not much.

I reported him as a cappie over a week ago and no action has been taken, despite frequent posting outside of OI. If I hadn't encountered this capitalist garbage in other threads and other areas of the forums then I probably wouldn't have bothered calling for restriction...

Originally that was going to be the meat of my post, but I decided to actually address the points first. NO need to resort to ad hominem when there are so many weak points in the post itself.

[Module]

This is the Learning forum. If you don't like his arguments then don't read them, and don't bother replying to them.

[New Tet]

I reported him as a cappie over a week ago and no action has been taken, despite frequent posting outside of OI. If I hadn't encountered this capitalist garbage in other threads and other areas of the forums then I probably wouldn't have bothered calling for restriction...


Don't think of him in such harsh terms as garbage. Think of him as someone who landed a $200/hr job and lost it. I know, it makes me laugh when I say it out loud but it's pity and compassion that this poor fellow is requiring now. "'He probably needs a hug', said the puppet of the King to Mr. Rogers..."

Hey that gives me a great idea: This forum ought to create a sub category called 'Hugs & Kisses'. Wherein everybody that wants or needs to can go offer apologies and ask forgiveness from other, presumably offended, users.

It would be a hoot, man!

Something like,
"Hey I send a hug over to comrade Fukyomama. I didn't know you was so sensitive about your mother being mentioned on the thread on abortion. I really didn't think you'd mind my pointing out that that's something that concerns me too because you go on and on about motherhood so constantly (not that I mind it, of course) and, you know, I so totally agree with everything you say. Anyway, Comrade 'Fuky' (if I may be so bold), say hi to your lovely family in Japan for me(Ooh, I can't wait to see your home town!) [New Tet 10/19/2021]

[mel]

Don't think of him in such harsh terms as garbage. Think of him as someone who landed a $200/hr job and lost it. I know, it makes me laugh when I say it out loud but it's pity and compassion that this poor fellow is requiring now. "'He probably needs a hug', said the puppet of the King to Mr. Rogers..."

Hey that gives me a great idea: This forum ought to create a sub category called 'Hugs & Kisses'. Wherein everybody that wants or needs to can go offer apologies and ask forgiveness from other, presumably offended, users.

It would be a hoot, man!

Something like,

I never meant to refer to the poster as "garbage", just the arguments. I hope I'm never that harsh.

In any case, have you considered that he no longer makes $200 an hour because he makes more as a business owner himself or does a different type of work?

Unapologetic capitalists belong in OI, and if they want to post in "Learning" to ask questions, they should do it in the OI Learning forum. However keeping capitalists from answering questions about leftism in the learning forum should be a top priority, shouldn't it? They have their place on this board, but it isn't here.