the PM is exploited

[SmashTheState]

In marxist terms, someones class is subject to their relation to the means on production, yet i find this wrong in some cases.
Gordon Brown should not be classed as working class, or exploited, yet he dosent own or run factories, he dosent own the means of production, so in marxist theory he is a exploited worker???

This dosent make sense, yet there are people, like some on here who seem to think people earning 60 grand a year can be classed as proletariat, but these people dont suffer they live extravagantly

Anyone wanna clear this up for me thank you.

[075]

:laugh: You don't honestly believe that constitutes Marxist theory, do you anarcho-liberal?

:rolleyes:

[revolution inaction]

I think its about control not ownership. Also class analysis is more about the general form of society rather than classifying every individual.

[SmashTheState]

LOL, this is a question my brother asked me, yet when i tell him my answer he calls me an idiot and says no one else thinks like me, so i wanted you lot to answer it so he can hear other people answer.

Also he is the only one in my family to go to college so he thinks he is fucking genius, dont be suprised if he ignores the answers you give :)

[vyborg]

the problem of manager and their relationship with the ruling class has been discussed already a century ago by the best marxist theoretician of that time.

It goes without saying that the top manager, in private firms as well as in the public administration, are part of the ruling class, I would say, par excellence

[Lyev]

He is not exploited. It's a false logic to say x doesn't = y therefore x must be y. It's never as simple as that. Do you really think Mr Brown is exploited? I think he gets by quite nicely. From http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm is:

How much does the Prime Minister get paid?
The Prime Minister has been entitled to a salary of £197, 689 (including MP's salary of £64,766) from 1 April 2009.
How much do Cabinet Ministers get paid?
Cabinet ministers have been entitled to a salary of £144,520 (including MP's salary of £64,766) from 1 April 2009.
A lot of MP's have two or three houses, that most of them have claimed expenses on. Here is a list of the of MPs involved in the expenses scandal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8493634.stm Have a skim through that and decide if most politicians are exploited. And, to address your point on the prime minister not owning any means of production, your right he doesn't, as far as I am aware. Although, there are lots of perks that come with the job.

Firstly, many politicians do have large shares in business. For example, in the USA, Dick Cheney used to be Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton, the vast oil corporation. He sold off some of his shares, and made a sizable profit due to the invasion of Iraq. Secondly, the ruling class (not the bourgeoisie) serve to defend the bourgeoisie's interests. They are hand in hand. For example, when New Labour bailed out the bankers to the tune of £850 billion (I think this amount is right, but it might need verifying) they were defending their interest as a class. Also, when they nationalised the banks, they did it in such a way that benefits didn't trickle down to ordinary people. These benefits are seen only by bankers and the governments budget. Politicians, as a general rule, aren't exploited. However, as an example, I think every candidate standing for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) in the upcoming UK election have agreed to take a normal, worker's wage, rather than the inflated wage that MP's get at the moment.

[Q]

:laugh: You don't honestly believe that constitutes Marxist theory, do you anarcho-liberal?

:rolleyes:

Please mind that trolls get banned.

Anyway, capitalist exploitation is based on the fact that workers don't own their surplus value they create by their labour. They only get a compensation for their ability to work (a wage), which is usually a fraction of the value they create.

Gordon Brown is therefore not exploited, he is not even part of the working class. Instead he's a part of the political superstructure, the capitalist state.

[red cat]

In marxist terms, someones class is subject to their relation to the means on production, yet i find this wrong in some cases.
Gordon Brown should not be classed as working class, or exploited, yet he dosent own or run factories, he dosent own the means of production, so in marxist theory he is a exploited worker???

This dosent make sense, yet there are people, like some on here who seem to think people earning 60 grand a year can be classed as proletariat, but these people dont suffer they live extravagantly

Anyone wanna clear this up for me thank you.

In general, we Maoists take into account three points while judging one's class:

1) Relation to the means of production

2) Relative standard of living

3) Attitude towards quantitative and qualitative changes

I think this should clear your doubts.

[Voloshinov]

In general, we Maoists take into account three points while judging one's class:

1) Relation to the means of production

2) Relative standard of living

3) Attitude towards quantitative and qualitative changes

I think this should clear your doubts.

Unlike the first category, the second two are extremely subjectivist and relativist. I daresay they are invented just to label the Western workers as bourgeois, blurring the line between objective class position and class consciousness.

[vyborg]

I agree for the 3), as for the 2) we must have a sense of proportion. When Romiti, the boss of Fiat for 20 years, retired. The property (ie Agnelli faimly) gave him the equivalent of 500 mln euro of today. Was it a "wage"? In a sense yes, he was not the owner of Fiat, but with that colossal amount of money he bought a lot of property...thus becoming an important capitalist himself.

That's why the top management of every firm is as burgeois as the owner

[<Insert Username Here>]

LOL this thread :laugh:

[red cat]

Unlike the first category, the second two are extremely subjectivist and relativist. I daresay they are invented just to label the Western workers as bourgeois, blurring the line between objective class position and class consciousness.

Do you mean to say that the standard of living of western workers equals that of the western bourgeoisie ? :lol:

[Bitter Ashes]

I wouldnt reffer to the PM as bourgeois, but as a worker that is "valued" by the bourgeois, which puts him in the same catagory as the Police, medical professionals, managers, and lawyers. He's certainly a class traitor as well, but he's not pulling any strings that he's not already been ordered to by the party funders and seeing as though 3/4 of the party's funds come from buisness backers, you deciede whether the unions have any power over him.

[Voloshinov]

Do you mean to say that the standard of living of western workers equals that of the western bourgeoisie ? :lol:

:rolleyes:

Income levels differ wildly between workers in the West, and between Western workers and Third World workers. The second phenomenon has led some Marxists to believe that the Western workers have become objective allies to the capitalist system, i.e. that they've become bourgeois themselves. However, basing class on income (a Weberian approach rather than a Marxist one) leads us to a superficial analysis of what class and therefore class struggle is.

[red cat]

:rolleyes:

Income levels differ wildly between workers in the West, and between Western workers and Third World workers. The second phenomenon has led some Marxists to believe that the Western workers have become objective allies to the capitalist system, i.e. that they've become bourgeois themselves. However, basing class on income (a Weberian approach rather than a Marxist one) leads us to a superficial analysis of what class and therefore class struggle is.

For a proper understanding of the society, every contradiction has to be taken into account. While the relations to the means of production preserves the class character of the first world proletariat, their relative high standard of living also renders them unable to get rid of the revisionist labour aristocracy until at least a few third world countries have experienced revolution.

Yes, there are self proclaimed "Marxists" who say that the first world proletariat is bourgeois. I find their stand a pretty lame excuse for their own inaction in the first world.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The OP doesn't believe the PM is exploited he is just asking what he would be classified using marxist theory as he does not befit either bourgeoisie or proletariat neatly. The PM is a parliamentary spokesperson for capital and his interests lie firmly with the interests of the bourgeoisie.

This sort of answer is not helpful

You don't honestly believe that constitutes Marxist theory, do you anarcho-liberal?

Recognise that the person is new as they only have 5 posts and is posting in learning. Also what did the poster say which meant they were liberal?