How did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels define the term Working Class ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

How did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels define the term Working Class ?

[trivas7]

They defined the proletariat as that class whose members are forced to sell their labour-power in the marketplace as their means of subsistence.

[#FF0000]

That's it right there. If you have to work every day for a living, and don't own or have any power over the means of production, then you are a worker.

[mikelepore]

"What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor -- hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."

-- Engels, from 'Principles of Communism'

[Dean]

It is the class of humans primarily subjected to the economy, rather than the class of humans which possesses capital benefiting from or in control of capital.

Today, the real mores of power have shifted, of course to benefit a narrower population: it has changed first and foremost in the organization of production and consumption toward this more limited population, but also in general to move away from human-oriented products. This has occurred in order to open the door to more and greater methods of capital acquisition, of which production chained to human needs is a serious impediment.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a wider number of humans engaged in economic activity have become the targets of this divestment from human interests. Local finance capitalists - your small-town bankers and branch executives - have increasingly become the impotent and dispossessed local arbiters of corporate policy.

The fact is that purchase and sale of capital is no longer in-itself the primary factor in the prole/overclass distinction. The basics of the system have stayed similar: holding firms and other capitalist entities still own human needs as capital, which of course serves to disassociate individuals from defining their economic lives. In fact, the only real question that needs to be raised is,

Whose interests are represented in the management of the capital which is involved in my life?

We will find, consistently I think, that those "market manipulations" I mentioned in another post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-thing-learned-t135688/index.html) always serve a narrowing portion of the population, but also frequently reveal the primary interests represented in economic activity. We should be grateful this information is still widely available, since the fact is a real blow to the media-capital and public-image-capital of these regimes.

I don't think this paradigm is sustainable: the economic crisis is a direct result of finance capital contradictory to the interests of populist consumer production. None of the methods have really changed - Germany seems to have taken the boldest steps yet (http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2010/05/201051914451307421.html), but they don't really divest from the securities mgmt and holding firms whose policies were responsible for the crash. Rather, they outlaw a few of the most vulgar examples.

But it wasn't a few actions that created the crisis (though there were a few big ones). Rather, it was like a string of debits from a bank account representing economic "health." Simply outlawing the $100 debits won't stop the account devaluation, and it certainly wont turn the tides.

Eventually, power will shift to those firms which control more real securities related to economic production. Finance capital will lose confidence (confidence is its own system of valuation which will eventually turn on it). Real control will be a dominating factor. I'd love to say that the working class will be the controllers (and this is a real possibility) but we simply can't be sure. We do know that the managers of capital will be closer to the working class and subsequently more beholden to this class' interests. But its not certain.

What we can tell is this: some manage capital, the rest are subject to the laws of this management, and only a massive redistribution of power, with an active, controlling population-at-large can hope to accomplish a non-exploitative state of economic control.

[LeftSideDown]

"The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."

-- Engels, from 'Principles of Communism'

So it no longer exists? Neato.

[GPDP]

So it no longer exists? Neato.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8973/1254613568652.jpg

[LeftSideDown]

In the context of the quote it doesn't... What is the point of your picture?

[mikelepore]

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market."

- Communist Manifesto

[LeftSideDown]

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market."

- Communist Manifesto

Well then there is no working class in any of the Scandinavian countries, the UK, the US, or Canada since you can (or at least I can) clearly see many examples (millions of people) of people who are living but have not found (or not trying to find) work.

[RGacky3]

Well then there is no working class in any of the Scandinavian countries, the UK, the US, or Canada since you can (or at least I can) clearly see many examples (millions of people) of people who are living but have not found (or not trying to find) work.

Your a goddamn idiot, you know what is ment here, your being disingenuous.

[Jazzratt]

Well then there is no working class in any of the Scandinavian countries, the UK, the US, or Canada since you can (or at least I can) clearly see many examples (millions of people) of people who are living but have not found (or not trying to find) work.

You slobbering fuckwit. As Rgacky says you're fully aware of what is meant you're just being a complete prick for the sake of it.

[RED DAVE]

You slobbering fuckwit. As Rgacky says you're fully aware of what is meant you're just being a complete prick for the sake of it.Hey Jazzratt, do you believe, like some of your Technocracy buddies, that managers, surgeons, engineers, etc., are members of the working class?

RED DAVE

[LeftSideDown]

No, I'm simply showing that your definition
a) is outdated
b) wrong
c) means there is no working class in any of the countries I listed.

[#FF0000]

No, I'm simply showing that your definition
a) is outdated
b) wrong
c) means there is no working class in any of the countries I listed.

d) you never heard of the "reserve army of labor"


Hey Jazzratt, do you believe, like some of your Technocracy buddies, that managers, surgeons, engineers, etc., are members of the working class?

Surgeons aren't workers? Engineers?

[Robert]

Surgeons aren't workers?

They work about three times as hard as anybody here. And they're four times smarter. As for pay, the plastic surgeons don't miss many meals, I tell ya.

Engineers are about three times smarter than anyone here but are a lot more insecure economically, which is odd to me. It's very hard to design a rocket ship that works. Trust me, I tried. :lol: But they don't earn as much as they deserve IMO, on average anyway.

For some reason, the America Libertarian party attracts lots of software engineers in my area, which is not to say that most s/w engineers are libertarians.

[RED DAVE]

They work about three times as hard as anybody here. And they're four times smarter. As for pay, the plastic surgeons don't miss many meals, I tell ya.

Engineers are about three times smarter than anyone here but are a lot more insecure economically, which is odd to me. It's very hard to design a rocket ship that works. Trust me, I tried. :lol: But they don't earn as much as they deserve IMO, on average anyway.

For some reason, the America Libertarian party attracts lots of software engineers in my area, which is not to say that most s/w engineers are libertarians.The question, dude, is not whether or not they work. They question is: are they members of the working class as that class is defined in Marxism?

To which the answer is: no.

RED DAVE

[Dean]

The question, dude, is not whether or not they work. They question is: are they members of the working class as that class is defined in Marxism?

To which the answer is: no.

RED DAVE

Surgeons and engineers typically don't own and manage large amounts of capital, so they are not of the managerial class. Which is the important distinction here.

[IcarusAngel]

Hey Jazzratt, do you believe, like some of your Technocracy buddies, that managers, surgeons, engineers, etc., are members of the working class?

RED DAVE


Surgeons aren't workers? Engineers?


They work about three times as hard as anybody here. And they're four times smarter. As for pay, the plastic surgeons don't miss many meals, I tell ya.

Engineers are about three times smarter than anyone here but are a lot more insecure economically, which is odd to me.

Marx answered this question too in the Communist Manifesto.

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers."

Thus, any attempt by leftists to claim that scientists, engineers, doctors etc. are just a part of the "liberal intelligentsia" is nothing more than slandering of working people by leftists.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that many scientists manage to avoid private industry, but as Dean has pointed out they are tools of the capital of the government. (I disagree that this is the exact same thing oppression as the free-market, though.)

Anyway, from the Marxist perspective, they are workers.

Here is an anarchist perspective which may explain why intellectuals also like to gravitate towards managerial systems:

"JP: In an anarchist society, what would the intellectual's role be?

Noam Chomsky: That of intellectual worker. A person whose work happens to be more with the mind than with the hands. Although I would think that in a decent society there ought to be a mixture of the kinds of work that one does. Marx would agree in principle. An anarchist picture of society, or anarchist tendencies in society, offer no privileged role to the organized intelligentsia or to the professional intellectuals. And, in fact, it would tend to blur the distinctions between intellectual and worker, so that workers should take a direct, active role in the mental aspects of whatever work they're doing, its organization and planning, formation of its purposes, and so on. The people whose major professional concern is knowledge and the application of knowledge would have no special opportunity to manage the society, to gain any position of power and prestige by virtue of this special training and talent. And that's not a point of view that the intelligentsia are naturally drawn to.

I think Bakunin's remarks on this subject are perceptive: that the intelligentsia tend to associate themselves with the state-socialist and state-capitalist visions which would assign them a managerial role, including the role of ideological managers of "the engineering of consent," as democratic theorists call it. And, of course, modern societies have often offered intellectuals a good deal of just plain privilege as well."

[IcarusAngel]

Engineers are about three times smarter than anyone here but are a lot more insecure economically, which is odd to me.

Mathematicians, computer scientists (which I am) and physicists all score higher on their GREs than engineers do. I'm doing part time work at the Census with someone who is a civil engineer. Many of them cannot even find work despite their degrees.


But they don't earn as much as they deserve IMO, on average anyway....

No wage-laborer ever does in capitalism.


For some reason, the America Libertarian party attracts lots of software engineers in my area...

For what reason?

Most Libertarians I've met cannot even do basic mathematics. Olaf being a prime example. This is why they're attracted to Austrian economics.


which is not to say that most s/w engineers are libertarians.


I've heard this claim several times but have never seen it substantiated.

Most Libertarians are usually "technies" which means they're in netoworking and probably have certifications such as A+, MCSE, or CCNA. Probably they do not have any developer certifications.

There is one famous Libertarian programmer, ESR, and he is batshit insane. The last Misean who got shot by the cops was also a programmer. But then Stallman in a leftist as are many others affiliated with GNU.

[#FF0000]

The question, dude, is not whether or not they work. They question is: are they members of the working class as that class is defined in Marxism?

To which the answer is: no.

RED DAVE

How in the world is this true?

[Skooma Addict]

The reason why this is so confusing is because the entire dichotomy makes absolutely no sense at all. It can be used in casual discussion in the sense that a "blue collar worker" is used in casual discussion, but beyond that it is meaningless.


Most Libertarians I've met cannot even do basic mathematics. Olaf being a prime example. This is why they're attracted to Austrian economics.I have taken math through pre-calc, and I am signed up to take calc during my first semester of my second year of college. Nothing wrong with that. It is people like you who are responsible for the general impression that revleft is a discussion board for dogmatic utopians who have a severe hatred for anyone who thinks differently.

[#FF0000]

The reason why this is so confusing is because the entire dichotomy makes absolutely no sense at all. It can be used in casual discussion in the sense that a "blue collar worker" is used in casual discussion, but beyond that it is meaningless.

Er, it's pretty clearly defined, actually. It's only confusing because Red Dave is wrong.

[Skooma Addict]

Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is clearly defined. But that still does not mean such a dichotomy is meaningful in a serious discussion. In fact, given that the Marxist concept of exploitation makes no sense, I don't see how such a class dichotomy could be useful besides anything other than casual discussion either. I guess you could look at wage laborers in general as a "class." But that would include many millionaires.

I assume you will claim that the Marxist concept of exploitation does make sense. But in fact it does not as it is absurd to say that a member of the "working class" who agrees with private property and the private ownership over the means of production who signs a contract with an employer to work is somehow being "exploited."

For example, when I go to work and earn a wage, I am in no way being exploited regardless of what anyone says.

[RGacky3]

No, I'm simply showing that your definition
a) is outdated
b) wrong
c) means there is no working class in any of the countries I listed.

But your not showing that at all, your just getting caught up in semantics which, as Jazzrat said, is nothing more than being a prick for the sake of it, playing around with semantics is not an honest discussion, its called sophistry.

[Jazzratt]

Hey Jazzratt, do you believe, like some of your Technocracy buddies, that managers, surgeons, engineers, etc., are members of the working class?

RED DAVE

I answered this question in the Defending technocracy thread you unbelievably dense tosser.

[GPDP]

I'm of the opinion when discussing the definition of class, a dimension of "power" should be taken into account, instead of merely relying on ownership of the means of production. Thus, while a doctor or an engineer may not actually own capital (or if they do, it's rather minuscule), they possess far more power within their line of work than does a nurse or a construction worker.

It is here I agree more with Albert and Hahnel's idea of incorporating these empowered workers into another class, which they call the "coordinator class." Adding such an element then prevents the "dichotomy" being protested in this discussion by OIers.

[RED DAVE]

Class

A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.
"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production."

Karl Marx
 - Wage Labour and Capital
 - Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capitalhttp://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm

Surgeons, engineers, scientists, etc., work, but that doesn't make them part of the working class.

RED DAVE

[Conquer or Die]

The working class of Europe was exploited in Marx's day. The working class in the developed world are net exploiters. Exploitation is based on the value of labor produced and received. If you produce more and receive less then you are exploited. If you produce less and receive more then you are an exploiter.

Simple.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No, I'm simply showing that your definition
a) is outdated
b) wrong
c) means there is no working class in any of the countries I listed.

Please stop talking?

http://pic.pbsrc.com/spacer.gifhttp://media.photobucket.com/image/implied%20facepalm/zerosignal/Decorated%20images/implied-facepalm.jpg