Do regular polticians belong to..

[ContrarianLemming]

Do regular politcians, including presidents and PM's, belong the capitalist class or the bureuacratic class?

[Blake's Baby]

The capitalist class. There is no such thing as 'the bureaucratic class' any more than there is 'the religious class'. The bureaucracy is a tool that the capitalist class uses to implememnt its rule.

[AK]

The capitalist class. There is no such thing as 'the bureaucratic class' any more than there is 'the religious class'. The bureaucracy is a tool that the capitalist class uses to implememnt its rule.
Whilst politicians don't belong in it, such a thing as a bureaucratic class exists. It consists of the hierarchial upper ranks of businesses - such as management, etc. - whilst being separate from the Bourgeoisie (who own private property and have the right to exploit the labour of the workers they hire).

The case for these individuals being a different class rests in that they don't put in any real productive labour, but rather they just supervise those who do and serve to maintain the capitalist system. Their interests are to "climb to the corporate ladder" and whatnot.

I read in a post somewhere on this forum that about 10 or 16 or something percent of "workers" make up this bureaucracy. It's one of the inefficiencies of capitalism. Just think what a powerful and sufficient economy the world could have if 10% of workers were actually actively involved in production and distribution.

As for the OP's question, ordinary politicians are Bourgeois because they work in the interests of capital. Many came from Bourgeois families or were once capitalist members of the Bourgeoisie themselves. Politicians that don't meet those criteria are usually corrupt and in a partnership with some investment bank or something and are receiving bribes. Most know that if they maintain the status quo, then they will get a bigger paycheck. Bourgeois politicians all have some privelege to gain from being in power.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The case for these individuals being a different class rests in that they don't put in any real productive labour, but rather they just supervise those who do and serve to maintain the capitalist system. Their interests are to "climb to the corporate ladder" and whatnot.

This case does not at all prove bureaucrats make up a class. If all they do is simply supervise wage workers and maintain the capitalist system as you said, then it is obvious they are a tool of the capitalist class.

They exist as a unique strata of individuals both in capitalist and a revolutionary socialist society but are not group based around a common relation to societies means of production. They are a tool for the state, as it has already been mentioned.

For example, today a bureaucrat working within the US government isn't necessarily a capitalist, they could be petit-bourgeois or even part of the working class. A government worker for example often fits the definition of "bureaucrat", however they receive a wage for their work--most likely from the state itself. Because of the diversity among individuals which make up a bureaucratic strata, they simply cannot be considered a class. Moreover they often have no direct relation to the means of production nor the wealth produced from it.

A regular politician in the US congress or whatever is more likely to be some kind of capitalist or are simply from wealthier backgrounds; thus they obviously have more of an ingrained class interest than the lower layers of bureaucracy. That's why they are the leaders and the main arm of the capitalist class' rule.

[Blake's Baby]

Whilst politicians don't belong in it, such a thing as a bureaucratic class exists. It consists of the hierarchial upper ranks of businesses - such as management, etc. - whilst being separate from the Bourgeoisie (who own private property and have the right to exploit the labour of the workers they hire).

The case for these individuals being a different class rests in that they don't put in any real productive labour, but rather they just supervise those who do and serve to maintain the capitalist system. Their interests are to "climb to the corporate ladder" and whatnot.

I read in a post somewhere on this forum that about 10 or 16 or something percent of "workers" make up this bureaucracy. It's one of the inefficiencies of capitalism. Just think what a powerful and sufficient economy the world could have if 10% of workers were actually actively involved in production and distribution.

As for the OP's question, ordinary politicians are Bourgeois because they work in the interests of capital. Many came from Bourgeois families or were once capitalist members of the Bourgeoisie themselves. Politicians that don't meet those criteria are usually corrupt and in a partnership with some investment bank or something and are receiving bribes. Most know that if they maintain the status quo, then they will get a bigger paycheck. Bourgeois politicians all have some privelege to gain from being in power.

I'm afraid I don't buy this. What is their relationship to the means of production? Do they derive their money from wages, ie do they sell their labour power to the capitalists? If so they are workers. Do they derive their money from share options and bonuses? In which case they're capitalists.

Do you think of yourself as a 'Council Communist', AK? If you do I find it odd that you throw out Marxism for Anarchism, especially as the following line appears in tyour sig (I highlight the bit that's important): "State Ownership = New Bourgeoisie. Same Proletariat. Same Exploitation". From a Marxist point of view, if the capitalist class can be succeeded by the 'co-ordinator class' - ie, the working class is not the class that will end capitalism, the co-ordinator class is, and it will usher in... 'co-ordinatism' as a form of economic organisation - then we really have no perspective of revolution. How many more classes will there be until the working class is the last class in history? Is there another class that will overthrow the 'co-ordinator class' before the working class gets to? Is there another class waiting after that?

The theory of the 'co-ordinator class' also lets Stalinism off the hook. If there is a 'co-ordinator class' then the USSR was not (state) capitalist, it was 'co-ordinatorist'. That must be an improvement on capitalism, the capitalists were overthrown by a new revolutionary class (even though you refer to them as the 'New Bourgeoisie' above, they're not, because they aren't the bourgeoisie, they're the bureaucrats). Unlike state capitalism, which is just plain old no-new-classes capitalism in the age of imperialism. So the USSR must be an improvement on what went before, because the capitalist class was dispossesed by the 'co-ordinator class'.

I don't agree, I think the USSR was state capitalist, and therefore the class in control of it was the capitalist class.

Is the 'co-ordinator class' actually a newly-discovered class? Or is it, as the theory of state capitalism argues, the tool by which the capitalists co-ordinate their rule in the epoch of imperialism/state capitalism?

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm afraid I don't buy this. What is their relationship to the means of production? Do they derive their money from wages, ie do they sell their labour power to the capitalists? If so they are workers. Do they derive their money from share options and bonuses? In which case they're capitalists.

Do you think of yourself as a 'Council Communist', AK? If you do I find it odd that you throw out Marxism for Anarchism, especially as the following line appears in tyour sig (I highlight the bit that's important): "State Ownership = New Bourgeoisie. Same Proletariat. Same Exploitation". From a Marxist point of view, if the capitalist class can be succeeded by the 'co-ordinator class' - ie, the working class is not the class that will end capitalism, the co-ordinator class is, and it will usher in... 'co-ordinatism' as a form of economic organisation - then we really have no perspective of revolution. How many more classes will there be until the working class is the last class in history? Is there another class that will overthrow the 'co-ordinator class' before the working class gets to? Is there another class waiting after that?

The theory of the 'co-ordinator class' also lets Stalinism off the hook. If there is a 'co-ordinator class' then the USSR was not (state) capitalist, it was 'co-ordinatorist'. That must be an improvement on capitalism, the capitalists were overthrown by a new revolutionary class (even though you refer to them as the 'New Bourgeoisie' above, they're not, because they aren't the bourgeoisie, they're the bureaucrats). Unlike state capitalism, which is just plain old no-new-classes capitalism in the age of imperialism. So the USSR must be an improvement on what went before, because the capitalist class was dispossesed by the 'co-ordinator class'.

I don't agree, I think the USSR was state capitalist, and therefore the class in control of it was the capitalist class.

Is the 'co-ordinator class' actually a newly-discovered class? Or is it, as the theory of state capitalism argues, the tool by which the capitalists co-ordinate their rule in the epoch of imperialism/state capitalism?

This is all really about where you stand regarding the means of production, which isn't such a main part of anarchist class anaysis, but rather, where you are in the hierarchy of things, the social stratification.

can it be said that Marxism focuses on economic inequality at work while anarchism focuses on political inequality at the voting booth

am I right?

[AK]

This case does not at all prove bureaucrats make up a class. If all they do is simply supervise wage workers and maintain the capitalist system as you said, then it is obvious they are a tool of the capitalist class.

They exist as a unique strata of individuals both in capitalist and a revolutionary socialist society but are not group based around a common relation to societies means of production. They are a tool for the state, as it has already been mentioned.
True. But I can't imagine a boss getting out of his office chair and waging class warfare against the Bourgeoisie.

[AK]

I'm afraid I don't buy this. What is their relationship to the means of production? Do they derive their money from wages, ie do they sell their labour power to the capitalists? If so they are workers. Do they derive their money from share options and bonuses? In which case they're capitalists.

Do you think of yourself as a 'Council Communist', AK? If you do I find it odd that you throw out Marxism for Anarchism, especially as the following line appears in tyour sig (I highlight the bit that's important): "State Ownership = New Bourgeoisie. Same Proletariat. Same Exploitation". From a Marxist point of view, if the capitalist class can be succeeded by the 'co-ordinator class' - ie, the working class is not the class that will end capitalism, the co-ordinator class is, and it will usher in... 'co-ordinatism' as a form of economic organisation - then we really have no perspective of revolution. How many more classes will there be until the working class is the last class in history? Is there another class that will overthrow the 'co-ordinator class' before the working class gets to? Is there another class waiting after that?

The theory of the 'co-ordinator class' also lets Stalinism off the hook. If there is a 'co-ordinator class' then the USSR was not (state) capitalist, it was 'co-ordinatorist'. That must be an improvement on capitalism, the capitalists were overthrown by a new revolutionary class (even though you refer to them as the 'New Bourgeoisie' above, they're not, because they aren't the bourgeoisie, they're the bureaucrats). Unlike state capitalism, which is just plain old no-new-classes capitalism in the age of imperialism. So the USSR must be an improvement on what went before, because the capitalist class was dispossesed by the 'co-ordinator class'.

I don't agree, I think the USSR was state capitalist, and therefore the class in control of it was the capitalist class.

Is the 'co-ordinator class' actually a newly-discovered class? Or is it, as the theory of state capitalism argues, the tool by which the capitalists co-ordinate their rule in the epoch of imperialism/state capitalism?
Remind me as to why you think it's great that - instead of abolishing classes - we create a new class of co-ordinators? I thought Marx was against class based societies yet here you are, preaching to me about how great co-ordinatorism is.

[Chambered Word]

Remind me as to why you think it's great that - instead of abolishing classes - we create a new class of co-ordinators? I thought Marx was against class based societies yet here you are, preaching to me about how great co-ordinatorism is.

I think he's trying to ask you if you think a bureaucratic class can become revolutionary and overthrow capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

@AK, yeah (agreeing with Comrade Lewis here), I don't think it's great (or possible even), you do. You think that 'the capitalists' can be overthrown by a new class of 'co-ordinators' - ie, that there is a revolutionary class after capitalsim that isn't the working class, that sets up a new form of production. How is that not an improvement? Your logic says that the USSR was better than western capitalism, unless western capitalism was actually 'western co-ordinatorism' and we have been living in a post-capitalist workld since the 1920s or something... so, I'll turn it around - what do you think is better under the 'co-ordinator class' than the capitalist class?

How many more revolutionary classes after the capitalists are there? After the co-ordinators, who next? When can the working class have it's revolution?

BTW, for some reason I thought you'd listed your tendency as 'Council Communist' but I see on checking it's 'Anarchist Communist'. Sorry for the confusion, obviously as an Anarchist there's no reason to be beholden to Marxist class analysis (even though I spent 19 years as an Anarchist Communist with a Marxist class analysis).

[Chambered Word]

@AK, yeah (agreeing with Comrade Lewis here), I don't think it's great (or possible even), you do. You think that 'the capitalists' can be overthrown by a new class of 'co-ordinators' - ie, that there is a revolutionary class after capitalsim that isn't the working class, that sets up a new form of production. How is that not an improvement? Your logic says that the USSR was better than western capitalism, unless western capitalism was actually 'western co-ordinatorism' and we have been living in a post-capitalist workld since the 1920s or something... so, I'll turn it around - what do you think is better under the 'co-ordinator class' than the capitalist class?


I think Alpha's position is that a so-called 'socialist' party or clique could overthrow a government, but it would not result in socialism being created.

[AK]

@AK, yeah (agreeing with Comrade Lewis here), I don't think it's great (or possible even), you do. You think that 'the capitalists' can be overthrown by a new class of 'co-ordinators' - ie, that there is a revolutionary class after capitalsim that isn't the working class, that sets up a new form of production. How is that not an improvement? Your logic says that the USSR was better than western capitalism, unless western capitalism was actually 'western co-ordinatorism' and we have been living in a post-capitalist workld since the 1920s or something... so, I'll turn it around - what do you think is better under the 'co-ordinator class' than the capitalist class?

How many more revolutionary classes after the capitalists are there? After the co-ordinators, who next? When can the working class have it's revolution?

BTW, for some reason I thought you'd listed your tendency as 'Council Communist' but I see on checking it's 'Anarchist Communist'. Sorry for the confusion, obviously as an Anarchist there's no reason to be beholden to Marxist class analysis (even though I spent 19 years as an Anarchist Communist with a Marxist class analysis).
The change from council communist to anarcho-communist - especially given the content of this thread - was bad timing on my part. It was sort of a revelation that happened this morning. Another inconveniently timed revelation was that I realised that the capitalist bureaucracy is not in fact a distinct class - and I take back any previous statements to the contrary.

If this sounds suspicious to you (which it most certainly does to me, even) then I'm sorry, but that's the way shit goes :)

And, in fact, I might have even confused myself (or was confused by your reply) since I hold the position that the USSR was state capitalist.

This thread really fucking confused me. Sorry, comrades.

[AK]

I think Alpha's position is that a so-called 'socialist' party or clique could overthrow a government, but it would not result in socialism being created.
This.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, this was in answer to something about four posts ago...


Never argued it would. But if a 'socialist party' becomes a new clique (class) that overthrows a government, but not capitalism, then if they're administering capitalism, they're capitalists. Not co-ordinators. If they're a new class, they're administering a new form of property. If they're administering a new form of property, then the Marxist idea that the workers overthrow capitalism is out the window. I'm trying to find out if AK really believes that there was a new class, embodying a new revolutionary property, in the USSR; or, if it was state capitalist, why he doesn't think that the administration was capitalist?

AK; no worries comrade, this is kinda the point, that debate makes us question what we believe and what we think we believe; if this thread has helped you see some things more clearly and clarify what you really think about questions of class and revolution and the nature of the USSR, it's all to the good I reckon.

[Chambered Word]

Hey man, you're learning, just like the rest of us. This kind of thing does indeed get confusing, I'm currently debating with myself degenerated worker's state vs state capitalism. :confused: