Definition of 'Working Class'

[Comizlulz]

I was wondering, what is your definition of 'Working Class'?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

http://www.mltranslations.org/us/Rpo/classes/classes2.htm

The proletariat is, in Engels' words, "the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live".1 The concentration of the means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie and the expropriation of the small producers is mirrored by the growth of the proletarian class. At the turn of the century the majority of the U.S. labor force was still made up of farmers and other small proprietors. By 1940, the importance of the petty proprietors had declined greatly, but they still made up over 22% of the labor force.2 By 1982 the number of petty proprietors had been so reduced that they made up less than 10% of the labor force. Nearly 90% of the labor force had been converted into wage workers.3

The extreme degree of economic concentration and class polarization can be further seen by the fact that only 6% of wage workers in the private sector work for the petty proprietors; the remaining 94% work for the capitalist class (employers of five or more workers). The majority work for large capitalist enterprises that employ at least five hundred workers.4

U.S. society has been almost completely polarized into a tiny number of large capitalist property owners and a massive number of propertyless wage workers. Not all of those who work for wages, however, are proletarians. The population that works for wages is divided into two fundamentally distinct classes – the proletariat and the petty bourgeois employees. Both of these classes own no means of production and are compelled to sell their labor power to the capitalists. However, the proletarian wage-earner and the petty bourgeois wage-earner are distinguished by differences in the nature of their work, the conditions of their work and the level of their compensation.

The great mass of the wage earning population are proletarians. The characteristics that distinguish this class from the petty-bourgeois strata of wage-earners are its separation from the responsibilities of management, the relatively greater weight of manual labor in its work, the relatively smaller amount of education required to carry out its work, and, for the great majority, lower wages and worse working conditions. Out of some 96,000,000 wage and salary workers in the United States, more than 68,000,000, or 71 %, are proletarians (see Table B-1).

[Comizlulz]

So it's defined as anyone who Is a 'Labour worker'? Or am I missing something here?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"(1) proletariat is synonymous with 'modern working class', (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves 'piecemeal' as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else...." - http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

So it's defined as anyone who Is a 'Labour worker'? Or am I missing something here?

You are missing something, but its my fault since I didn't copy and paste properly.

The petty bourgeois section of the wage-earning population, so-called because of its intermediary position between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is composed of several broad groups of employees. First, there are the management personnel employed by the capitalists, including the administrators of the bourgeois state. Among this group are included the capitalists' sales representatives, and all supervisors and foremen. Second, and closely related to the first group, there are the officers of the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state (military officers, police officers, etc.). Third, there is the intelligentsia, composed of the professional employees and upper-level technical workers. The wage-earning petty bourgeoisie will be discussed in a separate section.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The productive sectors of the proletariat include not only those involved in the production of material goods (industrial workers, agricultural workers, construction workers, etc.) but also those involved in the transportation of these goods (truck drivers, railroad workers, warehouse workers, etc.) and those who render services sold by the capitalists (restaurant and hotel workers, laundry workers, hospital workers etc.) The sectors of the proletariat in the non-productive sphere include private domestic wage workers, retail clerks, and clerical, janitorial and maintenance workers in the spheres of finance, commerce, government administration, etc.

As capitalism has developed, the number of productive workers has declined relative to the number of non-productive workers. This relative decline is, fundamentally, the result of the tremendous development of the productivity of labor. With the introduction of ever more modern technology and the intensification of labor, the same number of workers produces a much greater quantity of goods (and surplus value). This, on the one hand, limits the number of workers required in production and, on the other hand, increases the number of workers required to market these massive quantities of goods, keep track of the capitalists finances, etc. "[T]he extraordinary productiveness of modern industry", wrote Karl Marx in Capital, "accompanied as it is by both a more extensive and more intense exploitation of labour-power in all other spheres of production, allows of the unproductive employment of a larger and larger part of the working class…."13

The increasing productivity of labor is the fundamental factor which both causes and allows the capitalists to employ a larger amount of unproductive labor. Other characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, however, also act to inflate the unproductive sector. The spontaneity of the capitalist market requires the development of massive, redundant and competitive marketing apparatuses. Private appropriation leads to sharp contention between capitalists over the distribution among them of the surplus value appropriated from the workers, with all of the industrial, commercial and financial enterprises building up extensive bureaucracies for this purpose. Finally, the class antagonisms inherent under capitalism require a tremendous state apparatus for the control and repression of the exploited classes. The size of this state apparatus, and especially its repressive organs, has grown during the imperialist era as the contradictions of capitalism have become more severe.

[Bubbles]

The working class lack of three things:
1. Capital
2. Power to decide over the means of production
3. Power to control other peoples labor

But of course people whom don't fit in this form can share interests with the working class. It's not like you stop being working class just because you own one stock...

[NoOneIsIllegal]

If you work for somebody, you are working class. Sometimes I try to forget about this middle class bullshit. The real truth is either you sell labor, or you buy it. The working class sells it, whether it be a low paying fast-food job, a specialized blue-collar factory job, or an office/desk white collar job. These very different job positions still make us very similar: we sell our labor.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you work for somebody, you are working class.

According to this definition cops, managers, prison guards and CIA agents belong to the working class.

It's not as simple as working for someone else or working for a wage (the president, members congress, army general, etc., receive wages).

The working class is the only class that can emancipate all of humanity by simply acting in its own interests (abolishing private property in the means of production, thus eliminating classes and all other associated ills).

[AK]

@Milkman, first post

I take it you're including middle management in the petit-bourgeoisie - yet you neglect capitalists who also perform labour (small business owners).

[RebelDog]

According to this definition cops, managers, prison guards and CIA agents belong to the working class.

Yes its a wrong definition. These people have power over the working class and themslves have decision making power, thus they are not working class.

[∞]

Working class, people who work the most

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Y'all know what I meant...or, apparently not. I should be more specific, I suppose. Did you really think I thought the presidents and others were working class? Well, I meant, the working class isnt just this small definition of workers who work in factories. It's those at grocery stores, fast food chains, car factories, sweatshops, cubicles, behind desks, in front of students, etc. Of course there are wage-earners who exploit us, so I wouldnt call them our own category.

I'm just tired of some people throwing around the word "middle-class" as if people who sit at their job and make a little extra money are not working class.

[robbo203]

"(1) proletariat is synonymous with 'modern working class', (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves 'piecemeal' as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else...." - http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat


I think this extended defintion of proletariat is rather weak for several reasons

proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power No means of support? If we take this literally that would preclude anyone who holds shares or interest yielding accounts of any kind from the ranks of the proletariat. i.e. a very sizeable chunk of the population. The point surely is whether you own sufficient capital to live upon or not which determines your class position. If you own little or none , you are a worker. The vast majority are either workers or capitalists but there is a grey area in between


it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat. I am not too sure what is being said here but if it is being claimed that only productive workers - those that produce surplus value -are members of the working class then this is wrong. Unproductive workers - those that are financed out of surplus value and do not directly produce commodities for sale on the market - are equally members of the working class. This incldues banking staff, cops, teachers in the state sector and numerous others. They are all vital to the operation of capitalism even if they are technically unproductive and once again if you exclude them from the WC you significantly reduce the size of the working class . The unsavoury nature of some of the unproductive jobs in question e.g. cops has absolutely nothing to do with the class position of the person carrying out this function


proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists. Once again this is quite misleading. Its faling to look below the surface of things to grasp the true nature of class. A small shopkeeper, for example, while formally self employed, is in effect multifariously employed by the various companies whose products he or she stocks in the shop. He or she is just in effect a glorified salesperson acting on behalf of these aforementioned companies, taking a cut from the sale of their products which is effectively a variable wage. Small shopkeepers like other members of the working class have to work and many of them live a very precrious existence in the face of competition from big business

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power No means of support? If we take this literally that would preclude anyone who holds shares or interest yielding accounts of any kind from the ranks of the proletariat. i.e. a very sizeable chunk of the population.I agree that that part of the definition provided is problematic. It should read "proletarians have no way to survive other than selling their labor-power...."


The point surely is whether you own sufficient capital to live upon or not which determines your class position. If you own little or none , you are a worker. Not necessarily. Army generals aren't workers. Neither are CIA agents, foreman, etc.


The vast majority are either workers or capitalists but there is a grey area in betweenThat "grey area" is not that small... and not that gray.


it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat. I am not too sure what is being said here but if it is being claimed that only productive workers - those that produce surplus value -are members of the working class then this is wrong."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 laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital." - The Communist Manifesto.

It's because it is exploited, because it creates surplus value, that the working class is the revolutionary class, able to abolish private property in the means of production (and with it classes, exploitation, etc.) simply by acting in its own interests.


They are all vital to the operation of capitalism even if they are technically unproductiveBeing vital to the operation of capitalism doesn't make one a worker. The capitalists themselves are vital to the operation of capitalism (though not to society in general, of course).


if you exclude them from the WC you significantly reduce the size of the working class . It's not only its size that makes the working class the revolutionary class capable of doing away with exploitation. Although capitalism does require a large working class.

The working class (which doesn't include cops, managers, etc.) is the majority.

Backing his findings with a thorough and convincing analysis, Michael Zweig wrote in his book "The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret" (2000, Cornell University Press) that:

"The majority of people are in the working class, those who do the direct work of production and who typically have little control over their jobs and no supervisory authority over others. The working class is the clear majority of the labor force, 62 percent. At the top of the class order, controlling the big business apparatus, is the capitalist class, about 2 percent of the labor force. A small fraction of the capitalist class operates on a national scale, and an even smaller network of several tens of thousands of interlocking directors among the largest of businesses is the core of the national ruling class. Between the capitalist class and the working class is the middle class, about 36 percent of the labor force."


The unsavoury nature of some of the unproductive jobs in question e.g. cops has absolutely nothing to do with the class position of the person carrying out this functionYou're right, it's their relation to the means of production that determines their class. And it's that relation that determines their outlook and interests--which differ from those of the working class--and gives them their "unsavory nature."


A small shopkeeperSmall shopkeepers are by definition petty-bourgeoisie. They don't sell their labor-power, they sell their products.


Small shopkeepers like other members of the working class have to work and many of them live a very precrious existence in the face of competition from big businessNo one is denying that many members of the petty-bourgeoisie have tough lives, are pinched and even ruined by the capitalist system. The point is that they do not belong to the class capable of doing away with all of this misery once and for all.

We just went over this recently in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/small-farmers-and-t137401/index.html).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Interestingly Autonomists include students and housewives in the working class, with which I would agree. I think a problem amongst many is to link working class to cultural terms which I think is a mistake.

[StoneFrog]

TBH i don't think working class and proletariat are all that synonymous, i do concider some petit-bourgeoisie working class (well actually more the gray area which people seem to lump into petit-bourgeoisie). And as said above Students and Housewives aren't classed as proletariat but i would still say they're working class.

I also always wondered if people considered party members whom work full time for the party working class?

[A.R.Amistad]

I am a firm believer in the Marxist definition of Proletariet. Around 84% of all industrialized nations are proletarians, people who must sell their labor. (This figure, of course, doesn't include petit bourgeoisie). Still, I have always had this question: with the advent of the modern corporation and the selling of fictitious capital in stocks, what effect does this have on the working class against the capitalist class? What does it say about capitalism? Are corporations a necessary tool for the bourgeoisie to keep the dying capitalist system intact through the selling of fictiotous capital?

[A.R.Amistad]

I also always wondered if people considered party members whom work full time for the party working class?

If its their only occupation, yes, they are in essence earning a wage. Its the same reason that public workers such as firemen or health inspectors are workers as well, even though their wages come from the state, not the private sector.

[mikelepore]

These definitions are in dispute here and I always get an argument. But in my own school of thought (Marxism-De Leonism), most of us say that the working class or proletariat means everyone who doesn't own enough assets to live on the interest or dividends that the savings brings in, and therefore in order to survive they have to get a job, or send another member of the family to get a job. In the U.S. that put it at about 96 percent of the population, because 4 percent of the families in the U.S. have a million dollars or more, and a million dollars is roughly the point where the interest on the savings is a livable income for a family with no pressure to get a job.

[A.R.Amistad]

Also, how is an Army General bourgeoisie, even a very rich one? I could see them as bourgeois, but what capital do they own?

[People's War]

The manual blue collar workers.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The manual blue collar workers.

You are joking aren't you?

[AK]

The manual blue collar workers.
I take it the office workers aren't exploited? What are they, petit-bourgeois?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It depends what kind of office they work in, what they do in the office, etc.

[AK]

It depends what kind of office they work in, what they do in the office, etc.
Well if they're managers, then of course they're not working class (excluding those managers that have very little control or authority).

[robbo203]

Not necessarily. Army generals aren't workers. Neither are CIA agents, foreman, etc..
How so? You said (see below) that small shopkeepers are not part of the working class but rather are part of the petit bourgeoisie "because don't sell their labor-power, they sell their products" (Ill deal with this claim shortly) but CIA agents, foremen and even generals sell their labour power either to the state - the national capitalist - or oarticular businesses. Whats more, they have to. They dont possess sufficient capital to live upon without having to work. Thats makes them part of the working class. The fact that their particular job functions might (indeed i would say, will) predispose them to take up an ideological position hostile to the interests of the working class is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion which is about what constitutes the working class



That "grey area" is not that small... and not that gray...

I think it is small and hinges upon what constitutes "sufficient capital to live upon" without having to work. And that obviously is a grey area. All we can say is that vast majority of workers (95 % of the population or more) are clearly workers judging by the distribution of financial assets



"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 laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital." - The Communist Manifesto.
It's because it is exploited, because it creates surplus value, that the working class is the revolutionary class, able to abolish private property in the means of production (and with it classes, exploitation, etc.) simply by acting in its own interests. ...

Not that I think Marx should be seen as the final arbiter in this matter (too many leftists simply quote Marx as though that in itself concludes the argument) but if you are thinking here that Marx regarded unproductive workers as being not part of the working class becuase they did not create surplus value and therefore were not exploited then you are quite wrong, For example he made an explicit reference to commerical labour as being exploited (Theories of Surplus Value). Talking of clerical work he says"... while it does not create surplus value, enables him (the employer) to appropriate surplus value which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him". (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 294). The distinction between productive and unproductive labour is not relevant to Marxian class theory "The same labour can be productive when I buy it as a capitalist, and unproductive when I buy it as a consumer". (Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1).

You seem to be saying much the same thing as the Greek revisionist Nicos Poulantzas who excludes non-productive workers from the working class unless I have misunderstood you. The argument is that that because unproductive workers do not create surplus value but are paid out of surplus value they are not really exploited. But this is to misunderstand the nature of the exploitation proceess. It is not individual capitalists that exploit individual workers . Rather, exploitation has to be seen as a society wide phenomenon. It is the capitalist class as a whole that exploits the working class as a whole. The surplus value is redistibuted between the different branches of the capitalist economy through transfer payments. If unproductive workers were not exploited then it would follow that the capitalists who own the banks and take their cut from surplus value - in the form of interest - generated in the productive sector of the economy were not really capitalists! That would be quite absurd






Being vital to the operation of capitalism doesn't make one a worker. The capitalists themselves are vital to the operation of capitalism (though not to society in general, of course). ...


I agree that being vital to the operation of capitalism doesnt in itself make one a worker. The important point is that one is divorced from the means of production and this is the case for both productive and unproductive workers. Incidentally, Marx also talked of the capitalists as providing "productive labour" which is further evidence that productive-unproductive distinction is irrelevant to class determination in a marxian sense



It's not only its size that makes the working class the revolutionary class capable of doing away with exploitation. Although capitalism does require a large working class.
The working class (which doesn't include cops, managers, etc.) is the majority.

Well it wouldnt be much of a majority, if at all, if you include just productive workers i.e. only those whose labour "increases capital" as you emphasised. The growth of the services sector of the economy has meant a huge expansion in the number of such unproductive workers. Cops definitely are workers because they are excluded from the means of production and are reliant upon the sale of their labour power. Ditto, the vast majority of "managers"



Backing his findings with a thorough and convincing analysis, Michael Zweig wrote in his book "The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret" (2000, Cornell University Press) that:
"The majority of people are in the working class, those who do the direct work of production and who typically have little control over their jobs and no supervisory authority over others. The working class is the clear majority of the labor force, 62 percent. At the top of the class order, controlling the big business apparatus, is the capitalist class, about 2 percent of the labor force. A small fraction of the capitalist class operates on a national scale, and an even smaller network of several tens of thousands of interlocking directors among the largest of businesses is the core of the national ruling class. Between the capitalist class and the working class is the middle class, about 36 percent of the labor force.".

I dont find this convincing at all as an analysis. This talk of the "middle class" is to me is just humbug. Or at least it has no bearing on class categorisation in a fundamental marxian sense. It is a merely a sociological description. In other words the so called middle class is simply a sub category of the working class since the middle class are obliged to work just like the rest of the working class.



You're right, it's their relation to the means of production that determines their class. And it's that relation that determines their outlook and interests--which differ from those of the working class--and gives them their "unsavory nature."


No the relationship of cops or cia agents to the means of production is precisely the same as the relationship of other workers. They are excluded from it and are therefore obliged to sell their labour power. They are non owners like the rest of us. What you are talking about is their function within the social division of labour and it is this which differs from other workers. But that is a different matter.



Small shopkeepers are by definition petty-bourgeoisie. They don't sell their labor-power, they sell their products. .

I would question that. The products that they sell are produced by capitalists businesses which they sell on to the general public taking a cut from the proceeeds. This cut represents a monetary value for services rendered, a mark up . Its true they dont have a formal labour contract with these capitalists businesses whose products they are sellong but they are acting in effect as gloritrifed salesmen for said business - that is to say are multifariously employed by them in real terms if not in formal legal terms. As a self employed gardener on a low income I can assure you that I do not feel myself to be anything other than working class. The few tools that I possess -a chainsaw, strimmer spade , rakes , fork etc - hardly make me some wannabee capitalist



No one is denying that many members of the petty-bourgeoisie have tough lives, are pinched and even ruined by the capitalist system. The point is that they do not belong to the class capable of doing away with all of this misery once and for all.
We just went over this recently in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/small-farmers-and-t137401/index.html).

Yes and it is precisely becuase so many members of the so called petty bourgeoise have such a raw deal in capitalism , have not enough capital to live upon without having to work that they are really part of the working class. Certainly their legal situation is different from other workers but in the economic fundamentals they are the same

[RebelDog]

How so? You said (see below) that small shopkeepers are not part of the working class but rather are part of the petit bourgeoisie "because don't sell their labor-power, they sell their products" (Ill deal with this claim shortly) but CIA agents, foremen and even generals sell their labour power either to the state - the national capitalist - or oarticular businesses. Whats more, they have to. They dont possess sufficient capital to live upon without having to work. Thats makes them part of the working class. The fact that their particular job functions might (indeed i would say, will) predispose them to take up an ideological position hostile to the interests of the working class is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion which is about what constitutes the working classThe idea that CIA agents are working class is conspiciously preposterous. They hold clear power over the working class and use that power to undermine them and their movements. It is not helpful to see class as simply an economic relationship, it is a power relationship also.


I think it is small and hinges upon what constitutes "sufficient capital to live upon" without having to work. And that obviously is a grey area. All we can say is that vast majority of workers (95 % of the population or more) are clearly workers judging by the distribution of financial assetsAgain, a very unhelpful set of terms. What should, for example, my own organisation (Solfed) or the IWW do when recruiting members, ask them how much they have in the bank? How do you fit retired workers in to this model?


Well it wouldnt be much of a majority, if at all, if you include just productive workers i.e. only those whose labour "increases capital" as you emphasised. The growth of the services sector of the economy has meant a huge expansion in the number of such unproductive workers. Cops definitely are workers because they are excluded from the means of production and are reliant upon the sale of their labour power. Ditto, the vast majority of "managers"This is just rubbish. The police are not workers. They hold real power in the state over the working class and are basically there to enforce the rights and power of the capitalists and the state over the the working class. You are saying that at the pickets and battles of the 1984 UK miners strike it was workers v workers. It was the workers v the state. My manager has the abiltiy to hire and fire, make real decisions over production, shifts, wages, discipline workers etc. He is not a part of the working class, his power sets him apart even though he has to go to work every day like me.

I could go on but I would just be repeating myself.

[robbo203]

The idea that CIA agents are working class is conspiciously preposterous. They hold clear power over the working class and use that power to undermine them and their movements. It is not helpful to see class as simply an economic relationship, it is a power relationship also. .

This is an absurd argument. Consider where it leads to. If class is a power relationship and power is hierarchically organised where do you draw the line. Does the engineer in the tool shop belong to a different class to the apprentice because he or she exercises power of the latter? Is the "teaboy" in the office at the bottom of pecking order the only legitimate member of the working class because he or she exercises no power over anyone?

I say absolutely no problem in saying that the CIA agent is a member of the working class who nevertheless uses power to undermine the working class. Just what is the problem with this? Being working class does not mean you necessarily act in the interests of your class. Fascist organisations like the BNP are overwhelmingly working class in their membership but you can hardly say their outlook is consistent with the interests of the workers.



Again, a very unhelpful set of terms. What should, for example, my own organisation (Solfed) or the IWW do when recruiting members, ask them how much they have in the bank? How do you fit retired workers in to this model?.

Retired workers essentially live off deferred earnings. Class status is a generalisation which needs to be viewed over the lifetime of the individuals concerned not at just one point in ther life cycle. Does Solfed or the IWW exclude members of the capitalist class? What would they make of Fred Engels? I think it is possible to be a socialist despite one's class postion





This is just rubbish. The police are not workers. They hold real power in the state over the working class and are basically there to enforce the rights and power of the capitalists and the state over the the working class. You are saying that at the pickets and battles of the 1984 UK miners strike it was workers v workers. It was the workers v the state. My manager has the abiltiy to hire and fire, make real decisions over production, shifts, wages, discipline workers etc. He is not a part of the working class, his power sets him apart even though he has to go to work every day like me.
.

If your manager has to sell his working abilities to live he is working class. His function as a manager doesnt come into it. The same with the police. Of course the police uphold the interests of the capitalist class. I understand that very well. But that doesnt make them not workers. The electorate overwhelmingly vote for capitalist parties - like Labour or the ConDems. In this sense they to uphold the interests of the capitalist class too by voting to perpetuate capitalism. Are you seriously suggesting the majority of the electorate are therefore capitalists or not workers? Of course not. So it is entirely possible to be working class and yet act against the interests of your class. Like cops and CIA agents, for example

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As a self employed gardener

http://organizations.bloomu.edu/nsslha/images/bingo3.jpg

[syndicat]

Being forced to rent your working abilities to employers is only part of the proletarian condition. Capitalists also set up hierarchical managerial regimes to ensure you work as hard as they can get you to. Workers are subordinate to managers and high-end professionals who work with managers, to define people's jobs and contribute in various ways to controlling workers.

These bureaucratic hierarchies have grown tremendously during the era of domination of the economy by the big corporation, and also through the massive growth of the state over the past century.

Class is a structure of domination and subordination. The capitalist workplace is run like a dictatorship.

Working class jobs are those jobs where you are subordinate to the bosses and don't have significant control over other workers.

Also, classes come in families. So a worker's dependents are also members of the working class. A person who has retired from a life of working class jobs is also part of the working class. A person who is out of work but would have to get a working class job if he or she sought work is also a part of the working class.

But there is an exception to this. Class is about one's total life prospects, not just what job you work today. Suppose that Sarah is working as a cashier at a deli (a working class job) while she's a student but her parents are powerful corporate lawyers who own several houses. Down the road she can look forward to inheriting some assets and to help getting a bureaucratic class job if she seeks one, through her parents' connections. Now, I would say she's not a part of the working class.

But people also move between classes sometimes during the course of their lives. A person might have grown up in a working class family but they start up their own business or get a job in middle management. Or a person might have started out in some affluent family but has held working class jobs for many years.

So in addition to the working class you have boss classes to which workers are subordinate. This doesn't just include the capitalist investor/owner class, but also the bureaucratic class of middle-managers, corporate lawyers, judges, top accountants and industrial engineers (who define people's jobs) and other high end professionals who work closely with management.

My estimate is that the working class in the USA is about 3/4 of the population, the top capitalists -- the ruling class -- are about 2 percent, the owners of smaller amounts of capital who manage workers directly are another 6 percent (according to Marxist ecnomist Howard Sherman).

Police and front-line managers are often recruited from the working class, but they're not part of the working class...they're part of the bureaucratic class. Intimidating and controlling the lower class is a fundamental role of the police in capitalist society. They play a property management role when they evict people at the behest of property owners. They also are supervisors of the streets, and actually do supervise people who make their living by driving...truck and taxi drivers for example.

on the other hand, lower level professional employees -- RNs, school teachers, dental hygenists, physical therapists, librarians, technical illustrators -- are part of the skilled section of the working class, not part of the bureaucratic class, because they do not have significant control over other workers. Also, i'd point out that it isn't about job titles. You have to look at the actual power. A person might be called "assistant manager" and have very little actual power over other workers.

my rough estimate is that in the USA the skilled section of the working class is about 1/5 of the class. "skilled" means the job requires some long period of training and usually requires some kind of credential. the training might be an apprenticeship, a 2 year community college program, or a 4 year college degree. if a job only requires a few weeks of training it's not a "skilled" job even tho any job actually involves use and development of some skills.

[robbo203]

Being forced to rent your working abilities to employers is only part of the proletarian condition. ....


Working class jobs are those jobs where you are subordinate to the bosses and don't have significant control over other workers.
......


Police and front-line managers are often recruited from the working class, but they're not part of the working class...they're part of the bureaucratic class. Intimidating and controlling the lower class is a fundamental role of the police in capitalist society. They play a property management role when they evict people at the behest of property owners. They also are supervisors of the streets, and actually do supervise people who make their living by driving...truck and taxi drivers for example.
.


Police and front-line managers, you say, are often recruited from the working class, but they're not part of the working class. How so?


You say "Being forced to rent your working abilities to employers is only part of the proletarian condition" Almost all police office and front line managers are forced to rent their working abilities to an employer so that makes them workers, surely?


You say "Working class jobs are those jobs where you are subordinate to the bosses and don't have significant control over other workers" Almost all police officers have jobs where they are subordinate to their superiors and what control they exercise over other workers is not arbitrary, by and large, but clearly defined in the form of orders or instruction from above. So how does that make them not workers?

The fact that a police officer, for example, does a job that involves essentially protecting the capitalist status quo is quite true but that in itself is not sufficient grounds for seeing this person as something other than a worker (in uniform). The great majority of workers vote for capitalist parties at election but that does make them any the less working class, does it?

It is quite possible to be a member of the working class and act against the interest of your class and I really cannot see why some on the Left have such great difficulties in understanding this simple point. Like I said earlier, fascist organisations like the BNP consist overwhelmingly of what the Left would unequivocally recognise as working class people yet the BNP is hardly a pro-worker outfit.

Why is it not possible to simply see what you call the bureaucratic class as simply a subset of the working class? Police officers no more own the means of production than do say electricians or plumbers. Their basic economic class relationship is identical

[RotStern]

You know the show The Office?
Watch it, then you'll understand, Jim and Pam would be the workers, Dwight would be a worker, but he want's to become like Michael, David and Jan (Petite Bourgeois) etc etc.
Bob Vance would be a capitalist.

[Pretty Flaco]

You know the show The Office?
Watch it, then you'll understand, Jim and Pam would be the workers, Dwight would be a worker, but he want's to become like Michael, David and Jan (Petite Bourgeois) etc etc.
Bob Vance would be a capitalist.
Nice explanation. :lol:

Would doctors be working class? I'd say there's a large gap between "blue collar" and "white collar" working class then.

[A.R.Amistad]

Nice explanation. :lol:

Would doctors be working class? I'd say there's a large gap between "blue collar" and "white collar" working class then.

The gap is only a quantitative difference. Its based only on income and job type, and in fact mostly job type (some "Blue Collar" workers may be better paid than some "White Collar Workers," compare a unionized auto-worker and a non-unionized secretary.) As for doctors, it all depends. If the doctor owns there own practice, they are probably petit-bourgeoisie. But I think most medical workers are indeed, workers, even some of the well paid ones. If they sell their labor they're a worker.

[syndicat]

You say "Being forced to rent your working abilities to employers is only part of the proletarian condition" Almost all police office and front line managers are forced to rent their working abilities to an employer so that makes them workers, surely?



hopefully you can understand the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition. "being forced to rent your working abilities to employers" is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, of being part of the working class. it happens to be a condition shared with the bureuacratic class.


You say "Working class jobs are those jobs where you are subordinate to the bosses and don't have significant control over other workers" Almost all police officers have jobs where they are subordinate to their superiors and what control they exercise over other workers is not arbitrary, by and large, but clearly defined in the form of orders or instruction from above. So how does that make them not workers?


I already explained this. There are workers who make their living as drivers, such as taxi or truck drivers. the police control them, supervise them, in that part of their work. the police are supervisors of the streets.

the police, sheriffs play a property management role in evictions. in this they are not acting any differently than, say, someone employed by a landlord directly or on contract. they're doing the bidding of the landlords. in playing this role, they are exercizing authority over working class people.

the class role of police is also very evident in strikes or labor disputes, where they act directly in the interests of the employers, and against the workers...as much so as, say, the corporate lawyer of the company who is guiding the company's anti-union plans.

ultimately an essential role played by the police in class society is the intimidation and bullying of the lower class, keeping them in line.


Why is it not possible to simply see what you call the bureaucratic class as simply a subset of the working class? Police officers no more own the means of production than do say electricians or plumbers. Their basic economic class relationship is identical

you're merely exhibiting the dogmatism i've learned to expect from the SPGB.

doctors, at least in the USA, are clearly members of the bureaucratic class. if they own their own practice, they have large staffs, and they are often on boards of directors of hospitals. even when they are employees, they usually act as supervisors over nurses and others.

the exception to this is the case of interns and residents, who are very highly controlled and don't have much control. but that is an apprenticeship. once they get thru that apprenticeship, they can expect the usual privileges of a bureaucratic class position.

now, it might be that in some countries doctors don't have this sort of power over other workers and are more like medical technicians in the USA, and in that case they would not be in the bureaucratic class.

[Thirsty Crow]

The gap is only a quantitative difference. Its based only on income and job type, and in fact mostly job type (some "Blue Collar" workers may be better paid than some "White Collar Workers," compare a unionized auto-worker and a non-unionized secretary.) As for doctors, it all depends. If the doctor owns there own practice, they are probably petit-bourgeoisie. But I think most medical workers are indeed, workers, even some of the well paid ones. If they sell their labor they're a worker.
How could the gap be merely quantitative since the material conditions give rise to specific forms of consciousness? (of course, if you agree with that assertion).
Note however that I'm talking about the section of the white collars which gravitate to managerial positions and/or enjoy significant privileges, one of them being a higher income.

[robbo203]

hopefully you can understand the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition. "being forced to rent your working abilities to employers" is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, of being part of the working class. it happens to be a condition shared with the bureuacratic class.



I already explained this. There are workers who make their living as drivers, such as taxi or truck drivers. the police control them, supervise them, in that part of their work. the police are supervisors of the streets.

the police, sheriffs play a property management role in evictions. in this they are not acting any differently than, say, someone employed by a landlord directly or on contract. they're doing the bidding of the landlords. in playing this role, they are exercizing authority over working class people.

the class role of police is also very evident in strikes or labor disputes, where they act directly in the interests of the employers, and against the workers...as much so as, say, the corporate lawyer of the company who is guiding the company's anti-union plans.

ultimately an essential role played by the police in class society is the intimidation and bullying of the lower class, keeping them in line.



you're merely exhibiting the dogmatism i've learned to expect from the SPGB.

doctors, at least in the USA, are clearly members of the bureaucratic class. if they own their own practice, they have large staffs, and they are often on boards of directors of hospitals. even when they are employees, they usually act as supervisors over nurses and others.

the exception to this is the case of interns and residents, who are very highly controlled and don't have much control. but that is an apprenticeship. once they get thru that apprenticeship, they can expect the usual privileges of a bureaucratic class position.

now, it might be that in some countries doctors don't have this sort of power over other workers and are more like medical technicians in the USA, and in that case they would not be in the bureaucratic class.


Firstly, get your facts straight - Im not a member of the SPGB - and secondly I think your perspective on class is equally as dogmatic as the dogmatism you attribute to them if not more so.

Yes, I do understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions thank you very much but I dont agree with the way in which you apply this distinction in this case. You have a particular narrow definition of working class and bureacratic class which you adhere to rigidly.

I take a wider view of what the working class is but I am quite aware that the role or function of different groups of workers within the working class can differ markedly. What you call the bureaucratic class is part of the wider working class which i define simply as those members of society who do not possess sufficient capital to live upon without having to sell their labour power for a wage or salary.

Police officers are definitely workers too by this criterion. Sure, their anti-working class role is "evident in strikes or labor disputes, where they act directly in the interests of the employers, and against the workers..." But scabs also do this. Does this mean scabs are not members of the working class? Of course not.

It is quite possible for someone to act against the interest of the class to which they belong and it seems to me that, by effectively denying this, you are adopting an extremely doctrinaire postion which compels you to indulge in all sorts of convoluted and unconvincing arguments to explain away the discrepancies...

Lastly, you have completely sidestepped my point that control and supervision is relative and that what we have instead is a spectrum. Police officers you say "supervise" the workers but police officers are themselves supervised and forced to carry out orders.

Some years ago I used to work in the civil service in the UK as a lowly clerical officer. The only rank below mine was that of a clerical assistant. Above me were a whole series of gradations culiminating in the chief executive. By your logic I would not be a member of the working class becuase I was a mere one notch above that of clerical assistant. In fact, according to you, the vast majority of the people in the building would not be workers but members of the so called bureaucratic class. The only workers would be the handful of CAs. Which is laughable. in fact you would have been laughed out of the building if you had told them that.

At the end of the day you can classify people in any which way you like. The point is what is the purpose of your classificatory schema? Revolutionary socialists want to bring about a society based on the common ownership of the means of production. Our class taxonomy will therefore be biassed towards a class defintion that differentiates between individuals on the basis of their relationship to the means of production - whether they own sufficient means of production to enable them to live without having to sell their labour power or whether they are divorced from these means and are therefore compelled to sell their working abilities to others.

On this basis the vast majority - well over 90% of the population at least in the industrialised countires - are members of the working class including those who carry out a role that is antithetical to the interests of this class such as police officers

[Zanthorus]

What in fact is a social class according to our critical method? Can we possibly recognise it by the means of a purely objective external acknowledgement of the common economic and social conditions of a great number of individuals, and of their analogous positions in relationship to the productive process? That would not be enough. Our method does not amount to a mere description of the social structure as it exists at a given moment, nor does it merely draw an abstract line dividing all the individuals composing society into two groups, as is done in the scholastic classifications of the naturalists. The Marxist critique sees human society in its movement, in its development in time; it utilises a fundamentally historical and dialectical criterion, that is to say, it studies the connection of events in their reciprocal interaction.http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

I think Bordiga's point in this piece gets to the heart of the matter. It's not a question of dividing people up into classes on the basis of statistical divisions or somesuch, it's a question of historical actors. More specifically - what section of society by it's very nature, it's conditions of life, is forced to come into continual conflict with capital? When you work that one out, then there's your working class.

[syndicat]

Some years ago I used to work in the civil service in the UK as a lowly clerical officer. The only rank below mine was that of a clerical assistant. Above me were a whole series of gradations culiminating in the chief executive. By your logic I would not be a member of the working class becuase I was a mere one notch above that of clerical assistant.

you're confused. class is structure of domination, of subordination. just because a person has a different pay grade or pay level in the employer's differentiation scheme doesn't mean they have any significant power over other workers. as I said, it's not about titles. it's about power. a person who works at the local 7-11 may be called "assistant manager" but that only means she gets a key to open up. in reality she has no power over workers. so she's not a member of the bureaucratic class.

you may not be a member of SPGB but the positions you take sound very like their positions.

[M-26-7]

Five-star generals are proletarians, because they have to answer to the Commander-in-Chief.

[robbo203]

you're confused. class is structure of domination, of subordination. just because a person has a different pay grade or pay level in the employer's differentiation scheme doesn't mean they have any significant power over other workers. as I said, it's not about titles. it's about power. a person who works at the local 7-11 may be called "assistant manager" but that only means she gets a key to open up. in reality she has no power over workers. so she's not a member of the bureaucratic class..


You are the one that is confused, Im afraid. Class is about your relationship to the means of production. Whether you are an owner of those means of production or not. Certainly class involves domination but it is utterly simplistic to suggest that domination is confined to one class - or in your case, two, since you seem to think we live in a three class society consisting of capitalists bureaucrats and workers. Domination is graduated and transcends class division. It presents itself as a spectrum. The miner or plumber who comes back from work and beats his wife is certainly behaving in a "dominant" fashion. But that doesnt make him any the less a worker, does it?

You obvious havent worked in the civil service if you think the difference between civil servants is simply a matter of differences in grades or levels of pay. There is in fact a hierarchical power arrangement at work as well.

You might say what matters is "significant" power But how "significant" must "significant power" be in order to gain entry into this esteemed "bureaucratic class" of yours. Is the lowly social security officer who processes your claim for disability allowance no longer to be considered a worker becuase she sticks to the procedures that result in you being disallowed an allowance? Or does she become a worker by ignoring these procedures and granting you your allowance? The policeman who attacks striking workers might well appear to be exercising significant power but actually that policeman is just a tool of the ruling class, following orders from above. In some parts of the world the police have formed trade unions and in the UK (and Im sure elsewhere as well) have even gone on strike most famously in 1918/19.

Police officers are just workers in uniform who have to sell their ability to work like any other worker and notwithstanding the fact that they perform a role that quite often (though not always) is against the interests of the class to which they belong.

[syndicat]

the post from Bordiga is relevant here. Bordiga is saying that the antagonistic fault lines that we see played out in class struggles are an indication or symptom of where the class line lies.

Class is a hypothesis. We posit class in order to explain various aspects of social reality. In particular to explain the actual processes of class struggle, and the objectively antagonistic relationships between groups. Class is a power relation between groups. To say it is about "a relation to the means of production" is the worst sort of vulgar marxism.

Class conflict and antagonism occurs because of the relations of subordination, domination, vulnerability to exploitation....this defines the proletarian condition. Workers have objectively antagonistic relations to their bosses, as well as to cops...as in strikes or in the whole issue of police brutality in poor working class communities.

The bosses that workers mainly are subject to, and have antagonistic relations to, at present are their salaried managers, and people who work with them to control workers, like the role of lawyers in helping to crush unions or prosecute working people legally. The front line managers are often the most intense in their opposition to unions...because worker collective self-activity is a direct challenge to their authority and privileged position. But these are antagonistic relations between workers and people who are not capitalists. hence the bureaucratic class explains this.

within the corporate sector the bureaucratic class are important allies to the capitalist owners, even tho they are also subordinate to them.

[RebelDog]

Class is about your relationship to the means of production.

Nobody owned the means of production in the USSR. Was that a classless society?

[JazzRemington]

I was wondering, what is your definition of 'Working Class'?

I suppose a Marxist definition of "working class" (as opposed to any particular iteration of working class throughout history) would include some relationship to the means of production and control/use of surplus labor. Maybe something like the working class is that group of people who directly utilize the means of production and are compelled to perform surplus labor for the ruling class. Ownership/control over the means of production is what changes with each historical iteration of the working class, although I'm not sure if my above definition would imply such issues. I don't know about police or the military being working class or ruling class, since they don't have a direct relationship to the means of production, in the strictest sense. A direct relationship is what's important, here.

Further, you all realize that the OP made 4 post on the same day and has not logged in since?

[robbo203]

Class is a hypothesis. We posit class in order to explain various aspects of social reality. In particular to explain the actual processes of class struggle, and the objectively antagonistic relationships between groups. Class is a power relation between groups. To say it is about "a relation to the means of production" is the worst sort of vulgar marxism.

But that is how class is defined in marxist terms, is it not? Your relationship to the means of production. To dismiss this as "vulgar marxism" is to miss the point completely. It becomes vulgar if you consider the working class to be simply an undifferentiated homogenous mass. That is not what i am saying. I am quite comfortable with the idea that police officers, for example, perform a role that is largely antithetical to the interests of othe working class while recognising they are clearly members of the working class. You on the other hand seem to think that ones relation to the means of production is of secondary importance and that "class is essentially a power relation". Which basically means you cannot allow for the fact that some workers can exercise a degree of power over others which i think is absurd. I ask you again - is the plumber or miner not still a member of the working class just becuase he beats wife around?

[robbo203]

Nobody owned the means of production in the USSR. Was that a classless society?


The state nominally owned the means of production. Therefore those who controlled the state - the nomenklatura in the case of the USSR - were the de facto owners of the means of production. Ultimate control of the means of production equates with de facto ownership - you simply cannot separate these two things in practice when you think about it. You dont need to have legal title to some thing in order to own it

[syndicat]

Which basically means you cannot allow for the fact that some workers can exercise a degree of power over others which i think is absurd. I ask you again - is the plumber or miner not still a member of the working class just becuase he beats wife around?

to repeat: control over workers *in social production*. that is where class derives from. but then it spreads out throughout the society.

but class isn't the only structure of oppression in society. gender and race or national oppression exist also. and these forms of oppression intersect with class in people's daily lives. due to fewer work opportunities for women, lack of social supports for things like chilidren, women end up often dependent on men. this also affects relations within social production.

sexual harassment has been used historically to discourage women from entering into traditionally "male" occupations. supervisors and employers encourage this, just as they do racist interactions, as it divides the workforce. this forces women then to seek out jobs in female job ghettoes where the employers can pay them less because they have fewer options. so that is part of how structural gender inequality (patriarchy) intersects with class.


You dont need to have legal title to some thing in order to own it

i guess not if you imagine you run your own language and can define words anyway you want.

[Barry Lyndon]

For Left-coms, 'working class' is code for 'white people'.

[bricolage]

For Left-coms, 'working class' is code for 'white people'.

Genius...

[robbo203]

to repeat: control over workers *in social production*. that is where class derives from. but then it spreads out throughout the society.

but class isn't the only structure of oppression in society. gender and race or national oppression exist also. and these forms of oppression intersect with class in people's daily lives. due to fewer work opportunities for women, lack of social supports for things like chilidren, women end up often dependent on men. this also affects relations within social production.

sexual harassment has been used historically to discourage women from entering into traditionally "male" occupations. supervisors and employers encourage this, just as they do racist interactions, as it divides the workforce. this forces women then to seek out jobs in female job ghettoes where the employers can pay them less because they have fewer options. so that is part of how structural gender inequality (patriarchy) intersects with class.

.

I know class is not the only form of oppression and that it intersects with other forms of oppression. This is precisely why I sought to rebut the charge of vulgar marxism you were making. Class is not the only game in town

Neverthless this thread is about what defines the working class. You say it is rooted in social production. Yes, that much we agree upon. But in what sense is it rooted in production? You say it is about control and that on this basis you feel that you are able to differentiate between something called a bureaucratic class and the working class. I would say on the contrary, that the so called bureaucratic class is part of the working class and an expression of the evolving social division of labour within capitalism

The bureacrats "control" in a technical sense but far more fundementally they themsleves are controlled by virtue of the fact that they are divorced from the means of production like the rest of the working class. It is at this fundamental level that ownership and control converge. Like I said about the ruling class in the Soviet Union - their ultimate control over the means of production (via their control of the state) translates into de facto ownership of those means of production.


What I am trying to get you to see then is that the idea of "control" cannot be treated in some disembodied abstract sense as you are doing but needs to be tied to context. We need to differentiate between different forms of control. Your position strikes me as both dogmatic and unrealistic in disallowing the possibility of control being exercised within the working class which is defined by its lack of control in a more fundamental sense of being divorced from the means of production.

In truth , this technical "control" that some workers exercise of other would in fact mean that what you call the working class would be a very tiny proportion of the population if your defintion were to be literally interpreted. In every workplace you find a subtle gradation of power reaching up from the incoming new apprentice to the CEO at the top but according to you it is only those at the very bottom who exercise no power over other workers whatsoever who are the true working class.

I reject this completely. Whats more, it distracts from the real issue which centres on the fact that the huge majority of the population are divorced from the means of production. From a revolutionary socialist perspective, it is an aspect of a ruling class strategy to divide and rule over the workers

[JonnyCommy]

I have been pondering over the definition-wise idea of this issue too, and a couple of problems i seem to have;
Isnt giving your money to someone to use it labour in it self? Isnt the creditor a worker for the borrower, for which the borrower pays a wage(interest)?
How can top level athletes, celebrity actors, etc be working class? They might live off their wages if they dont save up, so does that mean that they share the same class antagonism against their employers? Their high income seems to show otherwise:mad:

[syndicat]

In truth , this technical "control" that some workers exercise of other would in fact mean that what you call the working class would be a very tiny proportion of the population if your defintion were to be literally interpreted. In every workplace you find a subtle gradation of power reaching up from the incoming new apprentice to the CEO at the top but according to you it is only those at the very bottom who exercise no power over other workers whatsoever who are the true working class.


slippery slope fallacy. this is like arguing that because there is a very gradual process of hair loss we can't say there is any real difference between being bald and having a full head of hair.

yes, the bureaucratic class within capitalism is subordinate to the capitalist elite. they are a class "in between".

there are two structures that are the basis of class. there is a relative concentration or monopolization of ownership of means of production or business assets. and there is a relative monopolization of decision-making authority, not based on ownership. this organizational power is the basis of an antagonistic order-giver/order-obeyer division.

[robbo203]

slippery slope fallacy.

yes, the bureaucratic class within capitalism is subordinate to the capitalist elite. they are a class "in between".

there are two structures that are the basis of class. there is a relative concentration or monopolization of ownership of means of production or business assets. and there is a relative monopolization of decision-making authority, not based on ownership. this organizational power is the basis of an antagonistic order-giver/order-obeyer division.

Yeah, so you keep saying but its quite unconvincing. Every workplace has a hierarchy of order takers and order givers. If the working class were only those who took orders and did not give orders, it would amount to be a very small fraction of the working population indeed. Besides ,as I say. you make no differentiation between the kind of ultimate control exercised by the capitalists through their ownership of the means of the production and the kind of control exercised by workers (taking orders from their superiors be it noted) to do this or to do that. Police officers to use our perennial example are by and large order takers so where would they fit in your schema if not workers?

The bureaucratic class like the so called "middle class" is not a class in between the workers and the capitalists but is rather part of the working class, albeit having a role different to other workers. Like other workers it has to sell its ability to work for a wage and it is this which fundamentally makes it part of the working class

[syndicat]

Yeah, so you keep saying but its quite unconvincing. Every workplace has a hierarchy of order takers and order givers. If the working class were only those who took orders and did not give orders, it would amount to be a very small fraction of the working population indeed.

actually i estimate the working class in the USA at about three-fourths of the population, by examining Bureau of Labor Statistics tallies of various occupations.

it's necessary to be clear what power over others is. it's not just coordinating work or making suggestions to others. i worked as a "lead" once where i coordinated the work of about six people. I had no power over them. I could make suggestions. i had one person who adamantly refused my suggestions on one point. Ultimately she got burned by her refusal...she lost some of her work. But i had no way to discipline her.

similarly, a taxi dispatcher gives calls to drivers, tells them where the pickup is, etc. but it's just coordination of work. a dispatcher typically would not have supervisorial authority or formal authority to discipline.

with class we're talking about formal structures of power. we're not talking about informal forms of control...which workers themselves can and do exercize, especially in group form.

there is a fundamental problem with the binary approach that says there are only two classes. this implies that simply changing ownership is what's necessary to liberate the working class from oppression & exploitation. it implies there is nothing problematic or oppressive about the internal hierarchical workplace structures, or control by managers over workers. this viewpoint leads to the sort of bureaucratic class regimes that existed in the Communist countries.

[robbo203]

actually i estimate the working class in the USA at about three-fourths of the population, by examining Bureau of Labor Statistics tallies of various occupations.

it's necessary to be clear what power over others is. it's not just coordinating work or making suggestions to others. i worked as a "lead" once where i coordinated the work of about six people. I had no power over them. I could make suggestions. i had one person who adamantly refused my suggestions on one point. Ultimately she got burned by her refusal...she lost some of her work. But i had no way to discipline her.

similarly, a taxi dispatcher gives calls to drivers, tells them where the pickup is, etc. but it's just coordination of work. a dispatcher typically would not have supervisorial authority or formal authority to discipline.

with class we're talking about formal structures of power. we're not talking about informal forms of control...which workers themselves can and do exercize, especially in group form.

Again, this just does not strike me as convincing at all. If you estimate the working class to be three quarters of the population then this simply cannot be made to square with your claim that workers are only order takers and can never also be order givers. Like I said, capitalist workplaces are hierarchically organised with most workers being both order takers and order givers. Admittedly this is low-level order giving and often informal (why you should focus simply on just "formal structures" seems curiously legalistic to me and quite agaimnst the spirit of sociological enquiry) but you have effectively boxed yourself into position of having to say that workers are those who are order takers only. So i have to assume that this is literally what you mean.

Your examples are instructive in this respect. I quite agree that the taxi despatcher does not have power to discipline the taxi driver for not going to pickup point as requested. But that does not mean he or she has no power or that no "order" has been given in the sense of an imperative demand. It is a euphemisim to call this just "coordination of work". There is an unstated expectation that the taxi driver will carry out the request made by the despatcher and that failure to do so has consequences which will presumably involve the despatcher reporting this incident to his or her line manager. In other words, the despatcher is acting from a postion of derived authority and it is this derived authority that turns a mere request into an order.


Afterall if the taxi despatcher simply turned a blind eye to the taxi driver's refusal to comply this could have adverse consequences for him or her (the despatcher). For example, the potential pick up could complain to the taxi firm that no taxi turned up and the line manager of the despatcher could question whether s/he was doing her job properly and so on. So the taxi despatcher allies himself or herself with the employers in this case and draws upon the authority of the latter to make imperative the request made to the taxi driver. In other words to become an order giver. You can look upon him or her as simply the means or the tool through which orders are given (which BTW is how I see police officers) but that does not alter the fact that she is proximately speaking an order giver vis a vis the taxi driver

Power or control is a graduated phenomenon. Most workers are both order takers and order givers and only a few are simply order takers. At the very top of this power pyramid you have ultimate control which in fact merges with de facto ownership. These are the people who can give orders - because they own the means of production - without having to take orders.


My criticism of your perspective is that by fetishising this concept of "control", using it in a somewhat abstract disembodied sense without tying it to context, you blur over the distinction between control applied at this level and technical control based on derived or devolved authority. In other words, you effectively obscure what really makes capitalism a class based society in the first place.

[syndicat]

Afterall if the taxi despatcher simply turned a blind eye to the taxi driver's refusal to comply this could have adverse consequences for him or her (the despatcher). For example, the potential pick up could complain to the taxi firm that no taxi turned up and the line manager of the despatcher could question whether s/he was doing her job properly and so on.

but this is true in many jobs. work is a coordinated activity in capitalist workplaces. if someone else screws up, doesn't show up on time or whatever it can have consequences for other workers.

moreover, you're igoring the point from bordiga...a point made by others...that in class conflict we see a symptom or indication of where the fault line is. salaried managers (and high end professionals who advise them and work with them in controlling workers such as lawyers) have an antagonistic relationship to the workers under them.

class is a structure of power...something you seem to be ignoring. That means there are formally constituted systems of hierarchical authority. Class is about structures that provide a relative monopolization over decision-making authority in social production. This can be through ownership or it can be through organizational position. Also, it can come from relative monopoly over expertise or information flows where these are critical to the decision-making hierarchy, such as the kinds of expertise that high-end professionals bring to their advice and work with management.

[Niccolò Rossi]

it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat. I am not too sure what is being said here but if it is being claimed that only productive workers - those that produce surplus value -are members of the working class then this is wrong. "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 laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital." - The Communist Manifesto.

It's because it is exploited, because it creates surplus value, that the working class is the revolutionary class, able to abolish private property in the means of production (and with it classes, exploitation, etc.) simply by acting in its own interests.

I haven't followed this argument too closely in the following pages of this thread and thus am unsure whether it has already been made (I know Zanthorus gets at it in his post) but I'll make it either way.

I have no objections to the quote NHIA gives from the Manifesto, nor what he has to add in his own words. Yet remarkably we reach different conclusions.

There is a division of labour within the working class between those workers employed productively, ie. in the direct production of surplus-value and thus the expansion of capital and those employed unproductively. I agree with Robbo when he says that it is wrong to conceive of only workers emplyed in directly productive labour are members of the class we call the proletariat.

The error, as in most questions which are seemingly unsolvable, is in the way the question is posed. It is not a matter of whether this or that individual worker because of the job they perform is a member of the proletariat and thus inately revolutionary. The proletariat is a revolutionary class. However proletarians are not revolutionary as individuals, they are revolutionary as a class.

Well those are my imediate thoughts on the issue atleast.

Nic.

[robbo203]

but this is true in many jobs. work is a coordinated activity in capitalist workplaces. if someone else screws up, doesn't show up on time or whatever it can have consequences for other workers.

moreover, you're igoring the point from bordiga...a point made by others...that in class conflict we see a symptom or indication of where the fault line is. salaried managers (and high end professionals who advise them and work with them in controlling workers such as lawyers) have an antagonistic relationship to the workers under them..

No Im not ignoring it. Ive said quite clearly that there is a differentiation of roles and functions within the working class but the fault lines are not class lines in these instances. They are arise from the tensions that obtain between these different functions/roles within the working class defined as all those who are economically obliged to sell their labour power including most managers

Work is not simply "coordinated activity" in capitalism as you claim. Work is hierarchically organised in the workplace and most workers are both order takers and order givers even if at a low level. I have shown that in your example, the despatcher is acting from a position of derived authority vis a vis the taxi drivers which effectively turns his or her requests to the taxi drivers into orders or imperative demands. I have shown also that the despatcher has a vested interest in ensuring that the taxi driver compliies with this order - because there would be comebacks if not



class is a structure of power...something you seem to be ignoring. That means there are formally constituted systems of hierarchical authority. Class is about structures that provide a relative monopolization over decision-making authority in social production. This can be through ownership or it can be through organizational position. Also, it can come from relative monopoly over expertise or information flows where these are critical to the decision-making hierarchy, such as the kinds of expertise that high-end professionals bring to their advice and work with management.

How can I be ignoring that class is a structure of power when I have said not one but several times that the workplace is hierarchically organised and that the capitalist class are distinguished from the working class by the fact that they exercise ultimate control over the means of production through their ownership of these means. What you are talking about is control below the level of ultimate control which defines the capitalist class and I have never denied that some workers are more powerful than others. But that does not make them not workers. Furthermore, as I say you are just focussing on small select groups of workers whereas power differentials are to be found throughout the working class and in every workplace. Power is relative and graduated and not simply confined to a small group of workers vis a vis the rest. This small group - the bureaucratic class as you call them - are order takers in relation to the capitalist class , just like the rest of us

[syndicat]

you keep repeating your strawman fallacy.

worker unions that aren't yellow "company" unions exclude bosses. they do so for a reason. managers aren't in the working class, they're part of the control bureaucracy over the working class.

in order to liberate itself workers will have to get rid of the hierarchical management structure and replace it with self-management. the idea that bosses are somehow part of the working class suggests that it's okay if this managerial hierarchy remains in place under socialism. it encourages the view that socialism is only about changing ownership.

[Niccolò Rossi]

the idea that bosses are somehow part of the working class suggests that it's okay if this managerial hierarchy remains in place under socialism.

No it doesn't. Socialism is not the generalisation of the working class condition, it is it's self-abolition.

The point you make is the logical reflection of the politics of self-management you preach.

Nic.

[The Guy]

The Good Guys. Hell yeah.

Carry on.

[RebelDog]

No it doesn't. Socialism is not the generalisation of the working class condition, it is it's self-abolition.

The point you make is the logical reflection of the politics of self-management you preach.

Nic.

What is wrong with self-management? Self-management is the core of socialism, or it is not socialism.

[Zanthorus]

What is wrong with self-management? Self-management is the core of socialism, or it is not socialism.

"Self-management" is a vague concept however most Left-Communists reject it because it is based on New Left and anarchist theories about socialism as being a form of organisation as opposed to capitalism (Which is also seen by them as a form of organisation). This ignores Marx's insight capitalism is a process, the valorisation of value, money which is trade for commodities and then sold on for more money. This process, the process of production of capital (Rather than "the process of capitalist production", the misleading title given to the original English edition of Das Kapital), exists even under "self-managed" forms of capitalism such as mutualism (Which is seen by some advocates of "self-management" as a form of socialism rather than simply a more egalitarian form of capitalism) and is the process which socialism or communism as the post-capitalist and post-capital society abolishes through the abolition of value itself.

[Exasperated_Youth]

Would a GP count as petty bourgeois?
They don't really have any capital, not the government-employed ones anyway, and not much much managerial authority. They sell their labour in the form of diagnosis and treatment etc...