Are Criminals Exploiters?

[PolishTrotsky]

In short, are criminals Exploiters to the Proletariat? They take the Proletariat's money, jewels, lives! Most of these criminals do the same things the the Burgoisie do. They take people's hard earned money and give nothing back in return. So, do you think criminals are exploiters?

[Muzk]

Nope, they are thieves, they're not really extracting any surplus value out of a worker's labour.


They take the Proletariat's money, jewels

lol

[Manic Impressive]

It depends on the crime there is a difference between stealing from the proletariat and stealing from the bourgeoisie. That's not Marxist analysis just my opinion.

[gorillafuck]

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of criminals are not going around stealing peoples jewels.

[Burn A Flag]

Well I think it depends on the type of crime. Stealing from fellow class members doesn't necessarily equal the same type of exploitation as bourgeoisie wage slavery, but it is definitely against class interests. Bosses of organized crime are definitely considered exploitative elements. Also people who redistribute wealth by stealing from the bourgeoisie or from corporate interests can still be considered revolutionary or class concious.

[PolishTrotsky]

True, If it is stealing from the Burgoisie, that would be considedered Revolutionary activity. But, Class x Class theivery would be considered worse than Borgoisie Wage Slavery, since instead of taking the surplus, but taking the rest. So, wouldn't that be considered Exploiting?
And what would Murderers and Rapists be? They take away from the greater Proletariat.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The difference is that it's not exploiting as such - the relationship between the "thief" and their "victim" is of a different quality than the the relation between, say, me and capital. It's more immediate - it is an "event" against the non-event of everyday life.
I mean, that said, they're still motherfuckers, it's just that dealing with them is a lot easier. Beating the shit out of my boss won't fundamentally change the relationship between myself and capital (though it may be part of that project), whereas, beating the shit out of someone who tries to make off with my wallet is an entirely different sort of interaction.

THAT SAID, I'd like to point out that almost everyone, and certainly everyone who is sincerely interested in radical social transformation (Ha! So 90s!) is against the law (read it again, "against the law" and read into the possibilities).

[Summerspeaker]

This depends. Big organized crime and even certain small-time drug dealers and gangsters function much the same as corporate bosses, albeit with the violence more explicit.

[WeAreReborn]

Depends on what you consider criminal. Though I am going to assume you don't mean drug users or revolutionaries. But for murderers and rapists? But they don't exploit, they just harm. There is a difference. In terms of robbers, I oppose thieves who steal from fellow proletariat, I think it is petty and selfish. However, I have no problem with people who still from companies. It is just taking what is rightfully theirs. :thumbup1:

[Amphictyonis]

Capitalism/private property manufactures "criminals" via false scarcity.

[NKVD]

Lumpen proletariat are not as bad as the bourgeoise but many of them steal from fellow proletariat, which is inexcusable.

[Outinleftfield]

In some cases yes.

Gangsters in many neighborhoods "run" the neighborhoods, extracting a fee from the people there, and making the "rules" and enforcing them with lethal force. These rules can impact what you're allowed to wear, what color people are allowed to live in the neighborhood, and how homosexuals are treated.

In many cases the police tacitly permit this, saying the situation is just too bad for them to do anything about it. It's telling that this situation never gets out of control in wealthy neighborhoods and only in poor neighborhoods. If the police tried saying it was just too dangerous to do anything about protection rackets and gangsterism in wealthy neighborhoods the media would have a fieldday but it treats it as "understandable" when it comes to poor neighborhoods, especially minority neighborhoods.

In many ways the lumpen proletariat has congealed with the bourgeoisie, particularly in politics. All kinds of deals go on behind closed doors. The CIA has many times been implicated in drug dealing. Police departments throw their weight behind catching drug dealers and sell this to the media as "fighting the war on drugs" while secretly targeting only those drug dealers who don't have "connections" to the department. Many "legitimate" companies commit all sorts of crimes all the time and even when they're caught get away with it. I forget the specific case but one time a company stole money from the government, was found guilty but no one went to jail and the company was fined for less than the money they stole and they got to keep it!

Still we should keep in mind that "criminal" is a social category. What is considered "criminal" by the bourgeoisie is not necessarily "exploitative" or even "wrong". For example, laws against homosexuality that existed until recently. Drug dealing isn't even inherently wrong. What is wrong is selling impure products or misrepresenting them(example: when meth was relatively unknown people probably said "oh no this isn't addictive at all." and then it turns out to be one of the most addictive drugs ever) or engaging in violence as part of business which do to the nature of the black market is encouraged in drug dealing. They have nothing to lose given that their activity is considered just as illegal even if they do it "right".

What goes on in the black market is really what goes on in mainstream bourgeois society since their property rights ultimately rest on violence, it's just that the "court system" and police hiding behind the window dressing of legislation are used to make it look legitimate. Take away the state and the 'legitimate' bourgeoisie but leave the lumpenproletariat there and the lumpenproletariat would become the new ruling class and without any impediments the gangsters would congeal together with a "social contract", defining each gang's rights over territory, basically turning them into landlords. In many ways gangs already make such agreements as they are sometimes at "peace" with each other but their capacity to form "social contracts" is reduced due to their material conditions, namely their inferior capacity for the use of force compared to the state. If somehow the lumpenproletariat transformed into the ruling class, most likely as a consequence of barbarism this would resemble feudalism with the gang's turf turned into land they would be "landlords" over. I wonder if some medieval feudal lords had their origins in Roman street gangs, as it is documented that gangs did exist in Ancient Rome.

The bourgeois conception of "criminal" includes many things that are not "criminal" from a proletarian perspective and excludes many things that are "criminal" from a proletarian perspective.

[Summerspeaker]

I'm not comfortable with equating the lumpenproletariat with violent street gangs. Murderous thug aren't necessarily lumpen and vast majority the class sure ain't murderous thugs. Homeless folks, for instances, are more victims of crime (especially violent crime) than perpetrators.

[Sosa]

thieves? no. pimps? yes.

[MarxSchmarx]

Exploitation, at least on the left, means something rather specific - it tends to focus on the alienation of the product of one's labor for the purposes of enriching someone else. On this narrow definition thieves are fair game as exploiters, as are people that profit off the work of others engaging in illegal activities like illegal gambling operators.


In some cases yes.

Gangsters in many neighborhoods "run" the neighborhoods, extracting a fee from the people there, and making the "rules" and enforcing them with lethal force. These rules can impact what you're allowed to wear, what color people are allowed to live in the neighborhood, and how homosexuals are treated.
...

That sounds a lot like many governments I know.

[syndicat]

well, i think of exploitation as gaining illigetimate benefits through a relation of domination or oppression over others. in this sense there can be, for example, exploitative marriages, that is, gender exploitation. and criminals can be engaged in exploitation insofar as they use force to obtain something from others. if a gang rob a bank, they use force to obtain an unearned income, but it'd be a bit strange to think of this as exploitation. who is being exploited? the bank?

if small businesses are being forced to pay for "protection" by the mob, you could say they are being exploited. if the mob uses force to control a union and rake off funds from dues, pensions etc., then they are exploiting the workers who are members of the union.

a large portion of criminality is trading in illegal goods and services, that is, criminals are running a business of sorts. sometimes there is no benefit to anyone else, as in fraud or burglary etc. sometimes there is a benefit of sorts, as with prostitution or drugs. sometimes the criminal is self-employed, other times there are employees. so you have drug runners or street dealers who are employed by a king pin, who may also employ, say, a bookkeeper so he can keep track of his business. in this case you even have an internal class division, between boss and employee. in this latter case you have labor exploitation.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Well I think it depends on the type of crime. Stealing from fellow class members doesn't necessarily equal the same type of exploitation as bourgeoisie wage slavery, but it is definitely against class interests. Bosses of organized crime are definitely considered exploitative elements. Also people who redistribute wealth by stealing from the bourgeoisie or from corporate interests can still be considered revolutionary or class concious.

This.

Organized crime, such as the maffia, is really capitalism in its true sence, a marker where Evrything can be sold and where the different gangs (corporation) will destry eachother if they are to weak.
If we by 'crime' are refearing to economical stuff, not rape or drunk-driving, neither i can say that its exploting the proleteriat, its rather the result of exploitation (capitalism), but it tends to strike hardest on the proletariat thats for sure.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, in the economic sense, exploitation may not be simply done once, but refers to the continuous production of a surplus-product which is alienated in this production itself. So, for example, in order for capital to exist, one must have continuous production by the proletariat of the wealth of the bourgeoisie, which comprises both wages and profits, and only returns to them via the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, if a thief simply nips something from your pocket, this is hardly a constant process of production for the purpose of the thief's profit. It would only be exploitation of the thief were to grab you and set you to work, producing more wealth which accrued to them, but this is hardly 'thievery' in an ordinary sense; it is the production of new property, not the appropriation of existing property.

On the other hand, pimps and such may well engage in exploitation; as Marx noted, "Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the state, had command of all the organized public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, Clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes crapuleux [debauched], where money, filth, and blood commingle. The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society."

[Ocean Seal]

In short, are criminals Exploiters to the Proletariat? They take the Proletariat's money, jewels, lives! Most of these criminals do the same things the the Burgoisie do. They take people's hard earned money and give nothing back in return. So, do you think criminals are exploiters?
Are exploiters (the bourgeoisie) criminals? Yes
Are criminals exploiters? Depends on how you look at the question. Large mafia's or organized gangs do much to exploit the working class. They often times give them loans that they cannot pay back and extract more than what they gave over a long period of time. Organized crime is guilty of extortion and is another oppressive force against the proletariat. Organized crime also leads to another form of oppression. They give the police a blank check to do as they please, and continue the cycle of absorbing lower income youth into crime. I suppose my analysis is rather simple.
Organized crime grows --> People's unrest surges --> Law Enforcement enters --> People are arrested on bogus charges --> People have a record--> People cannot find employment --> People join criminal factions.

I should further note that although many join gangs without having a record, this is generally a thing of the youth out of the material conditions that they live in. The fact that they stay is because they do not see school as a way to elevate themselves because this cycle has already been enacted and gangs are very active in schools which is another factor that makes the schools decrease in quality. Poor schools and lack of opportunity essentially ask that students join gangs who promise them excesses in wealth.

Those who steal from the rich, I'm not sure what kinds of criminals those are, but they are certainly not the majority.

[MarxSchmarx]

On the other hand, if a thief simply nips something from your pocket, this is hardly a constant process of production for the purpose of the thief's profit. It would only be exploitation of the thief were to grab you and set you to work, producing more wealth which accrued to them, but this is hardly 'thievery' in an ordinary sense; it is the production of new property, not the appropriation of existing property.
"

But the thief invests labor time and/or (presumably) takes a calculated risk in stealing existing property, which was generated by other's labor, for his own profit. A thief that therefore subsists/persists in say pickpocketing is appropriating the fruit of another's labor. Moreover, whether this is a one-time thing or ongoing seems immaterial. Consider the following thought experiment. A capitalist who opens a factory for one day, puts everyone to work, and closes the factory and dismantles it and sells the wares for a large profit, dies the next day and burns the money. Is the generation of profit therefore not exploitation? Or if they stash the profit under their bed, and it gets subsequently lost, this seems to be engaging just as much a case of exploitation as what another capitalist did who subsequently reinvests his profits.

The reason is because surplus value was created by denying the producers of the product their full share and appropriating it elsewhere. Which sounds to me like what a thief does.

[ZeroNowhere]

Notice that the capitalist puts everyone to work. Thieves do not create surplus-value, or hire people to produce surplus-value. If they steal from a worker, the worker's income does not suddenly turn into surplus-value.


But the thief invests labor time and/or (presumably) takes a calculated risk in stealing existing property, which was generated by other's labor, for his own profit.Capitalists, on the other hand, do not steal existing property. Profits are derived, ultimately, from new production, not from past labour, which rather takes the form of means of production and simply passes on an equal amount of value.

[MarxSchmarx]

As the capitalist pays less and less wages, if the exchange value of the produced commodity remains the same, then the amount of exploitation increases indefinitely. Theft really is just paying a zero wage, and even if the surplus value is zero it can still be defined as the extreme end of the rate of exploitation.

But you are right, surplus value requires the production of new commodities. As long as exploitation is defined in terms of a positive (or potentially positive) surplus value, I agree that theft is not a case of exploitation. The capitalist-relationship results in new production, whereas stealing is the mere transfer or existing wealth. And it is correct that the former is a pre-requisite for the surplus value of labor to be defined.

I'd argue however that the rate of exploitation is described in terms of surplus value not as an arbitrary axiom of surplus value divided by wages, but because it involves the alienation of the fruit of the worker's labor. Admittedly I don't have a quote of Marx saying as much, but it strikes me that this is why the term has resonated both among theorists as jargon and among activists using everyday language. In essence exploitation then is primarily an issue of an unjust transfer of the exchange value of labor - something which stealing is a part of.

[Outinleftfield]

I'm not comfortable with equating the lumpenproletariat with violent street gangs. Murderous thug aren't necessarily lumpen and vast majority the class sure ain't murderous thugs. Homeless folks, for instances, are more victims of crime (especially violent crime) than perpetrators.

Yes the "lumpen proletariat" is unfortunately a very fuzzy concept. There are enough class differences between a prostitue and her pimp that they really shouldn't be considered the same class. Homeless people would be an entirely different class than either of them.

Those "lumpen proletariat" who make their money through violence or by controlling other people are doing the same thing as the bourgeoisie, just that their "machine" that protects their interests isn't as powerful as the state, and the state claims to be opposed to it while often secretly wielding influence in favor of one blackmarketeer or another.

Rosa Luxemburg mentioned in one of her works, I forget which one that in Germany the bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat's interests were becoming more bound together.

[Lucretia]

I think Marx's general concept of exploitation was something that encompassed but also went beyond the labor process. I believe Allen Buchanan has written a couple of articles about how exploitation to Marx entailed one person, the exploiting party, benefiting from harmfully using a second person. I think the article is called "Exploitation and Alienation" or something similar.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well, criminals are a vague group. Some who would be legally considered criminals are exploiters, some aren't. Some law-abiding citizens are exploiters, some aren't.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

The difference is that it's not exploiting as such - the relationship between the "thief" and their "victim" is of a different quality than the the relation between, say, me and capital. It's more immediate - it is an "event" against the non-event of everyday life.
I mean, that said, they're still motherfuckers, it's just that dealing with them is a lot easier. Beating the shit out of my boss won't fundamentally change the relationship between myself and capital (though it may be part of that project), whereas, beating the shit out of someone who tries to make off with my wallet is an entirely different sort of interaction.

THAT SAID, I'd like to point out that almost everyone, and certainly everyone who is sincerely interested in radical social transformation (Ha! So 90s!) is against the law (read it again, "against the law" and read into the possibilities).

The concept of putting revolution into action is in itself a criminal concept. I can hardly imagine a higher crime than violently overthrowing government...