Did Marxism miss this?

[Milk Sheikh]

In Marxism, there is constant emphasis on how an individual's relationship to MoP defines his place in society. But what of authority independent of MoP? I've even seen policemen, security guards, airport authorities and others act like kings (when they're on the job), insult people, and wield the stick with impunity.

These people do not own MoP; they are not rich or educated or successful. They have nothing, yet they know they can exert their authority and get away with it because people are helpless and depend upon them.

In such instances, MoP seems to have no place and the whole thing is defined by power alone. So why does Marxism focus exclusively on MoP and not on power which, in some cases, seems to exist independently?

[Noinu]

These people do not own MoP; they are not rich or educated or successful. They have nothing, yet they know they can exert their authority and get away with it because people are helpless and depend upon them.


They do have something. It's called power, and it can easily begin to define a person. Not that that's a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[Thirsty Crow]

In Marxism, there is constant emphasis on how an individual's relationship to MoP defines his place in society. But what of authority independent of MoP? I've even seen policemen, security guards, airport authorities and others act like kings (when they're on the job), insult people, and wield the stick with impunity. But their position is, more or less, directly connected to the issue of the ownbership of MoP, in that we may conceive this position as the position of the privileged guardian of the existing property form.
Of course, there is also the problem of internal stratification within the managerial class (yes, in my book, it's a class), and I consider cops and private security as elements of this class. My opinion is that the sharp internal stratification may exhibit some psychlogical influence over the low ranking people within this class. For instance, many a time did I witness blatant harrasment on behalf of the patrol cops (which may be conceived as probably the lowest in the pecking order of the police).


These people do not own MoP; they are not rich or educated or successful. They have nothing, yet they know they can exert their authority and get away with it because people are helpless and depend upon them.Yes, the uniform affords a sense of power, no doubt.


In such instances, MoP seems to have no place and the whole thing is defined by power alone. So why does Marxism focus exclusively on MoP and not on power which, in some cases, seems to exist independently?
But social power is directly connected to the issue of capital and its ownership. So, we may conclude that it is an indirect conection, between MoP and these instances.

[RadioRaheem84]

They're not independent. They're there to guard life and property. Mostly the latter.

Think of the role the Knights played in feudal times.

[blake 3:17]

Teachers, doctors, priests.

[synthesis]

But what of authority independent of MoP?

No such thing.

[NecroCommie]

The police and the army are, by their role in society, the same thing. Slight differences in mandate and methods serve a pure propaganda role.