What class are college professors?

[727Goon]

In marxist theory are college professors considered working class or petit bourgeois or what? I've heard that they're the intelligensia class but I don't really get that concept. I'm guessing they're considered the working class just because they don't own the means of production but I find it hard to classify people with as much wealth and influence on society as they do as working class.

[Kronsteen]

They're white-collar working class.

In marxist terms they sell their (intellectual) labour power, so they're working class. They might also be managers - ie. do no teaching themselves but administrate - in which case they'd be placed in a certain upper layer of the working class - called middle class. It's a matter of where they are in the economic structure, not how much money they have.

A petit bourgeois is the owner of a small business. Usually these can be considered a special case of working class.

It gets confusing because in Weberian sociology they're called middle class, because they have education. I've also heard education workers called 'pink collar workers'!

[syndicat]

i think it depends. if you're talking about professors at PhD-granting institutions. they usually control staff, control journals, and in some fields get lucrative consulting gigs. I put these people in the bureaucratic class...same as lawyers, middle managers, army officers etc.

Lower down in the educational hierarchy, it is different. in regard to community colleges or adjuncts that do most of the teaching at some private colleges (like Phoenix U), they're really part of the skilled section of the working class, like school teachers and nurses.

so it comes down to what sort of power they have over other working people such as the other staff at the college, what sort of power they have in the institutional context.

[Kronsteen]

bureaucratic class

I've heard the term 'bureaucratic class' used to apply to soviet russia and satellites, but not elsewhere. What's the difference between bureaucratic class and managerial class aka middle class?

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

They're workers, plain and simple. They just have some of the largest bribes in our society, which is why they rarely act on their acknowledgment that Marxist thought is correct.

[red cat]

They're workers, plain and simple. They just have some of the largest bribes in our society, which is why they rarely act on their acknowledgment that Marxist thought is correct.

They make important managerial decisions, have PhD students and hold patents.

[Invader Zim]

According the Lenin the Intelligentsia - a layer between the exploiters and the exploited who act as lackies for the former.


they usually control staff, control journals,

Control is a poor choice of word. If they are heads of department, deans, PVCs, etc, then certainly there is an element of that, but these people are few and far between in the general scheme of things. In regards to academic seniority (as opposed to administrative) then I don't think there is very much controlling of other staff. If they get a major research grant then junior academics/PhD students may well be employed on the project under the general direction of the project leader, but these people are still typically given the freedom to approach that as they choose. But the reality is that the team is being assigned to produce the research, and the person in charge is directing it (rather like an art project) rather than operating like a boss. At least that is how it seems to be in the arts/humanities. It is probably different in the sciences.

[Invader Zim]

They make important managerial decisions, have PhD students and hold patents.

Having PhD students maketh a manger not.

PhD students are in fact their supervisors boss, not the other way round. The supervisor is there to guide the student in formulating their ideas and project and to generally help facilitate the process. It is not their PhD.

[Dunk]

I would analyze what relation the particular professor has to the means of production. Are they a department head? Or are they perhaps also in the administration of the university? If so, they could probably be thought of as petite-bourgeoisie, because while they they exercise a much larger degree of control over the means of production than a professor who is not a department head - who is decidedly working class - they must still labor in exchange for their income.

Although I would like to mention a discussion I had with a former professor of whom I asked a similar question. She was a comrade, but she also said that there could be a cultural aspect to class position which she referred to as "prestige" that in her opinion also comes into play. For example, a skilled worker who works in a quarry with explosives may earn a relatively high income, to say, an Ivy League professor who earns less and is also not a department head and thus has no influence over the running of the school. She tried to use this example to simultaneously challenge the ridiculous income-defined social classes of the mainstream (where everyone is seemingly "middle class") but to also challenge what she thought was a point of weakness a purely Marxian interpretation of class held - because in her opinion, an Ivy League professor - even one which does not exercise control over the means of production - was a much more prestigious and socially powerful position.

It was an interesting argument to me, but in the end, I didn't particularly buy it. I find the most useful and real analysis of a person's class position is the individual's relation to the means of production. I thought of her idea of prestige as an abstraction - an interesting abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

They make important managerial decisions, have PhD students and hold patents.

What's your point? Managers, teachers, and inventors are all workers.

[727Goon]

managers are workers? choking victim disagrees

http://www.resistrecords.com/catalog/images/choking%20victim,%20no%20gods%20no%20managers.jpg

[Rusty Shackleford]

managers are workers. like Kapos in German labor camps.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

They don't have real control. They do what the owner wants them to do because that's what they get paid to do. If they don't, they get fired. They are no less workers for telling co-workers to maintain proper dress code than a worker in an arms factory is for shaping iron into guns. They're both doing the owner's will. The only thing that might keep a manager from showing up at a riot is a) fear of your misdirected disdain in the form of a bullet, b) higher pay, or c) the stronger "false consciousness" and alienation that being pitted against your co-workers all day produces.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Managers are not workers.

Managers hire and fire workers. They betray the working class much in the way that prison officers do.

College lecturers are in general working class, with the caveat that they do not hire/fire workers, or of course make money outside of work from land, capital, investments etc.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Managers are not workers.

Managers hire and fire workers. They betray the working class much in the way that prison officers do.

Isn't a bit hard to betray the working class if you weren't a worker to begin with...?

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

At the OP, this question is nonsense.

Rather than have some acedemic wank about definitions, why don't we first try and establish the relevance of the question?

I mean, unless the outcome is of some sort of political significance, why bother having the discussion?

Nic.

[black magick hustla]

because some college kids wanna feel that there petit bourgeois phd aspirations are a noble pursuit (i.e. prole as fuck)

[black magick hustla]

also many academics make janitor wages. there arent as many "tenured" professors as you think. there is a whole smegma of adjunct professors and overworked grad students.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

At the OP, this question is nonsense.

Rather than have some acedemic wank about definitions, why don't we first try and establish the relevance of the question?

I mean, unless the outcome is of some sort of political significance, why bother having the discussion?

Nic.

So class is irrelevant? :confused:

[black magick hustla]

So class is irrelevant? :confused:
i think his point is that some people in this forum try to theorize about every little aspect and sometimes it has no political significance. are porn stars working class? are soccer players working class? i dont think this questions are relevant. maybe porn stars a little.

[Dumb]

Or maybe it's just an interesting question to ponder.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So class is irrelevant? :confused:

No, but playing these boring sociological sorting games is.

Marmot is on the money. It's not a matter of what sociological category this or that individual falls into. It's a matter of how the antagonistic social relation in which the classes exist compels them to act.

Marxism is not an academic sociological theory. It is a weapon.

Of course, if the question was posed in response to for example an attempt by college profressors to organise into unions, or workplace committees or councils, etc. or carry through some type of industrial action and so on - In this case the question would be a real and pressing one. But I think it's important to have that context, whether immediate or historical, without which the discussion is just a wank.

Nic.

[Invader Zim]

also many academics make janitor wages. there arent as many "tenured" professors as you think. there is a whole smegma of adjunct professors and overworked grad students.

This is, of course, a sad fact. I know plenty of people who are on about £15,000 P.A. working as a research assistants.


because some college kids wanna feel that there petit bourgeois phd aspirations are a noble pursuit (i.e. prole as fuck)

Having a PhD has nothing to do with an individuals relationship to the means of production, so calling the aspiration to hold a PhD "petit bourgeois" is abject ignorance (both of PhD students, and the basic tenets of Marxian class analysis) at best.

[black magick hustla]

Having a PhD has nothing to do with an individuals relationship to the means of production, so calling the aspiration to hold a PhD "petit bourgeois" is abject ignorance (both of PhD students, and the basic tenets of Marxian class analysis) at best.

i was joking. i think my point is that there is a big demographic in the forum of people with useless/very academic degrees and because of that they feel like pursuing a phd so they get hella defensive about their class background

[Gorilla]

Historically, academic tenure is a holdover from the high middle ages. It's a kind of island of feudalism inside capitalist society. Under tenure, you have a privileged claim on the means of production (such as they are for academics) that cannot be taken away from you, but you also cannot buy or sell it. It's like being a duke or a monastic abbot or whatever.

Since academic social relations have nothing to do with the economic reality of 99.9999% of people, college professors' politics tends to be kind of weird and utopian, if it is not actually reactionary.

Of course, adjunct professors are proletarians just as much as the guy who cleans the toilets.

[syndicat]

Control is a poor choice of word. If they are heads of department, deans, PVCs, etc, then certainly there is an element of that, but these people are few and far between in the general scheme of things. In regards to academic seniority (as opposed to administrative) then I don't think there is very much controlling of other staff. If they get a major research grant then junior academics/PhD students may well be employed on the project under the general direction of the project leader, but these people are still typically given the freedom to approach that as they choose. But the reality is that the team is being assigned to produce the research, and the person in charge is directing it (rather like an art project) rather than operating like a boss. At least that is how it seems to be in the arts/humanities. It is probably different in the sciences.

well i don't agree with you. when i was a grad student at UC and a TA, the professors were my supervisor. They were the supervisors of the clericals in the department. The TAs union had various conflicts with departments...that is, the professors, who have collective managerial powers. for example, over trying to get people to work for free, not paying TAs for office hours etc.

[syndicat]

I've heard the term 'bureaucratic class' used to apply to soviet russia and satellites, but not elsewhere. What's the difference between bureaucratic class and managerial class aka middle class?

a bureaucratic class has power based on their relative monopolization over decision-making authority and over key kinds of expertise relevant to the decision-making and running of some institution. now, this could be a government agency or it could be a part of a big corporation. it's class power -- power over workers -- based on organizational power, not ownership power.

within capitalism the bureaucratic class are a subordinate class to the capitalists. they can have the screws tightened on them, even tho they also can work as technical advisors and allies to the top capitalists, who employ them.

but they have an antagonistic relationship to the working class. they are the bosses workers deal with day to day.

[Gorilla]

well i don't agree with you. when i was a grad student at UC and a TA, the professors were my supervisor. They were the supervisors of the clericals in the department. The TAs union had various conflicts with departments...that is, the professors, who have collective managerial powers. for example, over trying to get people to work for free, not paying TAs for office hours etc.

This is basically a subspecies of the Marxist vs. anarchist argument over whether managers are non-working class (anarchists) or working class but in a contradictory position because they are paid to rat on the rest of the working class (Marxists). In so far as profs are simply managers, how you classify them will depend on which line you take in general.

But there's an extra wrinkle to college professors which is the tenure system. Managers can be fired if they don't follow out the directives of capital. Tenured college professors can't. That extra wrinkle can pull in a progressive direction (they can take [limited] stands against capital without worrying about their jobs) but also a reactionary one (not sharing the fear of being fired themselves, they lack any perspective of the working class).

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I agree that the original question is boring. But the attitude it revealed:


Managers are not workers.

Managers hire and fire workers. They betray the working class much in the way that prison officers do.Is not. Let's just throw the burzhooi in camps after the revolution since they "betray" us. Do you want them to tell the workers "hey, go revolt! Take control comrade!" which would keep them from getting another job, force their family into poverty, and accomplish exactly nothing because they'd immediately be replaced?

It's Kantian bullshit that has caused the death of many innocent people.

[Summerspeaker]

By virtue of the power they wield over students and their essential task of inculcating obedience, all teachers are coordinators and thus akin to managers.

[727Goon]

At the OP, this question is nonsense.

Rather than have some acedemic wank about definitions, why don't we first try and establish the relevance of the question?

I mean, unless the outcome is of some sort of political significance, why bother having the discussion?

Nic.


this whole website is pretty much an academic wank about definitions, seriously its not like revleft has any political significance in the real world. #GetAtMe

[Sixiang]

In marxist theory are college professors considered working class or petit bourgeois or what?I've heard that they're the intelligensia class but I don't really get that concept. I'm guessing they're considered the working class just because they don't own the means of production but I find it hard to classify people with as much wealth and influence on society as they do as working class.
It depends on the professor in question. If they sell their labor to a capitalist and the capitalist uses that in a way to gain profit, then they are proletarian. Some professors are in managerial positions (deans, heads of departments), and they may still be proletarian in that definition, or they can potentially even be bourgeois. It really just depends on the professor. It varies all over the class spectrum. And, as has been already said, not all college professors make 6 figures a year.

Many professors are reactionary. Some of them can be revolutionary. Some of them are just training people to get jobs in certain fields. Some of them teach classes because they are required by the college for students to take. There are some Marxists out there who teach at colleges or universities. David Harvey comes to mind. Noam Chomsky teaches at MIT. Abimael Guzman used to teach at a university. Li Minqi teaches at the University of Utah. I'm sure there are many, many others.

[syndicat]

This is basically a subspecies of the Marxist vs. anarchist argument over whether managers are non-working class (anarchists) or working class but in a contradictory position because they are paid to rat on the rest of the working class (Marxists). In so far as profs are simply managers, how you classify them will depend on which line you take in general.



well, you'll have to tell that to Michael Zweig and Erik Olin Wright. Two Marxists. They do not put managers in the working class. In "The Working Class Majority", Zweig puts managers in the "middle class", which for him does find itself in a contradictory position, pushed between the working class and the major capitalists.

[Gorilla]

well, you'll have to tell that to Michael Zweig and Erik Olin Wright. Two Marxists. They do not put managers in the working class. In "The Working Class Majority", Zweig puts managers in the "middle class", which for him does find itself in a contradictory position, pushed between the working class and the major capitalists.

Yeah, there's a current of academic Marxism that borrows from Weber and sets up a separate class of managers or coordinators. That kind of thinking hasn't really made it into "party Marxism" though. In general the non-academic anarchist left has had a well-developed body of theory where managers are part of the "boss class" or a thing unto themselves. The non-academic Marxist left generally hasn't. They're either lumped in (somewhat nonsensically) with the petty bourgeoisie or they're a weird kind of worker.

[Broletariat]

By virtue of the power they wield over students and their essential task of inculcating obedience, all teachers are coordinators and thus akin to managers.

As a future teacher, I find this comment a bit disturbing. I'm not trying to make my students obedient, I just want to teach them some math.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've also heard education workers called 'pink collar workers'!
I think you may have misunderstood the term; "pink collar" refers to those jobs which are traditionally seen as a feminine or female-dominated form of employment (which, in themselves, would otherwise be considered white or blue collar work). Elementary/primary and kindergarten/nursery teaching are both considered to fall into this category, so that may be the context in which you heard the usage.


By virtue of the power they wield over students and their essential task of inculcating obedience, all teachers are coordinators and thus akin to managers.
Perhaps that may have been true at one point, but teaching is a profession which has been thoroughly proletarianised over the last few decades, with teachers increasingly having their professional autonomy restricted and being held tighter and tighter to imposed regulations, both in how they teach and how they deal with their students. "Power" doesn't mean very much if you're merely acting as a conveyor belt, and not exercising it in any autonomous fashion.


i think his point is that some people in this forum try to theorize about every little aspect and sometimes it has no political significance. are porn stars working class? are soccer players working class? i dont think this questions are relevant. maybe porn stars a little.
Are a large number of either porn stars or soccer players likely to be significantly involved in any potential revolutionary workers' movement? Because academics are, and historically have been, so it becomes necessary to establish where they stand in relationship to that movement.

(And, yeah, the class of porn stars becomes pretty important if you're discussing the sex industry. There's enough significant intersection between class and patriarchy going on there to make it rather more than the idle speculation that debating the class of football players would be.)

[Summerspeaker]

As a future teacher, I find this comment a bit disturbing. I'm not trying to make my students obedient, I just want to teach them some math.

As a graduate student, I'm also a teacher. It's important to recognize the disciplinary function of education. If you run a classroom, you have power over people like a boss. Even those of us low on the totem pole resemble assistant managers and shift leaders. Just grading papers and helping out a professor puts me in a decidedly different position from when I was floor staff at a cinema selling popcorn. Controlling and evaluating others makes you a coordinator.

[Broletariat]

As a graduate student, I'm also a teacher. It's important to recognize the disciplinary function of education. If you run a classroom, you have power over people like a boss. Even those of us low on the totem pole resemble assistant managers and shift leaders. Just grading papers and helping out a professor puts me in a decidedly different position from when I was floor staff at a cinema selling popcorn. Controlling and evaluating others makes you a coordinator.
Yea, but I plan on excersising my power to implement Socialism from above.

Not really.

More seriously, I guess I could see maybe a history or english teacher as this sort of thing, but I'm not sure how math teachers really function like that.

[Tim Finnegan]

As a graduate student, I'm also a teacher. It's important to recognize the disciplinary function of education. If you run a classroom, you have power over people like a boss. Even those of us low on the totem pole resemble assistant managers and shift leaders. Just grading papers and helping out a professor puts me in a decidedly different position from when I was floor staff at a cinema selling popcorn. Controlling and evaluating others makes you a coordinator.
Bartenders can have unruly patrons ejected from the premises, evaluating their behaviour and controlling their supply of alcohol or continued presence. Are they in a "decidedly different" position from other workers, from, say, a chef in the same establishment?

I think you confuse necessary control over your clientèle with some sort of exceptional bureaucratic authority.

[Summerspeaker]

Bartenders can have unruly patrons ejected from the premises, evaluating their behaviour and controlling their supply of alcohol or continued presence. Are they in a "decidedly different" position from other workers, from, say, a chef in the same establishment?

I don't have enough experience with bars to say, but you might be on to something here. There's certainly a meaningful difference when it comes to bouncers and security guards.


I think you confuse necessary control over your clientèle with some sort of exceptional bureaucratic authority.

Necessary control? Really? Necessary for whose ends? A major function of educational system is conditioning obedience and hierarchy into folks so they'll be submissive but competitive workers. That's a critical distinction between this profession and serving beers.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't have enough experience with bars to say, but you might be on to something here. There's certainly a meaningful difference when it comes to bouncers and security guards.
Even then, I'm not so sure that there's a fundamental difference. That sort of low-authority security personnel are so widely understood as "hired muscle" that they're capitalist objectification has actually entered colloquial language.


Necessary control? Really? Necessary for whose ends? A major function of educational system is conditioning obedience and hierarchy into folks so they'll be submissive but competitive workers. That's a critical distinction between this profession and serving beers.Observing that the educational environment itself is appropriated for use as an ideological training ground for bourgeois and authoritarian ends does not suggest that it is inherently bourgeois or authoritarian. Let's not retreat into that bourgeois caricature of libertarianism where any exercise of is power, however productive and mutually beneficial, is in itself heinous.

[#FF0000]

I don't know about where you are but schools are definitely terrible, soul-sucking institutions.

but guess who's right at the forefront of the fight to change that?

[Dunk]

This discussion began with "managers are not working class" and is now touching upon "teachers are managers". I reject both of these - their class position depends on the relation they have to the means of production. I initially thought that this analysis wasn't important, but I've come to the conclusion that if so many people think it's necessary to discuss these things, then it must be important to them.

I'm rank and file. At my job, there are low level managers and corporate managers - corporate managers who exercise a degree of control over the means of production that low level managers completely lack. Some low level managers even lack the capability to hire and fire workers - while some do. Both the low level managers who can and can't hire and fire workers are working class. They are working class because they sell their labor power for a wage and do not exercise any control over the means of production, which is to say, they lack any say in the control of pay, production, or reinvestment in the means of production - something which high level management has a large say in. The relations to the means of production matter - their relations to the rank and file do not. No one ever said the working class can't be turned against itself. Hell, look at fucking cops. The working class is not some sort of thing who's purity must be defended - "Well managers are asshole coordinators so they aren't working class". This is like some sort of game of "Who's prolier than who?"

I'd rather not get involved in the endless tit for tat of internet forum arguments - so if you disagree with me, fine.

[Niccolò Rossi]

this whole website is pretty much an academic wank about definitions, seriously its not like revleft has any political significance in the real world. #GetAtMe

You're right of course. But I'd like to think the discussion can sometimes be enlightening or challenging aswell as entertaining.

Oh and by the way, I don't mean any offense by comments, incase you've taken it that way. :)

Nic.

[Queercommie Girl]

It was an interesting argument to me, but in the end, I didn't particularly buy it. I find the most useful and real analysis of a person's class position is the individual's relation to the means of production. I thought of her idea of prestige as an abstraction - an interesting abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless.

I generally agree. Marxist class is just political and economic, not social or cultural. "Cultural class analysis" is generally lame. Just because one has no interest in drinking and sports, and never uses "working-class language", for instance, does not in itself make one any less of a worker at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

i think his point is that some people in this forum try to theorize about every little aspect and sometimes it has no political significance. are porn stars working class? are soccer players working class? i dont think this questions are relevant. maybe porn stars a little.

Soccer players are working class as long as they don't make too much money. There is nothing intrinsically "not working class" about either soccer or physics. It's only a matter of the particular job's economic character.

Personally I'm not a big fan of physical sports, but I support all sports professionals who are earning worker's wages.

Income level matters, which is why Lenin explicitly stated that the wage difference in a socialist society should not exceed 4 times. There is no such thing as a "rich proletarian". A person earning millions of dollars/pounds a year is certainly not working class in any meaningful concrete sense. Potentially such huge amounts of money could be turned into capital as easily as flipping over one's own palm.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's like being a duke or a monastic abbot or whatever.


Sorry, but that's an over-exaggeration. You don't seem to have a real idea of what life in contemporary academia is like if you really think "professors are like dukes".



Since academic social relations have nothing to do with the economic reality of 99.9999% of people, college professors' politics tends to be kind of weird and utopian, if it is not actually reactionary.


Marxist-Leninists don't judge a thing by how "weird" it is. People once thought queer liberation was "weird" too. Cultural conservatism has no place in socialism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Soccer players are working class as long as they don't make too much money.

Clear as mud.

Nic.

[Queercommie Girl]

Clear as mud.

Nic.

Your point being? :confused:

[Niccolò Rossi]

Your point being? :confused:

Saying the income of a soccer player determines his class not only flies in the face of Marxism, it is also pretty meaningless. I mean, how much should a soccer player earn after tax to be considered a worker? After which point he becomes what, a petit-bourgeois? And after that? I think the whole idea is pretty silly.

Nic.

[t.shonku]

I don't know man !

The once I saw are filthy as*s kisser of the system, I don't know may be some of you may have seen them differently , any ways it's my opinion and I don't like them. Because they are sell out their ideology and back stab the students for mere promotion , when cops come in college campus they are the ones that help the cops in identifying radical students, some of them I say most I saw were racist and money suckers they humiliate students who are less fortunate.

Not only that they are such ego-maniacs that they hate students who like thinking alternative theories , they love ruining lives of students who are innovative and rebel minded, they don't like students who write different research papers, filthy ego manics! They always steal other peoples girlfriend and sometimes threaten the girls by saying that they would fail them if they don't have se*x with him, some of the lady professors are no good too, they hate guys who are shy with women and are introvert type guys they only like guys who are smooth with women and would even take lady professors for a date and drill her for some extra marks.


I don't think they fall in proletariat class , because if that is the case why do they treat guys coming from less fortunate families so badly? why do they look down upon less fortunate guys?

[Queercommie Girl]

Saying the income of a soccer player determines his class not only flies in the face of Marxism, it is also pretty meaningless. I mean, how much should a soccer player earn after tax to be considered a worker? After which point he becomes what, a petit-bourgeois? And after that? I think the whole idea is pretty silly.

Nic.

It matters in the concrete sense. I thought that's what you care about anyway, rather than just abstract arguments?

Maybe you can try to convince a soccer player who earns 10 million dollars a year to turn to a socialist revolution? I don't think it would ever work. Economic base fundamentally determines political consciousness.

Also, potentially a very rich person can transform his personal wealth into capital as easily as flipping over his own palm. So the fact that he is not an active capitalist in the strict sense right now doesn't really mean much.

Do you really think a "worker" who earns 10 million dollars a year can have any sense of real class solidarity with a worker who earns 30,000 dollars a year?

Also, do you think in a socialist society, sports professionals would still be allowed to earn such huge amounts of money? I really think not. Lenin did say the maximum wage difference in a socialist society cannot be more than 4 times, and this covers everything, including sports. Under socialism, all sports professionals would only have worker's wages.

If an academic professor were earning big bucks no-one here would call him a "worker". Why make an exception for sports? There is nothing intrinsically special about sports.

I certainly don't consider rich sports professionals to be "working class", because in the concrete sense they cannot represent ordinary workers or their interests.

It's a mistake to just focus on "quality" while ignoring "quantity".

[Gorilla]

Sorry, but that's an over-exaggeration. You don't seem to have a real idea of what life in contemporary academia is like if you really think "professors are like dukes".

The point has nothing to do with the level or material comfort enjoyed by professors but the nature of their relation to the means of production. Which 1) historically arose in the high middle ages and 2) constitute a sort of ownership that is not alienable by means of sale. Like, for example, being a fucking duke. The point stands: academia is an island of pre-capitalist social relations formally subsumed under capital. That is, to the extent that tenured faculty has not been replaced by adjuncts.

As for your ad hominem, really, go eat something unpleasant.


Marxist-Leninists don't judge a thing by how "weird" it is. People once thought queer liberation was "weird" too. Cultural conservatism has no place in socialism.

Observing that social relations under academia are unlike social relations everywhere outside it, and therefore political formations emerging from academia have an isolate and distorted character, is not cultural conservatism but materialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

The point has nothing to do with the level or material comfort enjoyed by professors but the nature of their relation to the means of production. Which 1) historically arose in the high middle ages and 2) constitute a sort of ownership that is not alienable by means of sale. Like, for example, being a fucking duke. The point stands: academia is an island of pre-capitalist social relations formally subsumed under capital. That is, to the extent that tenured faculty has not been replaced by adjuncts.


Professors today have nowhere near the same kind of privileges as the feudal aristocracy in the past. Historically they didn't even originate from the same layers of society either. In feudal China for instance, there have always been social tensions between scholar-officials who might have relatively low social backgrounds but rose through the examination system and the feudal aristocracy represented by the big landlords.

Also, one can't just focus on "quality" but ignore "quantity". It's like saying the income level of a worker does not matter as long as he/she is "technically" a worker.



As for your ad hominem, really, go eat something unpleasant.


Do you have a problem with reading? I made no ad hominem comments at all.



Observing that social relations under academia are unlike social relations everywhere outside it, and therefore political formations emerging from academia have an isolate and distorted character, is not cultural conservatism but materialism.


All of capitalist society is fundamentally distorted too. I don't think academic circles are more distorted. In fact, as Marxists like Chris Harman suggested, sometimes genuine progressive thoughts first arise in semi-isolated social circles like the academia before being absorbed and transformed to some extent by the masses in general, since these social circles are more "immune" from the reactionary brain-washing effects of class society in general, more than the "working class proper". (In some places for instance sexism and queerphobia are more prevalent among ordinary workers than the intelligensia) In a sense, some of the progressive elements in working class thought originated from outside the working class.

[Gorilla]

Professors today have nowhere near the same kind of privileges as the feudal aristocracy in the past. Historically they didn't even originate from the same layers of society either. In feudal China for instance, there have always been social tensions between scholar-officials who might have relatively low social backgrounds but rose through the examination system and the feudal aristocracy represented by the big landlords.

Also, one can't just focus on "quality" but ignore "quantity". It's like saying the income level of a worker does not matter as long as he/she is "technically" a worker.

There's likely someplace on earth where one family are hereditary cleaners of the temple outhouses. That would probably be a terrible way of life. It would also be an example of pre-capitalist social relations. Like being a duke. Your Chinese examples actually prove my point, since the doctors of law and theology produced in medieval universities where present academic social relations first evolved were the West's closest equivalent to them. Being a scholar-official was a form of feudal social relations, even though it wasn't being part of the feudal aristocracy, or even hereditary.


Do you have a problem with reading? I made no ad hominem comments at all.


You said I have no idea what it's like in academia. Fuck you.


All of capitalist society is fundamentally distorted too. I don't think academic circles are more distorted. In fact, as Marxists like Chris Harman suggested, sometimes genuine progressive thoughts first arise in semi-isolated social circles like the academia before being absorbed and transformed to some extent by the masses in general, since these social circles are more "immune" from the reactionary brain-washing effects of class society in general, more than the "working class proper". (In some places for instance sexism and queerphobia are more prevalent among ordinary workers than the intelligensia) In a sense, some of the progressive elements in working class thought originated from outside the working class.

Fair enough.

[Queercommie Girl]

You said I have no idea what it's like in academia. Fuck you.


Yeah, and how the fuck is that an insult? I extrapolated from your simplistic equivalence of professors with the feudal aristocracy.

And fuck you too, if you want to be offensive to me for no good reason.

I love it how some "leftists" in the West like to show off how "tough and macho" they are simply by throwing around insults to other people liberally. :rolleyes:

[Summerspeaker]

Even then, I'm not so sure that there's a fundamental difference. That sort of low-authority security personnel are so widely understood as "hired muscle" that they're capitalist objectification has actually entered colloquial language.

Low-level managers and shift leaders also experience obvious exploitation and alienation. However, as both student and worker, I feel the same abject terror toward folks who can fail or fire me. (Minor managers generally can't unilaterally fire somebody, but they can at least put in a bad word that matters.) Having that kind of power over others meaningfully changes the dynamics involved and encourages greater identification with bourgeois values. I wouldn't put bouncers and security guards in quite the same category as small-time mangers, but I do think teachers belong there. This doesn't mean they're irredeemable oppressors or anything like that.


Observing that the educational environment itself is appropriated for use as an ideological training ground for bourgeois and authoritarian ends does not suggest that it is inherently bourgeois or authoritarian.

I don't see how the current hierarchical structure could be salvaged; it's antithetical to the values of liberty and equality. The psychological research suggests sorting students through grades hinders actual learning and inflicts emotional damage, yet that's the basis of the school system. Revolutionary teachers would follow Shevek's approach from Ursula Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed. No grades and only voluntary assignments. It wouldn't look anything like the present classroom.

[Queercommie Girl]

There's likely someplace on earth where one family are hereditary cleaners of the temple outhouses. That would probably be a terrible way of life. It would also be an example of pre-capitalist social relations. Like being a duke. Your Chinese examples actually prove my point, since the doctors of law and theology produced in medieval universities where present academic social relations first evolved were the West's closest equivalent to them. Being a scholar-official was a form of feudal social relations, even though it wasn't being part of the feudal aristocracy, or even hereditary.


But to say that historically high-level academics today originated from the scholar-official class of ancient times (both in Europe and in China, as well as in the Middle East) is certainly not the same as saying professors today are still members of such a social layer in any real concrete sense. After all, both the modern bourgeois and the modern working class originated from certain pre-modern socio-economic relations too, historically speaking.

And your comparison with the feudal aristocracy is still off, since the scholar-officials of the pre-modern era were generally speaking not aristocrats in the sense of being a "duke" or "earl". They originated from a different social layer.

Having guaranteed employment is hardly the same as being "aristocratic". In the Soviet Union and the PRC too many workers also had guaranteed employment. (E.g. the "iron rice bowl")

[Tim Finnegan]

Historically, academic tenure is a holdover from the high middle ages. It's a kind of island of feudalism inside capitalist society. Under tenure, you have a privileged claim on the means of production (such as they are for academics) that cannot be taken away from you, but you also cannot buy or sell it. It's like being a duke or a monastic abbot or whatever.
Wait, I missed this, but it's a very interesting idea: does that suggest that tenured academics should be considered a wholly distinct class, unique to their situation, a sort of "institutional petty bourgoisie", or just a deformed "caste" within the proletariat?


Low-level managers and shift leaders also experience obvious exploitation and alienation. However, as both student and worker, I feel the same abject terror toward folks who can fail or fire me. (Minor managers generally can't unilaterally fire somebody, but they can at least put in a bad word that matters.) Having that kind of power over others meaningfully changes the dynamics involved and encourages greater identification with bourgeois values. I wouldn't put bouncers and security guards in quite the same category as small-time mangers, but I do think teachers belong there. This doesn't mean they're irredeemable oppressors or anything like that.
I certainly agree that delegated authority does influence interpersonal and inter-group dynamics, but I don't that it necessarily suggests a fundamental class division. What about non-executive managerial positions would suggest that they are anything more than a highly compromised section of the proletariat? Unless there's some fundamental distinction in social relations- for example, the ability of executive managers to allocate themselves a part of the surplus value- then there doesn't appear to be a material basis for arguing as much. At most, they form a discrete stratum within the proletariat, an institutional caste.


I don't see how the current hierarchical structure could be salvaged; it's antithetical to the values of liberty and equality. The psychological research suggests sorting students through grades hinders actual learning and inflicts emotional damage, yet that's the basis of the school system. Revolutionary teachers would follow Shevek's approach from Ursula Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed. No grades and only voluntary assignments. It wouldn't look anything like the present classroom.
Fair point. It's honestly not something that I've given much thought, while you, being an educator yourself, obviously have, so I'll cede this one to you.

[Summerspeaker]

At most, they form a discrete stratum within the proletariat, an institutional caste.

That's probably the best way to think about it.


Fair point. It's honestly not something that I've given much thought, while you, being an educator yourself, obviously have, so I'll cede this one to you.Radicals have been criticizing the school system from start. For example, see chapter V of News From Nowhere (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/nowhere/nowhere.htm#chap-5) by William Morris. And ey wasn't even an anarchist, but an avowed Marxist.

[Gorilla]

But to say that historically high-level academics today originated from the scholar-official class of ancient times (both in Europe and in China, as well as in the Middle East) is certainly not the same as saying professors today are still members of such a social layer in any real concrete sense. After all, both the modern bourgeois and the modern working class originated from certain pre-modern socio-economic relations too, historically speaking.

Yeah, but social relations between the modern bourgeois and working clas no longer have the character of pre-modern socio-economic relations.

Whereas there are areas in society where pre-capitalist social relations still obtain, having undergone formal but not real subsumption under capital. Peasant farmers and their landlords. Catholic and Buddhist clergy. Temple beggars. Traditional craftsmen of certain prestige goods that are still subject to archaic caste or religious taboos.

Most of the examples I cite come either from religion or "backwards" areas of the third world, but there are survivals of pre-capitalist social relations still around. In that sense they are like "being a duke" even though few of them are very glorious. The point of analogy is archaism, not luxury.

This is my contention about academia: like being a duke or a beggar-monk or the court blacksmith to the kabaka of Buganda, it is an occupation that has not undergone real subsumption into capitalist relations of production. It still operates substantially under its own, pre-capitalist, rules - despite being surrounded, supported, and inevitably transformed by ubiquitous capitalist social relations everywhere else.


Having guaranteed employment is hardly the same as being "aristocratic". In the Soviet Union and the PRC too many workers also had guaranteed employment. (E.g. the "iron rice bowl")

Sure, in historically-existing socialism everyone had guaranteed employment.

But in academia, some have guaranteed employment while some labor partly for a wage, partly to earn the privilege of guaranteed employment according to what are basically guild-rules. Advancement is primarily by earned prestige within the profession. Questions of profit and loss - one can't pretend they don't enter into it, but they are able to do so only through various back-door methods.

These are not capitalist social relations. It is a pre- or non-capitalist social formation that, like the traditional aristocracy or the Catholic priesthood etc. is allowed continued existence at the forbearance of capital. I'm speaking only of course of the tenure-track aspect of the profession - the adjunct system is academia under real subsumption.

[Queercommie Girl]

Wait, I missed this, but it's a very interesting idea: does that suggest that tenured academics should be considered a wholly distinct class, unique to their situation, a sort of "institutional petty bourgoisie", or just a deformed "caste" within the proletariat?


It's funny some people would consider professors to be less proletarian than super-rich sports professionals.

In the concrete sense I see far more academics supporting socialism than rich sportsmen. (Of course there are support for socialism from poor grassroots sports people as well) The University and Colleges Union in Britain for instance has taken part in strike actions, just like any other worker, something rich professional footballers of the Premier League never do.

I understand some people here are football/soccer fans, but that doesn't mean people can be biased towards them in actual socialist analysis.

[Queercommie Girl]

In marxist theory are college professors considered working class or petit bourgeois or what? I've heard that they're the intelligensia class but I don't really get that concept. I'm guessing they're considered the working class just because they don't own the means of production but I find it hard to classify people with as much wealth and influence on society as they do as working class.

My views:

The "intelligentsia" is not a real class in the Marxist sense.

Generally speaking, professors and academics are working class objectively. But they are a relatively privileged and elitist layer within the working class. The working class obviously consists of multiple layers and sections.

However, a few academics may also function like managers, and managers are not really working class, due to their control over the means of production. These are certainly not in the numerical majority, however.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are a large number of either porn stars or soccer players likely to be significantly involved in any potential revolutionary workers' movement? Because academics are, and historically have been, so it becomes necessary to establish where they stand in relationship to that movement.


Good pragmatic point.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

John Taylor Gatto tends to be right (though crude and obnoxious) in his analysis of the American education system, if anyone's looking for an introduction on the topic:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history5.htm

[bezdomni]

The general way you can answer the question "what class does X belong to?" is to investigate how X relates to the means of production.

Professors do not produce commodities, so they are not proletarian. In general, they also do not have direct ownership over any substantial amount of capital -- so professors are not bourgeoisie in general.

So, professors do not own large amounts of capital but they do have some private property. Hence, for the most part we can conclude that professors constitute a (very particular) segment of the petit-bourgeoisie.

The proletariat is the class who own nothing but their ability to do labor, which they must sell to the capitalist in order to survive. Clearly, professors (or intellectuals more generally) do not in any way belong to this class.

In the Marxist sense, social class is determined solely by relationship to the production of commodities. Note that (a priori) this has nothing to do with level of income or political tendencies, although certainly social class is related to both of these things.

I think it is meaningful to speak of the intelligentsia as a distinct subclass of the petit-bourgeoisie, since any capitalist society will have scientists, journalists, poets, musicians, etc., and these individuals will necessarily play an important role in a revolution against capitalist society and the construction of a socialist society.

Historically, the intelligentsia tends to "split" as a class when revolutionary movements emerge with relatively few left over on the fence.

[Gorilla]

Professors do not produce commodities, so they are not proletarian.

What about janitors?

[bezdomni]

What about janitors?

Good question. Let's investigate.

Does a janitor own private property?

What does a janitor produce?

How does a janitor relate to the production of commodities?

Is surplus value extracted from the labor of a janitor? In other words, does the capitalist make profit off the janitor's labor?


[It may be helpful to replace "janitor" with "night watchman" or "retail worker"].


Reference: Das Kapital: Volume I, Chapter 6: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm)

[caramelpence]

The proletariat is the class who own nothing but their ability to do labor, which they must sell to the capitalist in order to survive. Clearly, professors (or intellectuals more generally) do not in any way belong to this class.

In the Marxist sense, social class is determined solely by relationship to the production of commodities. Note that (a priori) this has nothing to do with level of income or political tendencies, although certainly social class is related to both of these things.

It's much more complex than this. A look at the broad sweep of Marx's work shows that actually is not easy to derive a single definition of class because there are various points where Marx makes it seem as if he is using a definition of class that is not solely structural in nature but is one that depends on members of a class having some sense of their common interests, i.e. a definition that takes in the cultural and ideological aspects of class rather than viewing those aspects as the product of classes that exist as objective entities. For example, in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto, Marx describe one of the aims of Communists as the "formation of the proletariat into a class", which is difficult to grasp if we assume that Marx's definition of class is consistently structural.

When and where he does give class a more structural or objective thrust, it is also not clear that Marx sees the production or non-production of commodities as important. Rather, the main criteria he uses to distinguish different classes from one another are (1) the extent to which producers exercise control over the means of production and (2) the extent to which they exercise control over their own labour power, so that the distinguishing feature of the proletarian is that she is alienated from the means of production but exercises full formal control over her labour power in the sense of being able to choose who she sells her labour power to rather than being tied to a particular member of the ruling class. Even here there are ambiguities though, because Marx clearly believes that there can be some limits on the alienability of labour power and for proletarians to remain proletarians, even though the existence of these limits means that they do not have total freedom in choosing how they sell their labour power - for example, legislation on the length of the working day. It is also problematic to make the total non-ownership of the means of production an absolute part of the definition of the proletariat because Marx was conscious that, during the early stages of capitalist development, it was common for workers to own some of their tools, even though they still worked to facilitate the accumulation of surplus value and received a wage rather than owning the products of their labour.

One way of making sense of these ambiguities (or at least those pertaining to the structural features of the working class) is to recognize that in texts such as Capital, Marx sees himself as presenting a necessarily abstract perspective rather than a detailed analysis of any particular capitalist society, and that actually identifying and classifying classes and their members depends on us pursuing a closer and empirically-orientated analysis of specific social formations. To do this, we can't rely on abstract or ahistorical definitions of either class in general or the proletariat in particular.

[Invader Zim]

As a graduate student, I'm also a teacher. It's important to recognize the disciplinary function of education. If you run a classroom, you have power over people like a boss. Even those of us low on the totem pole resemble assistant managers and shift leaders. Just grading papers and helping out a professor puts me in a decidedly different position from when I was floor staff at a cinema selling popcorn. Controlling and evaluating others makes you a coordinator.

Except the fact that your students are consumers paying the university, and in turn you, to both teach them and mark their papers. They are the paying (and paying a lot) clients and your are providing them with a service.

[Hit The North]

Except the fact that your students are consumers paying the university, and in turn you, to both teach them and mark their papers. They are the paying (and paying a lot) clients and your are providing them with a service.

Yes, but the power he wields in determining their grade is not, in turn, determined by their purchase of his service. As an arbiter of quality (or grade), he is being paid to wield power over the student.

[bezdomni]

Thanks caramelpence for your well-formulated objection.


(1) the extent to which producers exercise control over the means of production and (2) the extent to which they exercise control over their own labour power, so that the distinguishing feature of the proletarian is that she is alienated from the means of production but exercises full formal control over her labour power in the sense of being able to choose who she sells her labour power to rather than being tied to a particular member of the ruling class.

This is a more precise definition of the proletarian class than I offered, but I think my original comment defines the proletariat implicitly as the class who owns no property and must sell their labor to a capitalist in order to survive.

My goal in the previous post was to keep things simple for the OP. Your post highlights many of the subtleties and nuances which were (deliberately) omitted in my earlier response to the question.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, but the power he wields in determining their grade is not, in turn, determined by their purchase of his service. As an arbiter of quality (or grade), he is being paid to wield power over the student.
In what sense does that power suggest class status, though? It's not as if it can be used to extract surplus value.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Maybe you can try to convince a soccer player who earns 10 million dollars a year to turn to a socialist revolution? I don't think it would ever work. Economic base fundamentally determines political consciousness.Well, yes, but at the same time, I don't think consciousness is something that involves 'convincing' individuals by suprerior argument. Revolutions aren't made by 50%+1.


If an academic professor were earning big bucks no-one here would call him a "worker". Why make an exception for sports? There is nothing intrinsically special about sports.

I certainly don't consider rich sports professionals to be "working class", because in the concrete sense they cannot represent ordinary workers or their interests.Well on the topic of professional athletes, my answer would simply be that they are not important. These people essentially no relationship at all with the system of production. For all intents and purposes, they are de-classe. Professional athletes have no collective shared interests and come the revolution they will not be won over to either side as any kind of coherent whole. Besides, these people make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the population and their social significance is nil.

Nic.

[Lyev]

The general way you can answer the question "what class does X belong to?" is to investigate how X relates to the means of production.

Professors do not produce commodities, so they are not proletarian. In general, they also do not have direct ownership over any substantial amount of capital -- so professors are not bourgeoisie in general.I'm pretty sure that we can say professors -- working in colleges, universities, research institutes etc. -- do produce commodities. Their commodity is labour, just like any other people in the working class. Whether universities are state-owned or privately-run (there is only one private uni the UK), their teaching staff and professors surely do not own part of the buildings and teaching equipment themselves. Someone else owns their means of production, the government and sometimes private firms or institutes. Their commodity (labour) is teaching students. Maybe they're not involved directly in production as, say, a textile workers are in a factory in India, but they are still proletarian, right? There was the book written once called In and Against the State by some British anti-state communists in the '70s by some state workers (NHS, civil service, transport etc.) which possibly deals with some of these issues. Although, I am not sure on this to be honest.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm pretty sure that we can say professors -- working in colleges, universities, research institutes etc. -- do produce commodities.
Isn't their commodity - information?

EDIT: that was meant to include research institutues. Teaching staff add value to the labour power of their students, which also means that they're producing commodities (I'm not entirely sure on this one, maybe someone may correct me or comment further).

[Lyev]

Isn't their commodity - information?

EDIT: that was meant to include research institutues. Teaching staff add value to the labour power of their students, which also means that they're producing commodities (I'm not entirely sure on this one, maybe someone may correct me or comment further).Yeah, this is what I meant. But, I mean we can still refer to this as labour; wandering around at the front of a lecture theatre is of course not physical and tiring in the same way that a Chilean miner works 12 hours a-day facing the danger of tunnels collapsing etc. It is also far more stimulating than, say, adding the same kind of exhaust pipe to the end of car, like a worker in a production line does; where the division of labour on a small-scale is clear and prevelant. It is an error to say teachers, professors, researchers etc. are petit-bourgeois. I think we can say they are not involved in direct production of commodities, they are part of the reproduction process. I saw a video recently with Loren Goldner where he gives an overview of the two departments (i. means of production and ii. means of reproduction or consumption). He says that millions of people in the 'developed' countries (US, western Europe, Japan) are not directly involved in sector i, but are part of the consumer class, the 'servants' of the bourgeoisie. I think teachers, professors etc. also fit into this category and can disrupt the accumulation of capital in its reproduction. Although I am unsure. I'm gonna read through that book I mentioned which I think is Libcom, then come back to this, because it's pretty important for what many of us are doing in the anti-cuts movements that are springing up.

Edit: here's that Loren Goldner video, where he clearly outlines the those two departments to set the basis for a presentation of capitalist development in the context of economic crises and class struggles. http://vimeo.com/16363567
And here is the In and Against the State book, which, so far, I have found really useful. Although it could perhaps use with some updates as was written in the 1970s/. (Not all of it is uploaded yet, I don't think.) http://libcom.org/library/against-state-1979

[bezdomni]

I'm pretty sure that we can say professors -- working in colleges, universities, research institutes etc. -- do produce commodities. Their commodity is labour, just like any other people in the working class.

Professors produce labour? How so?

Further, I do not think it is correct to claim that any people in the working class produce labour.

People in the working class, the proletariat, own nothing but their ability to do labour -- which they must sell in order to survive. They sell their labour to the capitalist and produce commodities -- physical goods which posses a use-value and an exchange-value.

So a coal miner is producing coal, this is pretty straightforward. The coal is then sold for more than the capitalist paid for its production, this is how surplus value is accumulated off the difference between the price of the good produced and the wage paid for its production.

What does a professor produce, then? How is surplus value accumulated off their labor?

Consider this: A professor writes a book (or lecture notes or whatever you like) and owns it as their intellectual property, gets royalties etc. A coal miner digs coal, but it is all the property of the capitalist.

Do you see a difference here? Does this make sense?

[Thirsty Crow]

What does a professor produce, then? How is surplus value accumulated off their labor?

A teacher adds value to the labour power oh students (future elements of the workforce), as I've said. This is productive work.

In other instances, professors are producing information (it is a commodity as well). What's so strange here?



Consider this: A professor writes a book (or lecture notes or whatever you like) and owns it as their intellectual property, gets royalties etc. A coal miner digs coal, but it is all the property of the capitalist.

In fact, if this professor does not own the publishing company, he is performing labour (producing information whose surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist).

[Gorilla]

Professors produce labour? How so?

Further, I do not think it is correct to claim that any people in the working class produce labour.

People in the working class, the proletariat, own nothing but their ability to do labour -- which they must sell in order to survive. They sell their labour to the capitalist and produce commodities -- physical goods which posses a use-value and an exchange-value.

So a coal miner is producing coal, this is pretty straightforward. The coal is then sold for more than the capitalist paid for its production, this is how surplus value is accumulated off the difference between the price of the good produced and the wage paid for its production.

What does a professor produce, then? How is surplus value accumulated off their labor?

Consider this: A professor writes a book (or lecture notes or whatever you like) and owns it as their intellectual property, gets royalties etc. A coal miner digs coal, but it is all the property of the capitalist.

Do you see a difference here? Does this make sense?

Making it a professor adds in other confusions due to tenure system etc.

Take a janitor or a fast food cashier. If you are saying they are not proletarian because they do not directly produce literal physical commodities then you are mistaken.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, but the power he wields in determining their grade is not, in turn, determined by their purchase of his service. As an arbiter of quality (or grade), he is being paid to wield power over the student.

Clearly you have some misconceptions regarding the marking process. The person grading a paper has no "power" over an individual student. There are explicit mechanisms in place to prevent there being. As a result the horror stories you hear - typically from rightwing morons - of " Dr.A lecture marked me down in my essay because I made Z statement in class" are only loosely based on what actually happened or are outright fabrications.

For example, when work is marked the student is made anonymous (and students are well aware of this). The marker has no idea which of the students wrote which piece of work. So even if the person marking the script doesn't like a student, it does not effect how they grade the work. The student is just another faceless, nameless lump of prose to be read and assessed as swiftly as possible.

Secondly, the marker is subject to a detailed marking sceme/criteria. The characteristics of the paper being marked are analysed based on where it falls within this predetermined criteria and graded accordingly. This leads us to point three...

...work is double marked. So even if a lecturer or pg seminar tutor, for whatever reason, wanted to mark a student down beyond the level the work actually merited then the second marker would give it a different mark. It must be noted that second markers do not know what mark was given to the piece by the first marker, they just grade it. If the two marks are wildy conflicting it then it is reviewed again by an external examinor outside of the institution. The external also marks a sample of work selected at random from the module. This isn't just to prevent markers from having positions of power over students, but also because essay marking in particular is actually quite a fine art and it isn't fair on either students or staff not to have the second/third marker saftey net.

The system has been designed with the explicit aim of reducing the process of marking into an impersonal production line affair, where the marker performs an input - process - output role with no scope for personal feelings regarding individual students. They just follow the criteria like a checklist. The process is also very boring, and often paid per student/script as opposed to per hour, so it is in the interests of the marker to get through the scripts as quickly as possible.

To describe the process as it actually happens. The students submit their work en mass, on say a Monday. Typically they have to submit two or three copies (often one/two hard copies and one via an electronic medium - but it depends on the department) It stays in the office for maybe a couple of weeks while it gets processed/anonymised prior to being sent to academic staff for marking. It shouldn't take that long, but does because students do silly things like fail to submit the work propery and the office staff have to chase them until they do, or they don't hand it in at all because they haven't done it. In either case the office staff have to chase them up for the work.

At that point the people marking the scripts collect the copies to read. The number depends on the size of the module or group, but typically more than 40. This person then marks his or her batch. The amount of time this takes depends on several factors, one being the length/depth of the piece of work. Others include marking/feedback style. Some people are just naturally really fast and wizz through scripts. Others grade them and provide relatively limited comments. Others painstakingly go through each essay correcting grammar/spelling and adding copious notes in both the margins as well as filling out a comment sheet. That is good for the students but naturally not something all people doing marking want to do.

It is at this point that the second and third marker actually become necessary. If the marker has spent an entire day marking a mountain of scripts, all of which answer the same questions, all of which are badly written and all of which make the same foolish mistakes, then this begins to take its toll. It is much easier for the marker to have a lapse of judgement at this stage, not giving the work enough attention over penbalising silly mistakes because they are tired of seeing it, etc. But perhaps more frequently over marking a script because it doesn't contain that same silly mistake or perhaps because it is well written and thus not so much a chore to read. It is an unconscious human flaw. A second marker there to spot these errors.

If the piece being marked is an essay of say 2,000 words it takes the more painstaking/slower marker at least half an hour, and gives the work a grade based on how the work meets the marking criteria. The marker then meets up with the second marker to see if there are any difference and exchange ideas and a mark is agreed. They then provide the comments and mark back to the student.

This system is, of course, explicity designed to prevent the kind of control you are talking about and also so the university covers its back and can't get sued by a student it fails. So no, a marker is not being paid to wield power over the student. In fact, realistically the marker doesn't have any power and the system is specifically designed to be as fair as possible and prevent them from having any. They just do a job according to a set of pre-established rules, and their decision are checked and then often re-checked just to make sure that they aren't giving out poor marks, for whatever reason.

In that respect it is a good system, not perfect, but one which tries to be as fair to the students and markers as possible by removing the opportunity to be biased and weild power. As I noted above there is a clear self-interest motive for the university to ensure this because they don't want to get sued. I also think that, particularly on an individual level, people are fairminded and care about student wellfare, which is another reason these systems are in place. Of course there are other parts which definitely aren't so good, particularly regarding how postgraduate tutors employed to do marking get paid, but it isn't really work going into here and probably isn't universal.

PS. On a side note it is interesting that you choose the word 'he' to describe markers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, yes, but at the same time, I don't think consciousness is something that involves 'convincing' individuals by suprerior argument. Revolutions aren't made by 50%+1.


I didn't make such a point.

My point is simple: if you are really rich, you are never going to be a socialist, regardless of whether or not you are technically "working class" or whatever. It's really common sense.

So it is utterly futile to try to instill a socialist consciousness in super-rich sports professionals, whether through abstract argumentation or any other method.

"It's more difficult for the rich to enter heaven than it is for the camel to go through the eye of a needle" - Jesus Christ. (These age-old proverbs still hold a lot of wisdom)

[Queercommie Girl]

Well on the topic of professional athletes, my answer would simply be that they are not important. These people essentially no relationship at all with the system of production. For all intents and purposes, they are de-classe. Professional athletes have no collective shared interests and come the revolution they will not be won over to either side as any kind of coherent whole. Besides, these people make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the population and their social significance is nil.


I would expect the majority of really rich sports professionals to be anti-socialist, when push comes to shove, since their wealth is based on the capitalist system. In a socialist world, sports professionals will never be allowed to earn so much money.

Of course, it's wrong to assume all sports professionals are rich as well, many are actually relatively poor, and I do think these poor sports people can be won over to the revolution.

[synthesis]

Of course, it's wrong to assume all sports professionals are rich as well, many are actually relatively poor, and I do think these poor sports people can be won over to the revolution.


Well on the topic of professional athletes, my answer would simply be that they are not important.

College professors seem to fall pretty squarely into the "petit-bourgeois" category, in my opinion.

[Queercommie Girl]

College professors seem to fall pretty squarely into the "petit-bourgeois" category, in my opinion.

And why exactly do you say that? Do you think academics are more "petit-bourgeois" than sports professionals? Why?

Concrete economic analysis please.

And how is this relevant to the comment about sports professionals which I have made?

[Hit The North]

Invader Zim,

Thank you for your painstaking outline of academic assessment protocols. All I can say is that it merely illustrates the danger of generalising from your own narrow experience, as none of the universities in which I've studied or worked conform to your model in most detail.


PS. On a side note it is interesting that you choose the word 'he' to describe markers. Then you are easily interested.

[Queercommie Girl]

Thank you for yolur painstaking outline of academic assessment protocols. All I can say is that it merely illustrates the danger of generalising from your own narrow experience, as none of the universities in which I've studied or worked conform to your model in most detail.


Everyone agrees that the current system is problematic, but it's hardly the same as capitalists exploiting workers.

[Hit The North]

Everyone agrees that the current system is problematic, but it's hardly the same as capitalists exploiting workers.

I've certainly never claimed it was remotely comparable. Nevertheless, to claim that the relation between academic staff and students is merely a consumer relation is equally inaccurate.

I guess part of the problem of this thread is that it doesn't make explicit the hierarchical differences that exist among academic staff. An associate lecturer or a post-graduate instructor (in fact, in my experience, those who, in some departments, do the majority of the face-to-face undergraduate tuition and grading) has far less status, authority and institutional power than a professor, many of whom, because of their location in the institutional hierarchy, wield considerable power.

Anyone who's seen the movie Inside Job will know that in the USA the economics professors of Harvard Business School and other elite institutions earn vast sums of money from their consultation work with major financial companies and have eagerly supplied academic authority and media propaganda for all sorts of dubious new mechanisms for financial plunder.

This guy, for instance:

zlIoeTObmEk

Glenn Hubbard is the Dean of Columbia Business School and an influential advocate of financial deregulation and the architect of Bush's 2003 tax cuts.

Or this guy, another professor from Columbia, who demonstrates that in order to become a professor it's who you know as much as what you know:

8lHvTKzfu8Q

Then there's the self-serving professors that run the LSE, bowing and scraping in front of the world's longest serving dictator in return for funds:

-vOVRLBQuDQ

Of course, none of this proves that these professors are members of the bourgeoisie. But, certainly, they are no friends of the working class.

[Invader Zim]

Invader Zim,

Thank you for your painstaking outline of academic assessment protocols. All I can say is that it merely illustrates the danger of generalising from your own narrow experience, as none of the universities in which I've studied or worked conform to your model in most detail.

Then you are easily interested.

Or it merely illustrates that like most students you are ignorant and indifferent to what happens to your work once you have handed your work in. You see I know for a fact that just about every single university in the UK practises at least some form of moderation system employing both second and third markers as a mimimum measure - many departments actually exceed the minimum demands made by their institution to protect both their students and staff. Some of them may not demand that every piece of work is double marked, but they do demand that a considerable random sample is employed - and this is no secret, most institutions publish their minimum assessment protocols online for all to see.

[Hit The North]

Or it merely illustrates that like most students you are ignorant and indifferent to what happens to your work once you have handed your work in.

Wow. There may or may not be a power relationship between academics and students, but if you are representative of academics, there sure appears to be a large amount of disdain.

Anyway, I'm not denying there are common protocols of moderation, but the rule of anonymity is not applied uniformly.

[Invader Zim]

Wow. There may or may not be a power relationship between academics and students, but if you are representative of academics, there sure appears to be a large amount of disdain.

Anyway, I'm not denying there are common protocols of moderation, but the rule of anonymity is not applied uniformly.


Wow. There may or may not be a power relationship between academics and students, but if you are representative of academics, there sure appears to be a large amount of disdain.

Oh please what a ridiculous comment. What proportion of sudents do you honestly think have actually read the coursework assessment protocols published by their institution and their departments? Not the marking criteria, but the actual assessment protocols? I.e. a document such as this one:

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/assessment_policy_tcm44-26754.pdf

My guess is that this group is tiny and the vast majority of those few who have do so because they are planning an appeal of their marks. It isn't distainful, it is a plainly obvious fact. I certainly didn't read any document like this as an undergraduate or as a taught postgraduate and I see no reason to believe that I am in anyway in the minority.


, but the rule of anonymity is not applied uniformly.

And how do you know that? Most depatrments anonymise the work, not the student.

[Robocommie]

You said I have no idea what it's like in academia. Fuck you.

FIIIIIGGGHTT!!! :lol:

[Robocommie]

Also, it's just now occurring to me that this website is basically divided into a bunch of high school kids and a bunch of grad students/academics?

[black magick hustla]

Or it merely illustrates that like most students you are ignorant and indifferent to what happens to your work once you have handed your work in. You see I know for a fact that just about every single university in the UK practises at least some form of moderation system employing both second and third markers as a mimimum measure - many departments actually exceed the minimum demands made by their institution to protect both their students and staff. Some of them may not demand that every piece of work is double marked, but they do demand that a considerable random sample is employed - and this is no secret, most institutions publish their minimum assessment protocols online for all to see.

loooooooooooool i marked homeworks and labs before and anybody who thinks there is a "painstalking" process behind marking doesnt know me

[black magick hustla]

my institution is top five in nuclear physics in the world btw

[Hit The North]

And how do you know that? Most depatrments anonymise the work, not the student.

I'm marking a few dozen undergraduate papers right now, clever bollocks :p

[Invader Zim]

loooooooooooool i marked homeworks and labs before and anybody who thinks there is a "painstalking" process behind marking doesnt know meIn my opinion, people who do not take the time to seriously consider the work they are marking are both disrespectful of their students and actively do them a disservice even if it means that the student gets over-marked. My point was though that I have yet to come across an institution which doesn't make an effort to prevent that through anonymising work and having a second marking policy, and deliberately attempt to minimise a markers power over students to make the process as fair to them as possible.

[Invader Zim]

I'm marking a few dozen undergraduate papers right now, clever bollocks :p

And have they been anonymised? Is there a second marking process, and if not is this actually in line with your institutions assessment criteria?

[Robocommie]

When I mark papers I actually put them in the shredder, unread, and then just put down random numbers in the book.

[black magick hustla]

even if it means that the student gets over-marked. .

this implies i or most students care about marks reflecting reality or whatever we just want a goddamn diploma with high enough numbers. the academic morality police is for sad people who drink the kool aid about academic honesty and the legitimacy of educational institutions and their bosses

[Invader Zim]

this implies i or most students care about marks reflecting reality or whatever we just want a goddamn diploma with high enough numbers. the academic morality police is for sad people who drink the kool aid about academic honesty and the legitimacy of educational institutions and their bosses

I'm not saying that students don't want high marks. But your assertion that most don't actually want to legitimately achieve those marks strikes me as plainly false. I would much rather get a crap mark, telling me in no uncertain terms that my work was and is not upto scratch, than be given a false impression and then continue in the same vein and suddenly have the rug pulled from under my feet by someone who actually does give a shit about whether they have done their job properly and potentially cost me that coveted "goddamn diploma" and those "high enough numbers". And shit, maybe it makes me weird, but I like to know that I've actually earned something. I also contest the notion that the pretty certificate is the only reason people go to university.

But whatever, I have to go back to my sad existence of wanking off my boss, sipping cool aid and soap boxing on the subject of "academic honesty and the legitimacy of educational institutions" because clearly that is what is implied by worrying about whether I may be fucking over my students. Then again, this is all irrelevent anyway, because I know full well that if I did give all my students high marks, without actually having bothered to read their work, it wouldn't get past the second marker and I wouldn't have a job next semester. And this is because I don't actually have any power, I just work there - which was my whole point in th first place.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=Invader Zim;2088433]I would much rather get a crap mark, telling me in no uncertain terms that my work was and is not upto scratch, than be given a false impression and then continue in the same vein and suddenly have the rug pulled from under my feet by someone who actually does give a shit about whether they have done their job properly and potentially cost me that coveted "goddamn diploma" and those "high enough numbers". And shit, maybe it makes me weird, but I like to know that I've actually earned something. I also contest the notion that the pretty certificate is the only reason people go to university.
[QUOTE]
thats because you are an academic, i.e. neglible percent of the population. most people just wanna get over school and go drink in the weekend

[Invader Zim]

thats because you are an academic, i.e. neglible percent of the population. most people just wanna get over school and go drink in the weekend

I'm sorry, but I do not - not even for a second - accept your assertion that most students do not want to have earned their degree. Bob the Builder accused me of a distainful attitude towards students earlier, but your suggestion - if I have it right - really is insulting. Don't get me wrong, at every stage of being a student I wanted, when it came to work, to "get it over" and then go out and get hammered. And I certainly didn't wait for the weekend and still don't. But that does not imply that I didn't earn my marks, both good and bad, or would have wanted those assessing that work to give me a false impression of how I was doing - and that has nothing to do with what I do now.

[RedSunRising]

In marxist theory are college professors considered working class or petit bourgeois or what? I've heard that they're the intelligensia class but I don't really get that concept. I'm guessing they're considered the working class just because they don't own the means of production but I find it hard to classify people with as much wealth and influence on society as they do as working class.

Good question. Like journalists most college professors come under the bracket of "pigs". Hope that helps.

[Tim Finnegan]

Good question. Like journalists most college professors come under the bracket of "pigs". Hope that helps.
What beautifully hollow posturing. You've practically got it down to an art.

[Jose Gracchus]

Just projecting, after all that's who leads all of their 'people's movements'.

[RedSunRising]

What beautifully hollow posturing. You've practically got it down to an art.

They serve to indoctrinate people into the idealogly of the ruling class.

Okay hard science acedemnics are different. Fair enough...But history, politics, sociology or philosophy professors????

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Okay hard science acedemnics are different. Fair enough...But history, politics, sociology or philosophy professors????I had two history professors, one sociology professor, and four philosophy professors over my academic career. All taught curriculums that were obviously intended to lead students to socialism. Admittedly, I went for classes that might attract leftist professors. The sociology prof also said that the vast majority of her colleagues are Marxists, even if it is a sort of "legal Marxism". I also had a lit professor who I suspect was a closet pro-situationist.

Economics professors, yeah, they probably brainwash their students. But I stayed away from those classes.

@Zim (I never thought I'd disagree with someone that has gir as their avatar...)


I'm sorry, but I do not - not even for a second - accept your assertion that most students do not want to have earned their degree.... But that does not imply that I didn't earn my marks, both good and bad, or would have wanted those assessing that work to give me a false impression of how I was doing Well there's the difference between you and 99% of students. You're studying something that you really want to be good at. Everyone else studies something for the sole purpose of making money, unless it's philosophy or physics or something (I say physics because there is way more money in engineering for much less work, something that took me three years of majoring in physics to figure out).

For the rest of the student population, On the Poverty of Student Life says it better than I can:

From: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4
Once upon a time the universities were respected; the student persists in the belief that he is lucky to be there. But he arrived too late. The bygone excellence of bourgeois culture (By this we mean the culture of a Hegel or of the encyclopédistes, rather than the Sorbonne and the Ecole Normale Supérieure.) has vanished. A mechanically produced specialist is now the goal of the "educational system." A modern economic system demands mass production of students who are not educated and have been rendered incapable of thinking. Hence the decline of the universities and the automatic nullity of the student once he enters its portals. The university has become a society for the propagation of ignorance; "high culture" has taken on the rhythm of the production line; without exception, university teachers are cretins, men who would get the bird from any audience of schoolboys. But all this hardly matters: the important thing is to go on listening respectfully. In time, if critical thinking is repressed with enough conscientiousness, the student will come to partake of the wafer of knowledge, the professor will tell him the final truths of the world. Till then--a menopause of the spirit. As a matter of course the future revolutionary society will condemn the doings of lecture theatre and faculty as mere noise--socially undesirable. The student is already a very bad joke.

The end refers to Bergsonian humor, I think. Also, obviously, that quote goes against the beginning of my post. I disagree with Khayati's over-critical, maximalist, assertion that professors are cretins.

[caramelpence]

They serve to indoctrinate people into the idealogly of the ruling class.

Okay hard science acedemnics are different. Fair enough...But history, politics, sociology or philosophy professors????

It's pretty patronizing to assume that students are so easily "indoctrinated" by their tutors and professors - sure, academics in those fields do tend to emphasize their own perspectives but this is frequently recognized, not least by the academics themselves, and is seen less as a form of "indoctrination" than as an opportunity for students to develop their own perspectives alongside and in opposition to the ideas that are being put forward by their teachers. Personally speaking, if I were being taught by world-famous political theorists and philosophers, I would be dissappointed if they did not seek to convince me of the merits of their own positions and were not also open to my challenges. Also of significance is the fact that academia is one of the only spheres in which Marxists are able to reach positions of importance at the same time as being open about their views and that if students are "indoctrinated" there is therefore no reason to assume that they're being "indoctrinated" into "bourgeois ideology" as oppossed to the progressive ideas of their Marxist or Marxisant teachers - this is of course exactly what is claimed by the conservative right in countries like the US and it is valid insofar as it reflects the fact that people like Terry Eagleton (to take one example) are well-positioned in academia, even if it is wrong to characterize the relationship between students and teachers in non-science subjects as one of "indoctrination", because of what that says about the intellectual capabilities of students.

It is interesting that Stalinists and the conservative right are both so willing to express fears of dangerous ideologically-driven academic staff and their alleged desire to indoctrinate students - I think in both cases it reflects not only an ignorance of academia but also an impoverished and pessimistic view of the intellectual capacities of students in particular and human beings in general. It's the same view that's reflected in the Stalinist desire to censor art and literature that allegedly spreads "bourgeois thinking" - the basic belief is that humans are irrational, easily influenced, inherently corruptible, and weak in their abilities to reflect on their experiences, and that they therefore need to be protected by enlightened party bureaucrats (or moral leaders like churchmen in the case of the right) who can recognize the sources of corruption and protect lesser human beings from them.

[Gorilla]

It is interesting that Stalinists and the conservative right are both so willing to express fears of dangerous ideologically-driven academic staff and their alleged desire to indoctrinate students - I think in both cases it reflects not only an ignorance of academia but also an impoverished and pessimistic view of the intellectual capacities of students in particular and human beings in general. It's the same view that's reflected in the Stalinist desire to censor art and literature that allegedly spreads "bourgeois thinking" - the basic belief is that humans are irrational, easily influenced, inherently corruptible, and weak in their abilities to reflect on their experiences, and that they therefore need to be protected by enlightened party bureaucrats (or moral leaders like churchmen in the case of the right) who can recognize the sources of corruption and protect lesser human beings from them.

This post is, in its own way, even dumber than RedSunRising's.

[Jose Gracchus]

Because he recognizes as historical reality and gives it a name?

[Gorilla]

Because he recognizes as historical reality and gives it a name?

Because he's feeding troll-food to a troll.

[Jose Gracchus]

Once more, point taken.

[Tim Finnegan]

They serve to indoctrinate people into the idealogly of the ruling class.

Okay hard science acedemnics are different. Fair enough...But history, politics, sociology or philosophy professors????
I had a Marxist architectural history professor. If that's "the ideology of the ruling class", then I'm not sure what the point of this forum is.

[black magick hustla]

most marxist profs ive met are counterrevolutionary social democrats

[black magick hustla]

I had a Marxist architectural history professor. If that's "the ideology of the ruling class", then I'm not sure what the point of this forum is.
the left wing of capital is part of the establishment too

[black magick hustla]

- this is of course exactly what is claimed by the conservative right in countries like the US and it is valid insofar as it reflects the fact that people like Terry Eagleton (to take one example) are well-positioned in academia, even if it is wrong to characterize the relationship between students and teachers in non-science subjects as one of "indoctrination", because of what that says about the intellectual capabilities of students.


leftists are always worried about the "conservative right". the "conservative right" is not the one murdering brown people abroad. fuck the left and fuck progressives

[Tim Finnegan]

most marxist profs ive met are counterrevolutionary social democrats
That doesn't really make sense- how can they be "counter-revolutionary" when there's no revolution?

The far left really needs to learn the difference between "reformist" and "counter-revolutionary", or we'll always remain the fringe embarrassment that we are today.


the left wing of capital is part of the establishment too
That's not a particularly enlightening contribution.

[Queercommie Girl]

leftists are always worried about the "conservative right". the "conservative right" is not the one murdering brown people abroad. fuck the left and fuck progressives

Oh really? What about Bush? He was the one who started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, after all.

You are delusional if you think the conservative right is better in some way than liberals. In many ways they are even worse. At least liberals don't call for the execution of queer people like some religious right-wingers in the US do.

[Queercommie Girl]

most marxist profs ive met are counterrevolutionary social democrats

Including Alex Callinicos, the leader of the SWP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Callinicos

Alexander Theodore Callinicos (born 24 July 1950, Southern Rhodesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Rhodesia) - now Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe)) is a Trotskyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism) political theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory), a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28Britain%29) and its International Secretary, and is Director of the Centre for European Studies at King's College London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_London). He is also editor of International Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Socialism_%28journal%29), the Socialist Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party)'s theoretical journal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Alex_Callinicos.jpg