Education in Capitalist Countries

[Lei Feng]

Many times throughout my time in middle/high school, I have constantly been bombarded with expectations that "you must get a college education! Be a doctor, or lawyer, or business owner! don't end up like those dumb working class people" and things of that nature, by everybody from teachers to even my mother(who was from Maoist China, but feels that Deng Xiaoping somehow brought "great changes" for the chinese people :laugh:)

And, to an extent, I am confused by this. I do feel as though A "professional" occupation such as a doctor,lawyer, or engineer is good(as they are for the most part, un-exploitive, and therefore no Bourgeois, correct?). But I'd have no problem being working class as I see they contribute just as much if not more than "professionals"(other than the exploitation by capitalism). It seems as though mental labour is much more valued than physical labour, which I view as quite unfair, but I've wondered why It is this way. However, many have made the point that the working class are poor because they "don't contribute to society like the wealthy do." or "they were too lazy to pursue a good education", and, that last part, as I have seen so far, seems to be somewhat true, at least where I live(suburban town in California) :confused:
The point is, I am overall confused as to where my future is headed(in terms of my education). I don't want to be Bourgeois, but at the same time, I don't want to be under the heel of some capitalist either. Any advice would help. thanks

EQ: how are jobs classified as Bourgeois or Proletarian? I understand there is the factory worker and the factory owner, but not all jobs are as black and white as that. Also there are sub-classes such as "petit-bourgeois" which is also a bit confusing. please, it would help is this could be explained.

[jookyle]

Being bourgeois means a lot more then just having a high paying or "professional" job. You have to be an owner of capital. Being a professional doesn't make you bourgeois but owning or being a major shareholder for the institution would.

[Misocratist]

It seems as though mental labour is much more valued than physical labour, which I view as quite unfair, but I've wondered why It is this way. However, many have made the point that the working class are poor because they "don't contribute to society like the wealthy do." or "they were too lazy to pursue a good education", and, that last part, as I have seen so far, seems to be somewhat true, at least where I live(suburban town in California) :confused:
That's not quite how bourgeois think. Your work's value is unrelated to the wage you'll be paid for it: in the capitalist mind, the best scenario is to have an highly valuable worker, but many workers (high supply) to fill a small number of jobs (low demand), so that their "price" (i.e. their wage) is kept low. That way, profit (i.e. how much the work is worth minus the wage paid to the worker) is at its highest.

For them, the worker's labour power is a commodity like any other commodity. As such the value of such a commodity is given by the laws of the market, supply and demand: i.e. the job market. As there is a lot of unqualified people (i.e. lots of manual workers compared to engineers) who want the same job and few jobs around for them, they're not going to be paid much, as there is a "race to the bottom" so as to be hired: they'll be willing to be paid less than others so as to get hired, much as merchants try to sell their stuff cheaper than their competitors so as to get people to buy from them instead of their competitors, so as to get a larger share of the market.

For exemple: a fictional gold miner. You need only one gold miner, and whatever miner you'll get will get you $3,500 worth of gold every day. The thing is, 10 gold miners are willing to get that job: hence, you'll give the job to the miner who's willing to be paid the least. In the end, only one miner is willing to be paid as little as $100 a day, he will thus get the job. The capitalist's profit is $3,500 - $100 = $3,400: the owner of the mine is getting paid $3,400 a day for owning the mine and the tools, despite not being the one using them, which brings us to your 2nd question:



EQ: how are jobs classified as Bourgeois or Proletarian? I understand there is the factory worker and the factory owner, but not all jobs are as black and white as that. Also there are sub-classes such as "petit-bourgeois" which is also a bit confusing. please, it would help is this could be explained.
Most jobs are as black and white as that, but the fact is that they remain "ideal-types", "pures" cases useful to explain how the system works in theory, not at describing it as it is in reality. Description might mean mixing them up a little: some people can be both owners and workers, which is what the "petit-bourgeois" is. The "petit bourgeois" is the owner of the means of production who also work among with his employees, e.g. the small entrepreneur who owns three trucks and drives one, thus contributing to the production as much as his two other employees, but getting extra money for owning the trucks his two other employees are using. Despite now using them himself, that is.