Are soldiers workers?

[citizen of industry]

Trying to work out this theoretical puzzle. First, defining what is a worker - a) one who produces surplus value, b)one who is part of the faux frais of production, c)one who sells their labor power for subsistence wages, to reproduce their own labor power (both a & b fall into this category as well).

A lot of political economists considered soldiers as part of the faux frais of production. Though they have nothing to do with the production or circulation process, they are certainly necessary for the capitalist class to conquer new markets/raw materials so in that sense could be considered faux frais. They also receive the bare minimum required to reproduce their own labor as soldiers, so could be considered workers.

One might say as the state and capital are intertwined, it makes little difference whether one receives their wages from the government or from a corporation. Whether one uses a rifle in the service of capital, or produces surplus value directly for capital. Unless the mode of production is changed, one has to receive wages and can't afford not to enrich the capitalist class in one form or another.

As to the revolutionary potential of soldiers, one could point to the role of soldiers in the Russian revolution, more recently in Egypt.

I've heard one argument that soldiers are lumpenproletariat, and historically were recruited from lumpen (Louis Bonaparte, Mussolini). But in large part military recruits are neither criminals nor homeless. I don't think that definition suffices.

It goes without saying imperialist militarism must be opposed. And the soldiers themselves should oppose it. But as to the question of whether enlisted soldiers are "workers" or not in the economic sense...????

[citizen of industry]

And of course there is the "economic draft" position. If I have to sell my labor power for a wage, the military pays a higher wage and offers better benefits (plus citizenship if one needs it), and unemployment is high, by joining does one suddenly become a "non-worker"?

[Comrade Jandar]

This a topic that has come up many times. I believe the consensus is that professional soldiers, like law enforcement, are not workers, despite having an essentially proletarian relation to the means of production. Both benefit from the continued existence of capitalism and the state so I do not see any revolutionary potential in them.

[Yugo45]

I'd say they are workers that don't have a developed class consciousness, just like cops. But even this differs from country to country and their position has changed through history many times.

[citizen of industry]

This a topic that has come up many times. I believe the consensus is that professional soldiers, like law enforcement, are not workers, despite having an essentially proletarian relation to the means of production. Both benefit from the continued existence of capitalism and the state so I do not see any revolutionary potential in them.

But how was that consensus reached? Soldiers receive their wages from the state, but I'm not sure they benefit from it's continued existence. In fact many die or end up in the loony bin or drugged up, rather than benefiting. What about a public teacher or a garbage man? By that logic couldn't someone say they both benefit from the continued existence of the state, so therefore aren't workers?

Aren't there some fundamental differences between cops and soldiers? For one, it's hard to become a pig, one is expected to abide by and enforce the law. Soldiers are young, often poor, and not the most law abiding of citizens. Many of them don't like the state, many of them don't like capitalism. Most of them are in and out in three years, and aren't patriotic. The state can depend on it's police force to surpress dissent. It can't depend on it's military.

Then just looking at the labour involved. For example, if I am in the merchant marine, and operate the boiler room of a ship for a wage, I would definitely be considered a worker. If I am in the navy, and operate the boiler room of a ship for a wage, I am not considered a worker. It could be the same kind of vessel, the same kind of labor for the same compensation. The lives of the two could be quite identical, but one is a worker and the other isn't it?

Wouldn't it depend on the kind of soldier? For example, an officer or a highly compensated senior enlisted soldier, compared to a private. Much like a wage worker compared to a middle manager or executive.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They may be workers, but merely being a worker isn't the end-all-and-be-all of political analysis. Like I've said before, consider a member of military intelligence who tortures and kills political dissidents receives some sort of wage for his efforts (and helps maintain a suitable political climate in his country for economic matters to persist), is he a "worker"? Maybe technically, but he's still an enemy. Same goes for cops etc.

Also, this


Aren't there some fundamental differences between cops and soldiers? For one, it's hard to become a pig, one is expected to abide by and enforce the law. Soldiers are young, often poor, and not the most law abiding of citizens. Many of them don't like the state, many of them don't like capitalism. Most of them are in and out in three years, and aren't patriotic. The state can depend on it's police force to surpress dissent. It can't depend on it's military.

relies on some assumptions that definitely are not completely true in all cases. Yes, soldiers are commonly economically disadvantaged and/or are working class, but (at least in the case of the USA), the majority are definitely not "poor". See:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2318112&postcount=11

The USA has used it's military on innumerable occassions overseas and on more than a few occassions here at home, and with the exception of rather overhyped incidents of officer fragging during the Vietnam War (for example), all of the missions or "police actions" were executed obediantely.

Whether or not the state can depend on it's military varies from country to country. For example, Saudi Arabia pulls a good part of it's military from priviliged classes within the Sunni community. Their military is absolutely reliable. In neighboring Yemen? Not so much.

[wsg1991]

The state can depend on it's police force to surpress dissent. It can't depend on it's military.



many middle east dictators neglect
the army and rely heavily on it's police , even if he was a general ( Mubarak \ BEN ali ) . Saudi arabia is a notable example

[Ocean Seal]

No, they aren't workers. They are foreign policy tools between factions of the bourgeoisie. Being that soldier isn't a permanent state of being (in most countries) soldiers aren't workers, although most of them at some point will be workers.

[citizen of industry]

No, they aren't workers. They are foreign policy tools between factions of the bourgeoisie.

They are that. But from an economic standpoint, they also seem to be workers. See the OP. First you have to define what a "worker" is. Being a foreign policy tool and a worker is not mutually exclusive.

[wsg1991]

They may be workers, but merely being a worker isn't the end-all-and-be-all of political analysis. Like I've said before, consider a member of military intelligence who tortures and kills political dissidents receives some sort of wage for his efforts (and helps maintain a suitable political climate in his country for economic matters to persist), is he a "worker"? Maybe technically, but he's still an enemy. Same goes for cops etc.

Also, this



relies on some assumptions that definitely are not completely true in all cases. Yes, soldiers are commonly economically disadvantaged and/or are working class, but (at least in the case of the USA), the majority are definitely not "poor". See:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2318112&postcount=11

The USA has used it's military on innumerable occassions overseas and on more than a few occassions here at home, and with the exception of rather overhyped incidents of officer fragging during the Vietnam War (for example), all of the missions or "police actions" were executed obediantely.

Whether or not the state can depend on it's military varies from country to country. For example, Saudi Arabia pulls a good part of it's military from priviliged classes within the Sunni community. Their military is absolutely reliable. In neighboring Yemen? Not so much.

is there any accidents where the USA military was asked to perform Police role in the USA soil , on USA citizens ?

[Red Future]

The attempted 2010 coup against Correa in Ecuador is interesting as an example of the "military vs police".The Army and a handful of Police stood and fought for the left-wing president while the majority of the Police actively attempted to attack the government.The working population stood with the Armed forces against the Police.

It now appears that the CIA was potentially involved with the 2010 coup attempt.

[Rafiq]

Well.. It's different in each area. Soldiers tend to have more of a proletarian affiliation than cops.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Lynx]

Difference between voluntary, career and conscript soldiers?

[Positivist]

Yes it appears that junior nco's do carry a proletarian relationship to the operation of capital, but there revolutionary potentialnis limited either by indoctrination they experienced within the military, or prior to joining it which prompted them to join in the first place. Though this is not to say that there aren't a large amount of soldiers who simply enlisted for economic advancement, in which case, depending on their perception of the actions they are commissioned to perform in the military, may result in revolutionary potential. For example if one joins the military on the grounds that's it provides them with a greater economic position, but they abhor military labor and actions then it is perfectly concievable that they would be interested in the reorganization of the capitalist system.

[A Marxist Historian]

Trying to work out this theoretical puzzle. First, defining what is a worker - a) one who produces surplus value, b)one who is part of the faux frais of production, c)one who sells their labor power for subsistence wages, to reproduce their own labor power (both a & b fall into this category as well).

A lot of political economists considered soldiers as part of the faux frais of production. Though they have nothing to do with the production or circulation process, they are certainly necessary for the capitalist class to conquer new markets/raw materials so in that sense could be considered faux frais. They also receive the bare minimum required to reproduce their own labor as soldiers, so could be considered workers.

One might say as the state and capital are intertwined, it makes little difference whether one receives their wages from the government or from a corporation. Whether one uses a rifle in the service of capital, or produces surplus value directly for capital. Unless the mode of production is changed, one has to receive wages and can't afford not to enrich the capitalist class in one form or another.

As to the revolutionary potential of soldiers, one could point to the role of soldiers in the Russian revolution, more recently in Egypt.

I've heard one argument that soldiers are lumpenproletariat, and historically were recruited from lumpen (Louis Bonaparte, Mussolini). But in large part military recruits are neither criminals nor homeless. I don't think that definition suffices.

It goes without saying imperialist militarism must be opposed. And the soldiers themselves should oppose it. But as to the question of whether enlisted soldiers are "workers" or not in the economic sense...????

"Soldier" is usually a temporary status. In the Russian Revolution soldiers were mostly peasants in uniform, with some workers in uniform. So, especially if you are talking about draftees, "soldier" is usually not a separate class category.

A volunteer, lifetime career soldier is more or less similar to a cop. (Only in particularly unpleasant regimes like say Tsarist Russia do people ever get drafted for life). And an officer is exactly a cop--in fact that's why they call cops "officers."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I'd say they are workers that don't have a developed class consciousness, just like cops. But even this differs from country to country and their position has changed through history many times.

Cops have a highly devoped bourgeois class consciousness. In fact more highly developed than that of the bourgeoisie itself.

Marxists and revolutionaries from the ruling classes are not unusual. Cops almost never come over to the revolutionary cause. They are the enemy, pure and simple. They are the armed bodies of men that make up the bourgeois state, which have to be destroyed by the workers.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

They are that. But from an economic standpoint, they also seem to be workers. See the OP. First you have to define what a "worker" is. Being a foreign policy tool and a worker is not mutually exclusive.

If we want to be technical about it, what is the relationship of cops to the means of production? Guarding them from the workers.

The labor of police does not create value. Instead, it maintains and safeguards the extraction of surplus value from the producers by the ruling classes.

In Marxist technical economic terms, the wages of police are constant not variable capital, as police are just as necessary for maintaining capitalist relations of productions as money expended on factory maintenance. They are essentially human billy clubs.

-M.H.-

[citizen of industry]

If we want to be technical about it, what is the relationship of cops to the means of production? Guarding them from the workers.

The labor of police does not create value. Instead, it maintains and safeguards the extraction of surplus value from the producers by the ruling classes.

In Marxist technical economic terms, the wages of police are constant not variable capital, as police are just as necessary for maintaining capitalist relations of productions as money expended on factory maintenance. They are essentially human billy clubs.

-M.H.-

Can you reference a quote where human labor is included in constant capital? My understanding is that constant capital is either fixed (machines, facilities, etc.) or circulating(raw materials, products). There are also ancilleries, more closely tied in with fixed capital. But human labor is either productive or faux frais of production. Or service, whose wages ultimately derive from surplus value or wages from the production process. I'd put soldiers as either faux frais or an unproductive service.

[A Marxist Historian]

Can you reference a quote where human labor is included in constant capital? My understanding is that constant capital is either fixed (machines, facilities, etc.) or circulating(raw materials, products). There are also ancilleries, more closely tied in with fixed capital. But human labor is either productive or faux frais of production. Or service, whose wages ultimately derive from surplus value or wages from the production process. I'd put soldiers as either faux frais or an unproductive service.

Ok, faux frais for cops. Buit that pretty much amounts to the same thing really. But not *service,* like maids or butlers, as capitalists can do nicely without servants and cannot do without cops and soldiers.

Wages paid to cops are not variable capital, that's the main point.

-M.H.-
-M.H.-

[wsg1991]

No, they aren't workers. They are foreign policy tools between factions of the bourgeoisie. Being that soldier isn't a permanent state of being (in most countries) soldiers aren't workers, although most of them at some point will be workers.

good point , Police and specially riot police ( and some branches of secrete services) , one of the reasons they are invented is to fight off interior enemies , which can be Workers .
there is some contradictions here . in part soldiers are trained to violence and protect ruling class interests , and the longer they stay in system the more they are indoctrinated ,

on the other they are not trained to fight off riots ( the main difference between them and police ) , and are drawn from lower classes

[Karabin]

I would like to point out that being a soldier does not just entail carrying a weapon and attacking another armed force or otherwise. There are a lot of military engineers, technicians, plumbers, carpenters etc. who also work for the army/navy/airforce.

Also, I believe that the position of the soldier depends on the purpose of the respective nations armed force. If the armed force is oriented around the purpose of defence of the nation and is not designed to be an invading or aggressive force (I look at the military of Switzerland and SFR Yugoslavia as an example) then the position of a member of that nations military would be rather different than a person who is a member of an imperialist military force.

[Rusty Shackleford]

are the unemployed workers?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's an interesting question. In the US the military is the single largest employer - obviously many people in the military act as support and do labor not directly involved in soldiering. But this labor is only for the expansion and projection of ruling class power.

I think the best way to think about it is that soldiers are soldiers. Most come from the working class, but that doesn't mean that in their function as soldiers - combat or not - they are proletarian. But within the military there are divides and conscripts and volunteers do not have the same interests as the careerists. They are likely working class and view themselves that way - maybe not in these terms, but they are going into the military either because they have to (with the expectation that they will be wage workers after the military) or they are trying to acquire skills (that will help them as workers after the military).

IMO military officers and careerists are more like Police, the more power the national military has, the better they are just as the more the police are granted powers, the more the cops benefit. So their interests are complementary with the interests of the ruling class. A simplified and blatant example are officers who offer up grunts as fodder and advance their own careers in doing so - much like the prosecutors or detectives who will lock up innocent people to advance their political career. Obviously this is not the main motivation for these systems (they are there for ruling class power) but it shows how the bureaucratic logic of the bosses in these systems in alligned with the overall desire of the system to have a strong military abroad and strong repressive powers at home.

[citizen of industry]

Ok, faux frais for cops. Buit that pretty much amounts to the same thing really. But not *service,* like maids or butlers, as capitalists can do nicely without servants and cannot do without cops and soldiers.

Wages paid to cops are not variable capital, that's the main point.

-M.H.-
-M.H.-

I agree, I consider both to be part of faux frais. They are certainly not variable capital. But then cashiers or basically any wage laborer in the merchant sphere (e.g., cashiers, secretaries) aren't variable capital either, but we consider them to be workers. Faux frais are just a necessary as productive laborers. The circulation process is part of the production process as a whole. Likewise defending the means of production against the workers and conquering foreign markets for capital is necessary for capital.

That's my problem with defining a "worker." If you say, well, how do cops and soldiers stand in relation to the means of production? They defend it for the state against the workers. That's true, but that doesn't seem to me that the enlisted soldiers are not "workers" in the economic sense. How about a scab that breaks a strike? He may be a productive laborer directly producing surplus value, the perfect definition of a "worker," but he is defending the means of production against the workers, yet would still be considered a worker.

Merely saying some soldiers (not officers) are workers doesn't imply I want to stretch my arms out to them and give them a big smootch, just like the scab. But based on the Marxian economics I've read I don't see how they can be classified as "non-workers." I could be convinced otherwise if it is referenced.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't think that it's possible to generalise. Class isn't simply a static essence, something you are and remain until further notice, it describes an active participation in social reproduction. The question isn't what soldiers are, it's what soldiers do, and that's too varied to categorically describe them as workers or cops. Some soldiers are workers, some are cops, some are both at different times and in differing proportions. It's something that you have to take on a case by case basis.

[A Marxist Historian]

I would like to point out that being a soldier does not just entail carrying a weapon and attacking another armed force or otherwise. There are a lot of military engineers, technicians, plumbers, carpenters etc. who also work for the army/navy/airforce.

Also, I believe that the position of the soldier depends on the purpose of the respective nations armed force. If the armed force is oriented around the purpose of defence of the nation and is not designed to be an invading or aggressive force (I look at the military of Switzerland and SFR Yugoslavia as an example) then the position of a member of that nations military would be rather different than a person who is a member of an imperialist military force.

"Aggressiveness" has nothing to do with it. The Swiss military is a particularly reactionary force, as Switzerland is a jackal imperialist, which lets the armies of other countries of other imperialists protect exploitation of the Third World by the notorious Swiss bankers. It is small, as its main purpose is to repress the well-armed Swiss working class if necessary, but Swiss workers are not very militant as Switzerland is so prosperous.

A proper revolutionary Red Army will be as aggressive as hell, seeking out opportunities to help the oppressed liberate themselves by force of arms. Not much of that lately, main example being the Cuban military helping to liberate Angola from the South Africans.

What determines the class nature of a military force is the class nature of the state it is the foundation for. The military of a workers state is the workers in arms and is proletarian, officers included. A bourgeois state, the opposite.

Civilian employees of the military are workers. Military engineers and whatnot play a useful and necessary role in imperial atrocities.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I agree, I consider both to be part of faux frais. They are certainly not variable capital. But then cashiers or basically any wage laborer in the merchant sphere (e.g., cashiers, secretaries) aren't variable capital either, but we consider them to be workers. Faux frais are just a necessary as productive laborers. The circulation process is part of the production process as a whole. Likewise defending the means of production against the workers and conquering foreign markets for capital is necessary for capital.

That's my problem with defining a "worker." If you say, well, how do cops and soldiers stand in relation to the means of production? They defend it for the state against the workers. That's true, but that doesn't seem to me that the enlisted soldiers are not "workers" in the economic sense. How about a scab that breaks a strike? He may be a productive laborer directly producing surplus value, the perfect definition of a "worker," but he is defending the means of production against the workers, yet would still be considered a worker.

Merely saying some soldiers (not officers) are workers doesn't imply I want to stretch my arms out to them and give them a big smootch, just like the scab. But based on the Marxian economics I've read I don't see how they can be classified as "non-workers." I could be convinced otherwise if it is referenced.

A scab that breaks a strike is a worker. The cop who guides him through the picket line is not.

Non-career, drafted soldiers (and the "economic draft" is also a draft) are only part of the army temporarily, so a couple years in the military does not change their basic relationship to the means of production.

-M.H.-

[Positivist]

I don't think that it's possible to generalise. Class isn't simply a static essence, something you are and remain until further notice, it describes an active participation in social reproduction. The question isn't what soldiers are, it's what soldiers do, and that's too varied to categorically describe them as workers or cops. Some soldiers are workers, some are cops, some are both at different times and in differing proportions. It's something that you have to take on a case by case basis.

Besides maybe elaborating, couldn't put it too much better myself.

[citizen of industry]

I don't think that it's possible to generalise. Class isn't simply a static essence, something you are and remain until further notice, it describes an active participation in social reproduction. The question isn't what soldiers are, it's what soldiers do, and that's too varied to categorically describe them as workers or cops. Some soldiers are workers, some are cops, some are both at different times and in differing proportions. It's something that you have to take on a case by case basis.

If that's the case, and as MH points out, an economically drafted, non-career soldier who only does a couple years doesn't change his basic relationship to the means of production, then we are making exceptions. So doesn't a sweeping position like "Soldiers aren't workers" from a party seem unscientific? Conversely, "Soldiers are workers."

[billyfancher]

really good one, I learn from it. Thanks for share.

[citizen of industry]

are the unemployed workers?

Slightly off topic, but it is a good point. According to Marx, they are part of the industrial reserve army, the lowest strata of this being "pauperism," which is also faux frais:


The relative surplus population exists in every possible form. Every labourer belongs to it during the time when he is only partially employed or wholly unemployed. Not taking into account the great periodically recurring forms that the changing phases of the industrial cycle impress on it, now an acute form during the crisis, then again a chronic form during dull times — it has always three forms, the floating, the latent, the stagnant.


The lowest sediment of the relative surplus population finally dwells in the sphere of pauperism. Exclusive of vagabonds, criminals, prostitutes, in a word, the “dangerous” classes, this layer of society consists of three categories. First, those able to work. One need only glance superficially at the statistics of English pauperism to find that the quantity of paupers increases with every crisis, and diminishes with every revival of trade. Second, orphans and pauper children. These are candidates for the industrial reserve army, and are, in times of great prosperity, as 1860, e.g., speedily and in large numbers enrolled in the active army of labourers. Third, the demoralised and ragged, and those unable to work, chiefly people who succumb to their incapacity for adaptation, due to the division of labour; people who have passed the normal age of the labourer; the victims of industry, whose number increases with the increase of dangerous machinery, of mines, chemical works, &c., the mutilated, the sickly, the widows, &c. Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Its production is included in that of the relative surplus population, its necessity in theirs; along with the surplus population, pauperism forms a condition of capitalist production, and of the capitalist development of wealth. It enters into the faux frais of capitalist production; but capital knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its own shoulders on to those of the working class and the lower middle class.

[Hiero]

As to the revolutionary potential of soldiers, one could point to the role of soldiers in the Russian revolution, more recently in Egypt. What do you think the role of the soldiers in Egypt is? If I understand it correctly, the army in Egpyt like many third world countries is an elitist institution (they recruit from specific middle and upper classes and certian families) which has economic and political agendas, rather then being neutral and subservient to the government. A revolution in Egypt would have to purge and imprison alot of the officers and force the soldiers into restricted cantonments. In Egypt the army decided to let Mubarak go because they probably wanted to aviod and couldn't afford a long term civil unrest. They have already tried to suspend powers of the civil government.

On another note, no soldiers are not workers. Soldiers are a parasitic class that usually receives income from government funding (some third world armies require that a percentage of their revenue comes from their own projects, they usually get involved in politics and are a force of reaction often expropriating peasants land and if they don’t displace agriculture workers and peasants they exploit them), it is a hierarchical organisation and they wield significant power for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.



If that's the case, and as MH points out, an economically drafted, non-career soldier who only does a couple years doesn't change his basic relationship to the means of production, then we are making exceptions. So doesn't a sweeping position like "Soldiers aren't workers" from a party seem unscientific? Conversely, "Soldiers are workers."

You are dealing with individuals, not class categories. Soldiers aren't workers (an exception might be when Maoist China tried to include soldiers into productive work in the form of state projects) but workers can be drafted into the ranks of soldiers and return after a period to working class categories. Just the same as a middle class entrepreneur can fail economical and fall into the ranks of working class out of the necessity to live. You need to see the difference between individual life circumstances and histories and structural categories. You are focusing too much on the metaphysical categories rather than the practice, the work people engage in.

[citizen of industry]

On another note, no soldiers are not workers. Soldiers are a parasitic class that usually receives income from government funding (some third world armies require that a percentage of their revenue comes from their own projects, they usually get involved in politics and are a force of reaction often expropriating peasants land and if they don’t displace agriculture workers and peasants they exploit them), it is a hierarchical organisation and they wield significant power for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.

But the same could be said for other public workers, such as civil servants. The admin assistant in city hall getting paid minimum wage, involved in her union, "receives income from government funding" and is part of "a hierarchical organization" which wields "significant power for the purpose of maintaining the status quo." (like most corporations). But I'd still consider her a worker. For the bourgeoisie, soldiers aren't a parasitic class, they are vital for capitalism to function, faux frais. In a communist society, they would be parasitic if they existed, which they wouldn't because they would be superfluous.

So a soldier shoots someone in the head. Some office worker processes the paperwork that throws thousands of people on the streets, or crushes some union, or monopolizes some natural resource, or builds a jet-fighter. But because the latter bloody their hands indirectly, and not directly, they can be ignored while joe private who couldn't land a job and joined the army is a parasitic, exploitative, reactionary, imperialist monster because he does the dirtiest work for them.


You are dealing with individuals, not class categories. Soldiers aren't workers (an exception might be when Maoist China tried to include soldiers into productive work in the form of state projects) but workers can be drafted into the ranks of soldiers and return after a period to working class categories. Just the same as a middle class entrepreneur can fail economical and fall into the ranks of working class out of the necessity to live. You need to see the difference between individual life circumstances and histories and structural categories. You are focusing too much on the metaphysical categories rather than the practice, the work people engage in.

You might be right, but the class categories are made up of individuals. And the work people engage in is whatever pays them the best wages. If joe private gets his head blown off, that's his bad for taking up the rifle, and score one against imperialism. But maybe he didn't have much of a choice. If walmart goes under and the CEO's jump off the roof of their skyscrapers, great. Walmart is parasitic, exploitative, reactionary, etc. But that doesn't make the workers guilty by association.

[RRRevolution]

They are likely working class and view themselves that way - maybe not in these terms, but they are going into the military either because they have to...Nobody "has to" join the military.

Soldiers are of the same social position as police and should be thought of the same way as police. Except even more brutal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Nobody "has to" work crap jobs. But somebody does have to.

In addition, most crap jobs don't make you sign up for a contracted amount of time and don't allow you to quit.

Besides, I'm not making a moral argument based on their brutality or lack of brutality or relative brutality compared to other repressive organizations. I'm making an argument about the position within those repressive organizations. A conscript or a GI is not someone who is necessarily or inherently invested in the success of the repressive organization that they are a part of -- especially when "success" for that organization means that the GIs are subject to more personal risk in battle. For a cop or a military officier, their personal advancement and livelyhood is tied to the sucess of that repressive organization. The reason this is significant is not a moral reason, but that GIs and conscripts can actually mutiny and turn against their organizations.

[Commiekirby]

Well not to be the overly simplistic one in all of this, but I deem any Revolutionary or Loyal Citizen to the greater good of the nation or community a "worker" regardless of what their actual job is. If they are citizens working for the betterment of all and the revolution, are they not workers? The gun that defends the people and the hammer that makes it should be treated as equals but also should the man working in an office to keep the records of such.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ah, now, see, you're getting mixed up. The proper label for people who aren't themselves working class but are filled to the brim with "loyalty" to the "greater good" of the "community" isn't "worker", it's "tosspot".

[Dunk]

well not to be the overly simplistic one in all of this, but i deem any revolutionary or loyal citizen to the greater good of the nation or community a "worker" regardless of what their actual job is. If they are citizens working for the betterment of all and the revolution, are they not workers? The gun that defends the people and the hammer that makes it should be treated as equals but also should the man working in an office to keep the records of such.

i'm crying

this is hilarious

onward fellow loyal revolutionary citizen! The national community seeks betterment and your hammer gun needs record keeping!

[Commiekirby]

i'm crying

this is hilarious

onward fellow loyal revolutionary citizen! The national community seeks betterment and your hammer gun needs record keeping!

Hammers are quite the effective ballistics device, are they not?

[Luís Henrique]

Wages paid to cops are not variable capital, that's the main point.

Wages paid to cops - or to soldiers - are not capital of any kind.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Work or labour are not holy water, they don't wash sins away.

Luís Henrique

[citizen of industry]

Wages paid to cops - or to soldiers - are not capital of any kind.

Luís Henrique

It's a deduction from capital, but a necessary deduction for the capitalist class. They would stand to lose a lot of profit if they didn't make the expenditure. They take it from taxes, which are paid by the workers. But they also receive massive loans from corporations, purchase of bonds, etc. That is accumulated capital. It's not variable capital, as it doesn't add value to a commodity. But it is capital all the same. It didn't come from nowhere.

[Luís Henrique]

It's a deduction from capital, but a necessary deduction for the capitalist class. They would stand to lose a lot of profit if they didn't make the expenditure. They take it from taxes, which are paid by the workers. But they also receive massive loans from corporations, purchase of bonds, etc. That is accumulated capital. It's not variable capital, as it doesn't add value to a commodity. But it is capital all the same. It didn't come from nowhere.

It is wealth, but wealth is not always capital. If it is not intended to reproduce itself, it is not capital. It may have been capital in the past (in the form of wealth amassed by a private company, for instance), but at the moment it took the form of taxes due to the State, it was sterilised as capital, becoming part of the consumption funds of the State.

Luís Henrique

[Hiero]

But the same could be said for other public workers, such as civil servants. The admin assistant in city hall getting paid minimum wage, involved in her union, "receives income from government funding" and is part of "a hierarchical organization" which wields "significant power for the purpose of maintaining the status quo." (like most corporations). But I'd still consider her a worker. For the bourgeoisie, soldiers aren't a parasitic class, they are vital for capitalism to function, faux frais. In a communist society, they would be parasitic if they existed, which they wouldn't because they would be superfluous.

I would say that is what they are, public workers are parastic and middle class. Admin assistants don't wield much power. I mean both in this case are government workers who receive money for services, they don't contribute to production as the same as blue collar workers.

I mean their relation to production is parasitic. They don't produce anything and they don't own anything, they just receive wages for managing the institution they work for. It is not a moral critique. I tend to view society as more stratified then alot of people on revleft (revlefters tend to group people together and overlook occupation, culture and income), and I think positions in that stratification effects world view, dispositions, politics and ontologies.

[Tim Finnegan]

Producerism. http://i.gottadeal.com/forums/images/smilies/yuck.gif

[citizen of industry]

I would say that is what they are, public workers are parastic and middle class. Admin assistants don't wield much power. I mean both in this case are government workers who receive money for services, they don't contribute to production as the same as blue collar workers.

I mean their relation to production is parasitic. They don't produce anything and they don't own anything, they just receive wages for managing the institution they work for.

The problem with this thinking, IMO, is that it amounts to Maoist third-worldism. If you discount wage workers, and only consider "workers" those who are direct producers of commodities, you write off the majority of the working class in the developed countries, and even in the developing countries as automation expands.

Plus, the Marxian conception of productive laborer means directly producing surplus value. One doesn't have to produce a commodity to produce surplus value, e.g.; a teacher. But that occupation doesn't fit in with your "blue collar" paradigm.

What isn't a moral judgement is on workers who are unproductive, so called faux frais. Wage laborers who are necessary for the realization process. Government workers are also be part of this.

[A Marxist Historian]

Wages paid to cops - or to soldiers - are not capital of any kind.

Luís Henrique

Hm? Wages paid to workers are variable capital, according to Marx's definition. From the standpoint of the capitalist who pays them of course.

Wages paid to cops or soldiers can be considered either a deduction from surplus value or part of constant capital, depending on how you look at it. Not IMHO a terribly meaningful distinction, amounts to the same thing, either way they are a drag on the rate of profit but a necessary one, if the capitalists want to keep the workers in line.

Just like money spent on raw materials or advertising or repair or whatever. Also necessary to keep the processes of production, circulation and extraction of surplus value from the workers going.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

Hm? Wages paid to workers are variable capital, according to Marx's definition.

Wages paid to productive workers are variable capital.


From the standpoint of the capitalist who pays them of course.

But who would be the "capitalist" that pays wages to cops and soldiers? The State? But the bourgeois State isn't a capitalist - not, at least, in this precise relation.


Wages paid to cops or soldiers can be considered either a deduction from surplus value or part of constant capital, depending on how you look at it.

Wages paid to productive workers are capital because they are a stage in the cycle of capital, C-M...M'-C'; they are the price of one of the commodities every capitalist must buy in order to produce surplus value. But wages paid to cops and soldiers are nothing like this; they are taxes. As such, they are a deduction of surplus value from the point of view of the private capitalist who pays taxes (and a deduction from wages from the point of view of the private labourer who also pays taxes but has never held any capital in life). From the point of view of the State, they are part of its fund of consumption, unlike for instance the wage paid to workers for a State productive company, which are variable capital, the difference being that the State behaves as a capitalist in the latter relation, but not in the former.


Not IMHO a terribly meaningful distinction, amounts to the same thing, either way they are a drag on the rate of profit but a necessary one, if the capitalists want to keep the workers in line.

Indeed, I don't see a disagreement on such issue making the basis for the foundation of the nth International.


Just like money spent on raw materials or advertising or repair or whatever. Also necessary to keep the processes of production, circulation and extraction of surplus value from the workers going.

The main difference being that the processes of advertising or repair are negotiated in the market as commodities, and so are strictly saying capitalist activities, activities that pertain to the realm of accumulation of capital. The services provided by soldiers and cops (or public teachers or State bureaucrats for what is worth), on the other hand, are not sold in the market as commodities; they are absolutely necessary for the accumulation of capital, but do not by themselves participate in such accumulation; they produce no value at all (though evidently public teachers produce wealth, which cops, soldiers, and bureaucrats do not).

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

Wages paid to productive workers are variable capital.



But who would be the "capitalist" that pays wages to cops and soldiers? The State? But the bourgeois State isn't a capitalist - not, at least, in this precise relation.



Wages paid to productive workers are capital because they are a stage in the cycle of capital, C-M...M'-C'; they are the price of one of the commodities every capitalist must buy in order to produce surplus value. But wages paid to cops and soldiers are nothing like this; they are taxes. As such, they are a deduction of surplus value from the point of view of the private capitalist who pays taxes (and a deduction from wages from the point of view of the private labourer who also pays taxes but has never held any capital in life). From the point of view of the State, they are part of its fund of consumption, unlike for instance the wage paid to workers for a State productive company, which are variable capital, the difference being that the State behaves as a capitalist in the latter relation, but not in the former.



Indeed, I don't see a disagreement on such issue making the basis for the foundation of the nth International.



The main difference being that the processes of advertising or repair are negotiated in the market as commodities, and so are strictly saying capitalist activities, activities that pertain to the realm of accumulation of capital. The services provided by soldiers and cops (or public teachers or State bureaucrats for what is worth), on the other hand, are not sold in the market as commodities; they are absolutely necessary for the accumulation of capital, but do not by themselves participate in such accumulation; they produce no value at all (though evidently public teachers produce wealth, which cops, soldiers, and bureaucrats do not).

Luís Henrique


Theessential disagreement here between us is on ... state capitalism. But not the usual one here on Revleft.

I believe there is definitely such a thing as state capitalism, state enterprises of a capitalist state can meaningfully be described as such. Unlike state enterprises in the USSR, or even China for that matter, though the Chinese state has degenerated so far that it would not necessarily be difficult for some state trusts to strike out on their own as private capitalist enterprises.

The state here essentially fills in for the private capitalist, performing a service that can't or that it is impracticable to make a profit out of. Funded by taxes of course, on various classes.

Just as necessary to the realization of the surplus value of the private capitalists as sale of commodities.

Therefore the way to determine whether or not wages paid to laborers can be considered as variable capital is, if in fact the service in question was privatized and we were talking about employees of private capitalists, would this be productive labor?

So, since soldiers and cops are the functional equivalent of private security guards, whose purpose is to safeguard capitalist property from the workers and everyone else for that matter, that's no more "wage labor" than is the salary of a CEO.

Hmm, I think I've ended up saying pretty much the same thing that you were saying. Indeed, a distinction without a difference.

As long as we're clear that cops and professional soldiers (as opposed to draftees and short term volunteers, whose class status is whatever it is when they return to civilian life) are not proletarians.

-M.H.-

[solarian_13]

is there any accidents where the USA military was asked to perform Police role in the USA soil , on USA citizens ?

Kent State Shootings? I'm sure there's more examples.