Means of Production?

[Hermes]

Fairly ignorant question, but hopefully therefore fairly quickly answered, where do those who seemingly have no relation to the means of production fit in to class society? People like social workers, doctors, soldiers, etc?

These would be the petite bourgeoisie, right? I might be suffering from my own mistaken definitions again, I should probably keep a firmer hold on them.

[Book O'Dead]

Fairly ignorant question, but hopefully therefore fairly quickly answered, where do those who seemingly have no relation to the means of production fit in to class society? People like social workers, doctors, soldiers, etc?

These would be the petite bourgeoisie, right? I might be suffering from my own mistaken definitions again, I should probably keep a firmer hold on them.

The "means of production" aren't only factories, machines and mechanical tools. They can also comprise of offices and open spaces as well (just to cite a few).

Ponder this question: At a daycare center, what are the means of production? (if you answer "the kids" I'll personally come over and pull on your sideburns till you cry!)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

They would be Proletarians who are simply paid more; these people are the so-called "middle class."

[Lucretia]

Fairly ignorant question, but hopefully therefore fairly quickly answered, where do those who seemingly have no relation to the means of production fit in to class society? People like social workers, doctors, soldiers, etc?

These would be the petite bourgeoisie, right? I might be suffering from my own mistaken definitions again, I should probably keep a firmer hold on them.

Somebody with no relation to the means of production? You mean somebody who is independently wealthy, has no investments or ownership of business, and just stays at home all day detached from the rest of society?

[Clarion]

An important question, Hermes. Not everyone will agree on what class those particular occupations fall into, with the question over soldiers (and police) being a constant source of controversy (there is a thread on it on the front page of the 'Theory' section [I can't post links yet, sorry]).


Doctors, when they own their own practices, are indisputably petty-bourgeois.


Those who work for a wage in the health and care industry (doctors directly employed by hospitals, nurses, social workers etc.) are usually employees of the state. They're wage-labourers hired by either private capitalists or the state capitalist, who own the means of production: hospitals/clinics/general care infrastructure etc. Their services are essential for the reproduction of the labour force and the smooth running of capitalist society. They are as much proletarian as steel workers, auto-mobile workers, or coal miners employed by nationalised industry.


Soldiers, as I mentioned before, are a point of controversy for some. But given that they are people hired by capitalists (collectively, as the state) to provide them a profitable service (by enabling and defending their ability to accumulate profit in other industries) in exchange for a wage, I see no reason they should be denied the label proletarian – despite some comrades subjective/moralistic aversion to doing so.

[RedMaterialist]

Production includes not only goods but also services. In the 19th century services were not an important economic factor.

[Peoples' War]

Remember, Marx included household servants (maids) as proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Soldiers, as I mentioned before, are a point of controversy for some. But given that they are people hired by capitalists (collectively, as the state) to provide them a profitable service (by enabling and defending their ability to accumulate profit in other industries) in exchange for a wage, I see no reason they should be denied the label proletarian – despite some comrades subjective/moralistic aversion to doing so.

I think you'd get more of an argument about the police than soldiers. Most people here I suspect regard soldiers, especially in conscript armies, as 'workers in unform' and even in professional armies, we all know (I see that you're in the UK too) that joining up is often a way out of crappy estates with no jobs and nothing to do. My guess is, few soldiers join up thinking 'great! I get to kill people different to me, on behalf of my national capitalism!'

[ckaihatsu]

An important question, Hermes. Not everyone will agree on what class those particular occupations fall into, with the question over soldiers (and police) being a constant source of controversy (there is a thread on it on the front page of the 'Theory' section [I can't post links yet, sorry]).


Doctors, when they own their own practices, are indisputably petty-bourgeois.


Those who work for a wage in the health and care industry (doctors directly employed by hospitals, nurses, social workers etc.) are usually employees of the state. They're wage-labourers hired by either private capitalists or the state capitalist, who own the means of production: hospitals/clinics/general care infrastructure etc. Their services are essential for the reproduction of the labour force and the smooth running of capitalist society. They are as much proletarian as steel workers, auto-mobile workers, or coal miners employed by nationalised industry.


Yes.





Soldiers, as I mentioned before, are a point of controversy for some. But given that they are people hired by capitalists (collectively, as the state) to provide them a profitable service (by enabling and defending their ability to accumulate profit in other industries) in exchange for a wage, I see no reason they should be denied the label proletarian – despite some comrades subjective/moralistic aversion to doing so.


If we agree that *ownership*-related fields, like management, finance, insurance, real estate (F.I.R.E.), marketing, and advertising, are all *not* working-class functions, due to the *non-productive* nature of their roles -- they're actually *costs to capital*, for doing regular business -- then it follows that soldiers and police, too, are not so much manufacturing goods or providing services to the economy as much as they're *in the camp of capital*.

This isn't to say that all who work in those fields are automatically petty-bourgeois -- any regular workers who *don't* have stakes in ownership or management would be proletarian, by definition. (And I'll add that it's even a sliding scale -- the determining question is *what percentage* of a person's livelihood is derived from wages, and what part from ownership.)

[#FF0000]

My guess is, few soldiers join up thinking 'great! I get to kill people different to me, on behalf of my national capitalism!'

I think most (at least in America) join up because they don't know what else to do. Not that they're broke and desperate necessarily.

More because they are bored.