Soldiers

[Comrade Njordr]

Soldiers work for a wage (provided by the government), so are they also a part of the proletariat despite being the force which carries out the dirty deeds of the bourgeoisie?

[Sewer Socialist]

Yes. Isn't the very nature of the proletariat to do as the bourgeoisie wishes?

Soldiers have acted, at various times in history, as a revolutionary force, and threatened revolution many other times.

[Zoop]

The military as an institution has to of course be condemned.

But individual soldiers have to be judged in isolation. There are some rabid, ultra-violent brutes who sign up to subjugate others. There are others who think they're doing good.

Evidently we can't generalise.

[G4b3n]

Soldiers are recruited almost excessively from the working class. Go to nearly any public high school in a working class area and you are guaranteed to find recruiting officers trolling around, promising working class kids a chance at higher education and so forth. It has always been essential for any revolutionary movement to win at least a certain extent of support among the armed forces, otherwise the movement is looking at a much more vast counter-revolutionary resistance.

[DOOM]

Soldiers work for a wage (provided by the government), so are they also a part of the proletariat despite being the force which carries out the dirty deeds of the bourgeoisie?

They aren't. They're not producing commodities, there's no capital involved and thus they are not being exploited on behalf of the valorisation of value.
Not everyone who gets a pay is automatically a worker, this would be an absurd reduction of the marxist idea of class.

In fact, soldiers are ACTIVELY maintaining the bourgeois state and the capitalist order and are because of that inherently reactionary.

[Sewer Socialist]

They aren't. They're not producing commodities, there's no capital involved and thus they are not being exploited on behalf of the valorisation of value.

Hm. This is a good point. But couldn't we say the same of other people who do not produce commodities but participate in the capitalist mode of production? Receptionists, for example? Janitors?


In fact, soldiers are ACTIVELY maintaining the bourgeois state and the capitalist order and are because of that inherently reactionary.

This, however, I do not agree with. I don't see why this negates proletarian status, and it does not negate their revolutionary potential. Further, commodity-producing proletarians are also participating in the capitalist order, and it is only outside their workplace that the actual negation of capitalism may occur. Both have revolutionary potential, and both do not usually act in revolutionary ways on a daily basis.

[DOOM]

Hm. This is a good point. But couldn't we say the same of other people who do not produce commodities but participate in the capitalist mode of production? Receptionists, for example? Janitors?

Depends on the nature of their labor. Teachers in public (state-owned) schools for example aren't proletarians.
So let's say the janitor in your example works at a school. Now, if he's employed by the school he's, technically said, not a proletarian. However, if he's emploeyed by an entrepreneur who has assigned him to work at the school, then he's selling his labour to produce a commodity (in this ex. a service) which the capitalist than "sells" to the school. At the same time, the capitalist extracts surplus value and adds it to his capital.



This, however, I do not agree with. I don't see why this negates proletarian status, and it does not negate their revolutionary potential. Further, commodity-producing proletarians are also participating in the capitalist order, and it is only outside their workplace that the actual negation of capitalism may occur. Both have revolutionary potential, and both do not usually act in revolutionary ways on a daily basis.

There's a difference between participating in/reproducing capitalism and actively defending it by the use of violence - against workers! So if a soldier/policeman wants to assume the role of a revolutionary, he'd have to leave his position as it would be a contradiction to fight the bourgeoisie while defending it at the same time.

[BIXX]

I have a pretty unpopular opinion of soldiers, but (save for a few, minority cases) they are all fuckbags. There was a user here who I liked and a few people (3) that I've met, and that is all of the soldiers I've met who were a positive force in my life. Other than that I don't give a fuck about them.

However I do see why people go into the army- I considered it (very temporarily), one of my closest friends went through some junior training even- but really I can't stand the vast majority of folks who actually go through with it.

Whether or not a soldier or a proletarian doesn't really matter imo- just what side of the trenches they will be on.

[Rudolf]

Depends on the nature of their labor. Teachers in public (state-owned) schools for example aren't proletarians.
So let's say the janitor in your example works at a school. Now, if he's employed by the school he's, technically said, not a proletarian. However, if he's emploeyed by an entrepreneur who has assigned him to work at the school, then he's selling his labour to produce a commodity (in this ex. a service) which the capitalist than "sells" to the school. At the same time, the capitalist extracts surplus value and adds it to his capital.



This doesn't make sense to me as the same logic could be used to claim the unemployed aren't proletarian or even that workers whose employer is a shit capitalist who manages to fuck up so much that they don't complete the M-C-M' circuit aren't proles.

[Antiochus]

Sort of. Its a tricky position soldiers are in. They are distinct from the proletariat/working class because they are somewhat privileged (status wise); also, they don't actually carry out what one would normally describe as 'productive work'. Nevertheless its obvious that given their backgrounds they are hardly synonymous with the aristocratic Prussian officer corps or whatever.

The best way to think of the military and soldiers in general is as a scale that will be tipped any which way. The Mamluks were slave soldiers, but they did little more than recreate the society they overthrew. But off course, they have the potential for change (Napoleon, French military, Kronstad sailors etc...). It all really depends on what 'tips' them and which way, not so much their class character since the military of most states has, since the first standing armies were created, been composed of a proletarian underclass and bourgeois/aristocratic officer corps/ elite troops (historically, shock cavalry and the like). This has changed a bit off course, now virtually the entire rank and file soldiery is composed of people of working class origin and even a high proportion of the officer corps. It would be nice if someone could post info on the socioeconomic backgrounds of the officer corps (not the entire military).

[Comrade Njordr]

I grew up in a military family and from what I have experienced, I can back you up when you say most soldiers are fuckbags (especially high ranking officers). My dad works 20 hours or so a day, 7 days a week because he has to deal with his superior officers abuse and incompetency. (Living conditions are poor for anyone who didn't pay to get to the top).

[cyu]

especially high ranking officers


The more people you've sent to their deaths, the more you see other people as tools to be used.

[Bala Perdida]

Soldiers are almost on par with cops. The only reason I don't see soldiers as absolutely terrible in the way cops are is because I feel more people join the army without ever having experienced their brutality. So that makes them easier and more attractive as a career style. Also, for many people with seemingly no future, the army seems to be some hopeful shit or something. Still I don't trust a soldier. They're 'almost on par with cops' status goes in both directions frequently. Sometimes they are marginally better than cops being that a lot of soldiers are just chefs and office workers, sometimes they are worse because they commit war crimes. They commit crimes in the process of killing people, I don't know how much more fucked up it can get. During an uprising soldiers already picked their side. It's hard to see any sort of 'revolutionary potential' in an institution who's job is straight up to prevent a revolution (or any other subversion) from touching the state they're loyal to.

[Loony Le Fist]

Soldiers are almost on par with cops. The only reason I don't see soldiers as absolutely terrible in the way cops are is because I feel more people join the army without ever having experienced their brutality. So that makes them easier and more attractive as a career style. Also, for many people with seemingly no future, the army seems to be some hopeful shit or something. Still I don't trust a soldier. They're 'almost on par with cops' status goes in both directions frequently. Sometimes they are marginally better than cops being that a lot of soldiers are just chefs and office workers, sometimes they are worse because they commit war crimes. They commit crimes in the process of killing people, I don't know how much more fucked up it can get. During an uprising soldiers already picked their side. It's hard to see any sort of 'revolutionary potential' in an institution who's job is straight up to prevent a revolution (or any other subversion) from touching the state they're loyal to.

I think you might be surprised how many soldiers disagree with the orders of their commanding officers. Also, in the case of war things get pretty personal. Say you don't agree with a war, but are obligated by threat of military prison to engage in it. Then your first day you see someone who you've developed commradarie and friendship with get their face blown off. You may disagree with the war, but you are certainly going to have a chip on your shoulder. I find it difficult to blame someone subjected to that for acting out in a violent manner. I'd want to see the guys that blew my friends face off hurt pretty bad. Call me petty I guess.

It's different with cops. They aren't under any threat of military prison for not following orders. They might be subject to termination. Though I have seen a case in Florida where an FHP officer engaged in a high speed chase with a Miami-Dade unit that was speeding. She eventually got him to stop and held him at gunpoint. Despite the fact that she was genuinely following the law, she was subject to harassment from other officers. If anyone is interested I can provide some background. I only bring it up because it illustrates some of the social and political pressures police might be under.

It feels as if police that act out in a violent manner would do so more out of a desire to be sadistic, rather than there being some mitigating circumstances.

[John Nada]

No, soldiers are not proletarians. Same way small-businesspeople, small farmers, managers, gangsters, cops, mercenaries, priests, slaves, landlords or bureaucrats are not proletarians. Proletarian is not someone who's job is shitty, but one who must sell their labor-power for commodity production to the bourgeoisie. This is not saying that someone who's not part of the proletariat is evil. Other classes or members thereof can face oppression. A soldier has different relations to capitalism than a proletarian. Life can still suck even if one's not part of the proletariat. The modern military is a professional one. It is not proletarian and peasant conscripts recruited against their will. Soldiers/marines/sailors are in a career, regardless of and across class backgrounds. You'd be kidding yourself if you think that when the National Guard is called, they're going to join your strike or protests. NO, shit is about to hit the fan, even worse than with cops(who no one in their right mind would view as an ally). Recreating the October Revolution with fantasies of a professional military losing discipline and deserting en mass is wishful thinking. Better than cops, but then again so is everyone.

[Bala Perdida]

I think you might be surprised how many soldiers disagree with the orders of their commanding officers. Also, in the case of war things get pretty personal. Say you don't agree with a war, but are obligated by threat of military prison to engage in it. Then your first day you see someone who you've developed commradarie and friendship with get their face blown off. You may disagree with the war, but you are certainly going to have a chip on your shoulder. I find it difficult to blame someone subjected to that for acting out in a violent manner. I'd want to see the guys that blew my friends face off hurt pretty bad. Call me petty I guess.

It's different with cops. They aren't under any threat of military prison for not following orders. They might be subject to termination. Though I have seen a case in Florida where an FHP officer engaged in a high speed chase with a Miami-Dade unit that was speeding. She eventually got him to stop and held him at gunpoint. Despite the fact that she was genuinely following the law, she was subject to harassment from other officers. If anyone is interested I can provide some background. I only bring it up because it illustrates some of the social and political pressures police might be under.

It feels as if police that act out in a violent manner would do so more out of a desire to be sadistic, rather than there being some mitigating circumstances.
Well that's great. More reason not to join the army in the first place. How fun that sounds, you get to develop a friendship over some steel worker's destroyed house.

This does sound quite dark and all, but the reality is that there are people who suffer worse things than the soldiers because of the soldiers and on top of what the soldiers suffer. They don't get the choice to consciously go somewhere were things are exploding. They don't get any money or benefits out of being there. Their families aren't compensated in their absence. That's still keeping it soft.

Can't see how anyone can speculate over inner institutional problems while the institution is still designed to be destructive in the same manner.

[cyu]

Recreating the October Revolution with fantasies of a professional military losing discipline and deserting en mass

Interesting point. If things like that have happened before, how and why did they happen? Similarly, what causes people like Edward Snowden to turn against their chain of command? And if there are agents from your country's security service monitoring various political websites, is it possible to make them secretly turn against their commanding officers, simply by being exposed to the ideas you're typing right now?

I like to joke that I'm currently infiltrating the NSA, since they're always listening anyway :lol:

[#FF0000]

They aren't. They're not producing commodities, there's no capital involved and thus they are not being exploited on behalf of the valorisation of value.
Not everyone who gets a pay is automatically a worker, this would be an absurd reduction of the marxist idea of class.

That's interesting but I don't think I agree. This would mean that the unemployed, anyone working for a non-profit, a hospital, are not proletarians. I don't think this follows, because all of these people have in common the fact that they have nothing to sell but their labor.

Plus, teachers do produce a commodity (education) and I'd say their entire job is the valorization of human capital.

[RedWorker]

While I myself believe that DOOM's argument is wrong and public school teachers are proletarians (state capitalist theorists probably have some light to shine on this), saying "oh well, then nice people like unemployed people wouldn't be considered proletarians, so it must be wrong" is not, by itself, a valid argument. Unemployed people are technically not proletarians at the given moment, they are proletarians in the long-term and have proletarian interests in the short-term. A permanently unemployed person is usually part of the lumpenproletariat. That said, it is indeed a good argument that they have nothing to sell but their labor, but is it enough by itself? We would have to ask the question, "what exactly constitutes a proletarian?"

[#FF0000]

While I myself believe that DOOM's argument is wrong and public school teachers are proletarians (state capitalist theorists probably have some light to shine on this), saying "oh well, then nice people like unemployed people wouldn't be considered proletarians, so it must be wrong" is not, by itself, a valid argument. Unemployed people are technically not proletarians at the given moment, they are proletarians in the long-term and have proletarian interests in the short-term. A permanently unemployed person is usually part of the lumpenproletariat.

I think the concept of the lumpenproletariat is about as useless as the concept of "labor aristocracy". Both terms are pretty much just pejoratives at this point.

[RedWorker]

I think the concept of the lumpenproletariat is about as useless as the concept of "labor aristocracy". Both terms are pretty much just pejoratives at this point.

How is the concept of the lumpenproletariat useless? How is it a pejorative and not a class distinction as relevant as any other for sociological analysis? The lumpenproletariat and proletariat can be clearly distinguished. The lumpenproletariat are permanently unemployed or have highly unstable employment. They sometimes harbour reactionary views and/or behaviour, their life sometimes depends on constant crime, they are very unlikely to participate in any revolutionary activity. They do not have a stable production relationship in common like proletarians do, they do not and usually cannot act collectively. On occasion they may be hostile to proletarians. All of these factors, which are not necessarily judged positively or negatively, are highly relevant for analysis.

[John Nada]

Interesting point. If things like that have happened before, how and why did they happen?1. There was a World War causing heavy casualties.
2. There was a Civil War, that one side was not winning.
3. The military depended on conscription.
4. There was years, even decades, of political agitation beforehand. 5. All of the above.

"Support our troops" takes on a different meaning when 1.8 million troops are dead and 2 million are captured. Not so much "Support our government" anymore. In the case of the October Revolution(regardless of what you think of the Bolsheviks) it took decades of preparation, starting from the Narodniks all the way down to the Bolsheviks' insurrections.

One might say,"How are you going to have a revolution without the military? A lot of them come from proletarian backgrounds, even if there's no conscription anymore. They won't just disappear, many are potentially sympathetic, and we need them." Which is mostly true. However, if there's a point where a revolution has infiltrated the military to a significant extent, it's likely the rest of the government, even law enforcement, would've been compromised. It's putting effect before cause.
Similarly, what causes people like Edward Snowden to turn against their chain of command? And if there are agents from your country's security service monitoring various political websites, is it possible to make them secretly turn against their commanding officers, simply by being exposed to the ideas you're typing right now?The US gov won't admit it, but Snowden is a patriot. He had no deep ideology, no opportunism and no loyalty to another nation. There was a good chance "his own" government would kill him, torturer his friends and family, and completely slander his name to the point where if it came out, people would think,"Good, he deserved it." Shit, even with all the laughs he gave China and Russia, there was no guarantee he wouldn't get turned on, accused of being a double agent, tortured for all he's got and sent back to the US. Hell, he's still at risk of this happening. No, an opportunist won't risk death for little payoff. Only a true patriot would break the law and spend the rest of his life away from all his family and friends, running. Seeking out loyal citizens who're willing to do anything for "their" country cuts both ways.

If hearing the Gospel According to Marx or Bakunin's Hadith meant intelligence agencies, intellectuals and politicians were going to switch sides, the Cold War would've ended with a socialist victory and "the end of history" would've been what's left to do after full communism. I'm certain that the smarter ones read all the political literature, which would be life or death for CIs and UCs. In fact, they specifically recruit people with personality types that are likely to analyze information without pondering the deeper philosophical implications or stay loyal to what is viewed as good, and foster a organizational culture to reinforce this.
I like to joke that I'm currently infiltrating the NSA, since they're always listening anyway :lol:I fucking knew it!:ohmy:
I think the concept of the lumpenproletariat is about as useless as the concept of "labor aristocracy". Both terms are pretty much just pejoratives at this point.Peasant has negative connotations in 2015 America too. Yet most revolutions in the 20th century would've gone nowhere without assessing the situation and determining that the proletariat must form an alliance with the peasantry. I'd just be a hammer without a sickle.:hammersickle: More likely not even a symbol in the first place.

That others attach moral connotations to peasantry, petite-bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat and labor aristocracy reflects more on the individual's mindset than it's potential usefulness in explaining the class structure of a society. Having a "Bloc of Four Classes" consisting of the lumpenproletariat, petite-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, all led by the proletariat, might not sound romantic but is more honest than arbitrarily lumping them all into the proletariat so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. They're no use in deluding oneself that potential allies are really part of a class that mysteriously for some reason is supposed to be more revolutionary, but than getting shocked when that class is also not as revolution.

[cyu]

I fucking knew it!

Study enough psychology and you can convince anybody, and under the correct conditions, you can convince them of anything. Not saying I'm an expert, but it's a road anybody can travel down, just like deciding to take karate lessons.

The problem though, is that some people are really good at convincing people, but they don't know much else - so if you convince people of useless things, that doesn't really help anything. If you devote yourself to studying political systems, you may come up with the ideal system, but if you're unconvincing, your ideas die with you. If you devote yourself to becoming really convincing, but your words are ultimately empty, you may rule the world economic system, but it would be in shambles.

Not an easy balance to strike :grin:

[Luís Henrique]

They aren't. They're not producing commodities, there's no capital involved and thus they are not being exploited on behalf of the valorisation of value.

So a teacher in a private school or a paramedic in a private hospital are proletarians, but if they quit that job and are hired by a State school or a State hospital, they cease to be proletarians?

What about housewives - they are not producing commodities (or are they?), there is no capital involved (or is it?) and they are not being exploited on behalf of the valorisation of value (or are they indeed)?

What about the unemployed? Are people going in and out of the proletariat, ebbing with their juridical situation as effective or wannabe sellers of labour power?

I think that class relations are not individual relations. They are not about a juridical contract between an individual proletarian and a given capitalist company. Those who are proletarians are proletarians for life, starting as newborns (when they are by no means producing commodities, but are merely the bearers of a commodity that is being produced) and ending when they die as retired elders, who no longer produce commodities, but are still paid for the commodities they have produced in the past.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Plus, teachers do produce a commodity (education) and I'd say their entire job is the valorization of human capital.

Teachers produce a commodity when they produce a commodity, ie, when their services are sold at the market. Teachers who provide non-commodified educational services don't produce commodities.

Of course the job of everybody is the valorisation of capital. This includes of course teachers, soldiers, housewives and the unemployed*: producing commodities isn't the only way to valorise capital.

But what would "human capital" be? I doubt very much that this concept has any "meaningful meaning", at least within Marxist theory...

Luís Henrique

* Yes, this is even the "job" of the bourgeois... they exist for the valorisation of capital.

[Rudolf]

How is the concept of the lumpenproletariat useless? How is it a pejorative and not a class distinction as relevant as any other for sociological analysis? The lumpenproletariat and proletariat can be clearly distinguished. The lumpenproletariat are permanently unemployed or have highly unstable employment. They sometimes harbour reactionary views and/or behaviour, their life sometimes depends on constant crime, they are very unlikely to participate in any revolutionary activity. They do not have a stable production relationship in common like proletarians do, they do not and usually cannot act collectively. On occasion they may be hostile to proletarians. All of these factors, which are not necessarily judged positively or negatively, are highly relevant for analysis.



Not exactly true though. The chronic unemployed can and do act collectively. I see it with my own eyes in the UK in regards to the increasingly punitive benefits regime and the ongoing fight against workfare.

[RedWorker]

Not exactly true though. The chronic unemployed can and do act collectively. I see it with my own eyes in the UK in regards to the increasingly punitive benefits regime and the ongoing fight against workfare.

These are not lumpenproletariat, they're just the section of the proletariat with no or unstable jobs. People who went into long-term unemployment even though they were searching badly for a job are not lumpenproletarians. Examples of the lumpenproletariat are beggars and homeless people. You don't see these in a demonstration and there's a reason why. Not because they're bad people but just out of the social situation they're in.

[Rudolf]

These are not lumpenproletariat, they're just the section of the proletariat with no or unstable jobs. People who went into long-term unemployment even though they were searching badly for a job are not lumpenproletarians. Examples of the lumpenproletariat are beggars and homeless people. You don't see these in a demonstration and there's a reason why. Not because they're bad people but just out of the social situation they're in.

I never called them lumpen... you, however, did.



The lumpenproletariat are permanently unemployed or have highly unstable employment.

[RedWorker]

I never called them lumpen... you, however, did.

That is just one of the characteristics, not the defining characteristic. It is true that all lumpenproleatarians suffer chronically from no or highly unstable employment, but it is not true that all people who do are lumpenproletarians. Either way, that's not the kind of instability I was referring to.

[Comrade Jacob]

I support people of occupied areas to resist the military but yes they are working-class. I feel bad for soldiers to some extent; they think they are fighting for their country and rights but they are fighting for their country's rulingclass and their rights to capital.