Students - A class of our own?

[BobKKKindle$]

Comrades; What Role do you think University and Upper-High School Students play within the Capitalist relations of production, and what role do you think they could play within the revolution? This is a question of tremendous importance. Students have a unique position in Society - They are between the dependency of Childhood, and a life of Wage labour. Just Some Quick Thoughts:

It is all too easy to say that Students cannot understand the reality of Manual Labour and wage earning, because they all too often are supported by their parents. I think any students here will agree that education is something that is tedious, dull, and alienating. We Spend our time learning things that dont interest us, to reel them off during an exam for someone who does not care.

Surely Learning should not be something to be endured. It should be something to be treasured and enjoyed. But I feel that can only occur through the destruction of the present education system that places so much emphasis upon set-curricula and Tedious Examinations. And the education system can only be destroyed through the destruction of the economic system that it supports and is supported by. I Attend a Private school, I am from a middle class family. But We too endure the same alienation and suffering of the proletariat. We do not choose our education; Workers do not choose their work. We are subjected to constant stress and repression - Knowledge is dictated to us, we have no oppurtunity to let our own viewpoints be heard upon important issues. We have no say in the running of the education system; they have no say in the administration of the means of production.

As For the revolutionary potential of students, One look at the events of May 1968 in France shows that Students can in fact act as a catalyst for revolutionary action. A Revolt by the Students of the Sorbonne quickly evolved into a revolutionary situation with a third of the Work Force on Strike! Could such things happen again?

[which doctor]

I think that students do have their own class. They actually have one of the most revolutionary classes!

They have proven revolutionary all over the world at all different times. They have provided a fresh new voice for progress and change.

The problem comes when we leave the student class. We often change and become silently content with the status quo. Some of us even go on to completely renouce or once radical view and we become capitalists. Hopefully this won't happen to any of us on this board.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> ( bobkindles)Comrades; What Role do you think University and Upper-High School Students play within the Capitalist relations of production, and what role do you think they could play within the revolution? This is a question of tremendous importance. Students have a unique position in Society - They are between the dependency of Childhood, and a life of Wage labour.[/b]Obviously they have no connection to the means of production themselves (unless they have to work to get through Uni, in which case as students they have no relation ...). They could easily play a part in the revolution. Often they have spare time, university students (in some areas) particular are generally encouraged to think and debate. We need only look at France 1968 and (and no doubt others) to see how they can initiate protest that soon encompasses workers and others.


bobkindles
It is all too easy to say that Students cannot understand the reality of Manual Labour and wage earning, because they all too often are supported by their parents. I think any students here will agree that education is something that is tedious, dull, and alienating. We Spend our time learning things that dont interest us, to reel them off during an exam for someone who does not care.As students we cannot understand the material reality of work. However, often students have to work or have worked before they come to university. It depends on the subject, some times it is interesting sometimes it is not.


And yes the education system (looking at pre-tertiary) is fucked. It is geared towards getting children and young adults abilities so that they can work. While there are often teachers within it that try and get children to expand their minds and learning, often the teachers are dulled by the restrictive curriculum.

One more flawed part of a flawed whole.

(Are students an independent class, I say not. Their class depends on their socio-economic position, what power they have, most students (at a university level) are lower class. They are often poor, or even if not poor do not have access to the levers of control (monetary or otherwise). Some do.)

[red_che]

What Role do you think University and Upper-High School Students play within the Capitalist relations of production

Insofar as they are still students, none, except that they are reserved, or soon-to-be workers/professionals, etc., I think.


and what role do you think they could play within the revolution?

They do have a role. Since they have more time to alot, plus their aggressive characteristics and open-mindedness, they do serve as the force that can tilt the balance of forces between the revolution and the reaction. If they side with the revolution, that gives the revolutionary forces greater power against the reactionaries.

However, the students should never allow themselves to have a thinking that they can, alone, win the revolution. Their primary role is to integrate within the masses of the proletariat and other oppressed classes, and participate in their struggle.


As For the revolutionary potential of students, One look at the events of May 1968 in France shows that Students can in fact act as a catalyst for revolutionary action. A Revolt by the Students of the Sorbonne quickly evolved into a revolutionary situation with a third of the Work Force on Strike!

Yeah, as I said above, they can tilt the balance of forces, but they cannot be the primary force of the revolution.

As to the question: a class of our own?

As students, that is as youth, we do not have a class of our own, we belong to the class where our family's source of income belong. But students are often more characterized as petty-bourgeois because students are more closer to them than their own class is (whether our parents are workers, peasants, professionals, etc.). Students are like the petty-bourgeoisie because they are not participating in production, and neither own tools for production nor sell labor. Students are mostly involved only in mental labor (that is, learning/studying).

[Lamanov]

Just one note: Students are not a soclial class, we are a social group.

Class is determined by the cathegories of existence within one social form of "production relations". Student social group is not homogenous becuase within that group different members belong to different and even conflicting cathegories of existence - i.e. : someone is a bourgeois by heritage, someone is from a peasant family and someone belongs to the working class.

There's also one crucial element which disables a student group from forming a distinct class: a temporal element -- one belongs to that social group only for a short period of time, that is: period of studdy is a transitional period in one's lifetime for obvious reasons.


Originally posted by red che
But students are often more characterized as petty-bourgeois...

Characterized by who? Mao one more time? Or you're just gabbling again?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Students - A class of our own?

Nope; in my opinion, the best way to look at students as a category, is to replicate the way we'd look at, say, French people as a category. You have people who are working class, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois....though I think there are two ways you'd define the class position of students.

Firsty, if student X worked, then you'd take their class position from their direct relationship to the means of production....which, more often than not, would make them working class. I mean, I know a few University students, and at least one of those comes from a petty-bourgeois home, yet throughout her period in Uni, she worked....making her, temporarily at least, working class. Alternatively, and secondly, if the student does not work, then I'd favour taking their class position directly from their parents/guardians relationship to the means of production. So if, say, Paris Hilton was in Uni, she'd be a bourgeois student; despite the fact that she has no direct relationship to the means of production....that I'm aware of anyway.

The idea that students are "a class of [their] own" seems a bit far fetched to me; especially as the "student class", on big issues, doesn't really formulate a distinct class outlook with its own interests. Sure, they may have "student issues", but depending on the student group, I'd say the nature of this "issue" directly reflects a larger class allegiance. So, for instance, a student group set up to fight against University privatisation, is fighting for the interests of the working class....where as the hypothetical Young Christian Students for Free Enterprise and Bowls, is most likely fighting in the interests of small capital. And, the class interests these groups fight for, will likely be reflected in the overall class composition of said groups.

Certainly, one thing that may make students appear as a "distinct class", is that in many Universities the students who attend are, directly or indirectly, working class. And one would expect a definite leftward lean in these places....indeed, the Students Unions in these places, may well have relatively strong links to the Labour Unions.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)What Role do you think University and Upper-High School Students play within the Capitalist relations of production, and what role do you think they could play within the revolution?[/b]

Their "role", in my opinion, is not all that significant. If students are going to play a particularly significant role, then I think it will either be through particular students fighting the bourgeois via their place of work; which would make their fight a "workers fight" rather than a "students fight". Certainly, as in Paris, they can act as a "catalyst", but without the support of the working class, their power is virtually nil. Which is why, in my opinion, "student activism" should, essentially, subordinate itself to the labour movement as a whole.

Indeed, with education, especially higher education, looking like it will become a class privilege once again, there's a distinct chance that by the time of any future proletarian revolution, there'll be very few students. Obviously making any potential impact they could have, one way or tother, negligible.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)Surely Learning should not be something to be endured. It should be something to be treasured and enjoyed.[/b]

Indeed.

So, the question becomes, if you find learning so "tedious, dull, and alienating", why are you still in school? If you&#39;re over 16, then I&#39;m pretty sure you can quit without facing any legal ramifications; and it&#39;s far easier to "enjoy" learning when you&#39;re doing it at home with a fag and a cuppa&#39;. Certainly, unless one is doing a "specialist" subject, Engineering, Chemistry, Biology and so on, I don&#39;t see why they&#39;d want to attend an educational facility. I mean, what&#39;s the point in paying to learn bad history when you could learn it at home for free? <_<


Originally posted by bobkindles
I Attend a Private school, I am from a middle class family. But We too endure the same alienation and suffering of the proletariat.

Uh, no.

Without getting into specifics, I&#39;m pretty sure a single mother working in Tesco&#39;s "endures" a great deal more "alienation and suffering" than yourself and your family. Which doesn&#39;t mean that you don&#39;t experience either of these two things, or that your experience is in some way "fake"....it just means there is a distinct difference between the "suffering" of wage-labourers and the "suffering" of managers/shop-owners.


Fist of [email protected]
I think that students do have their own class.

Really? So what are the distinct interests of this "revolutionary class"?

I think it would be fair to say that the "yoga gestapo" finds much support within the ranks of the patty-bourgeois/bourgeois students and petty-bourgeois students seem to love petty-bourgeois radicalism, like lifestylism, but I frankly don&#39;t think the student part is all that important here. At least not important enough to warrant them being defined as a distinct class.


red_che
Students are like the petty-bourgeoisie because they are not participating in production, and neither own tools for production nor sell labor.

Curious che, how the heck do the petty-bourgeois not "participate in production"? Geez, just have a look at the Construction Industry for a refutation of your statement.

Plus, are you saying that the petty-bourgeois don&#39;t "own tools for production nor sell labor"??? :unsure:
____

Ah, heck, I just clicked refresh and DJ-TC stole my answer; and put it better....bastard&#33; <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:45 AM
Students are like the petty-bourgeoisie because they are not participating in production, and neither own tools for production nor sell labor.
Leaving aside the mischaracterisation of the petit-bourgeoisie, that would make students part of the lumpenproletariat in that they fall outside of the relations of production. As noted above however students do not constitute a class in themselves.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 04:43 AM
I think that students do have their own class. They actually have one of the most revolutionary classes&#33;

They have proven revolutionary all over the world at all different times. They have provided a fresh new voice for progress and change.

The problem comes when we leave the student class. We often change and become silently content with the status quo. Some of us even go on to completely renouce or once radical view and we become capitalists. Hopefully this won&#39;t happen to any of us on this board.
Yea I was talkin to me folks about education and I said after this year I wanna get a job and a flat, because I thought it (then) unrevolutionary and middle-class to have a higher education.
It was then I made the phrase "Students denounce the capitalist system until they leave and they join it. Look at the Purple Labour party, for example John &#39;Witchfinder General&#39; Reid".
Since then I realised that they could put me in charge of the Bank of England and I&#39;d still be a revolutionary.
Since then, I decided to continue my further eductation and go on to Sheffield or York to study philosophy. I got the UCL prospectus and they actually do a module on Marxism, so who knows (I probably just convinced everyone on this board to do Philosophy at UCL&#33;)

[Dimentio]

Most students, and that is my personal opinion, are careerists, including those seemingly radical students who were occupying their own offices in the 60;s. Nowadays, they compose the hard core of Blairites around Europe. Even though Eduard Limonov is a crazy extremist, he do have a point that the only truely revolutionary social group is the misfits of society.

[Hit The North]

Even though Eduard Limonov is a crazy extremist, he do have a point that the only truely revolutionary social group is the misfits of society.

The reason he think misfits are revolutionary is because he&#39;s a misfit himself. Neo-Nazi scum.

[Dimentio]

Yeah, but today, there are no reason to revolt since most urban students, and Europeans for that matter, lives quite comfortably. At least, there is no reason to revolt in a disproportionate way, unless the revolt becomes a value in itself. I do not believe that we can form a revolution through barricades in this globalised age. Instead, we must create a movement which could be able to organise both itself as well as the outcasts, i.e, the unemployed [20-30%] in Europe since they are those who are truely alienated in this time.

[Lamanov]

I think Serpent forgot about march-april events in France all too quickly.

[More Fire for the People]

Students are alienated from society — as youths — and their labour — as persons learning to obey the capitalists. The students may or may not be their own class but their class interests is with the proletariat.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 12:43 AM
I think that students do have their own class. They actually have one of the most revolutionary classes&#33;

They have proven revolutionary all over the world at all different times. They have provided a fresh new voice for progress and change.

The problem comes when we leave the student class. We often change and become silently content with the status quo. Some of us even go on to completely renouce or once radical view and we become capitalists. Hopefully this won&#39;t happen to any of us on this board.
Are you insane?

[KC]

Doesn&#39;t it all depend on how the students maintain the means of their existence? There&#39;s a difference between a student living at home and having his college paid for by his bourgeois parents and a student that works full time and lives on his own. You can&#39;t say "What class are students?" You might as well ask "What class are left-handed people?"

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jun 13 2006, 01:39 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Jun 13 2006, 01:39 PM)
Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 12:43 AM
I think that students do have their own class. They actually have one of the most revolutionary classes&#33;

They have proven revolutionary all over the world at all different times. They have provided a fresh new voice for progress and change.

The problem comes when we leave the student class. We often change and become silently content with the status quo. Some of us even go on to completely renouce or once radical view and we become capitalists. Hopefully this won&#39;t happen to any of us on this board.
Are you insane? [/b]
I tried to report that for being a one-line spam, near flame, but the report function doesn&#39;t seem to be working.

Mind explaining or at least giving your input instead of contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion?

[KC]

It&#39;s a valid question.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 04:29 PM
It&#39;s a valid question.
No, it&#39;s not a valid question. It&#39;s a rhetorical question.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jun 13 2006, 05:21 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill &#064; Jun 13 2006, 05:21 PM)The students may or may not be their own class but their class interests is with the proletariat.[/b]

Nonsense&#33;

The idea that "students [are] with the proletariat" is about as valid as, to borrow Khayembii Communique&#39;s example, saying "left-handed people are with the proletariat". The statement you made, in and of itself, completely disregards any potential class privilege a group of students could have. I mean, using your logic, every person attending an elite private school is a "potential comrade"&#33;? :o


Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected]
Since then I realised that they could put me in charge of the Bank of England and I&#39;d still be a revolutionary.

Sure mate, sure.

Lets just hope the module on "Marxism" at "UCL" is half decent; cause you&#39;ve got some way to go if you think someone is going to "still be a revolutionary" after they get one of capitals more prestigious jobs.


Serpent
Nowadays, they compose the hard core of Blairites around Europe.

There are "Blairites" in Europe? :blink:

There&#39;s only about 50 of them in Britain....including Monsieur Blair. So I don&#39;t see there being any genuine "Blairites" in Europe. Unless, of course, I&#39;m missing something.

[More Fire for the People]

I see where you are getting but from my experience bourgeois kids don’ t go to public schools or popular universities — the bourgeois kids get their own junior private clubs aka private &#39;schools&#39;.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 01:24 PM
Doesn&#39;t it all depend on how the students maintain the means of their existence? There&#39;s a difference between a student living at home and having his college paid for by his bourgeois parents and a student that works full time and lives on his own. You can&#39;t say "What class are students?" You might as well ask "What class are left-handed people?"
Agreed.

Students do not constitute a class of their own. Class is determined by relations to the means of production.

Furthermore, when people are at a young age, their class can be defined by what their parents do. A student may have his tuition paid for by his parents (or in some places, the state), and still be proletariat. If their parents are proletariat, a student will also be proletariat, for the time being.

[red_che]

Characterized by who? Mao one more time? Or you&#39;re just gabbling again?

So, do you think students aren&#39;t more petty-bourgeois in characteristics than to be other class?


Students are not a soclial class, we are a social group.

To be more precise, students/youth are a special social group since we are not a class but with special role in society.


Curious che, how the heck do the petty-bourgeois not "participate in production"? Geez, just have a look at the Construction Industry for a refutation of your statement.

So, the petty-bourgeoisie produce commodities? Well, to clarify my position, what I mean by that "do not participate in production" is that they are not involved in the direct production of commodities. That&#39;s a petty-bourgeoisie character. And the students, are not involved in it too, that&#39;s why I said they are more of a petty-bourgeois in character.


Plus, are you saying that the petty-bourgeois don&#39;t "own tools for production nor sell labor"???

Read again dude, students do not sell labor and own tools for production. <_<

So are the petty-bourgeois. While there are petty-bourgeoisie who own tools, these are not big enough to make them a ruling national bourgeoisie. These are small, and often, not enough to elevate them into a status greater than their petty-bourgoies class. Yes, of course they sell labor, but not manual labor as the workers do. But my point here is that, the petty-bourgeois are not involved in manual-intensive labor, so do are the students.


Leaving aside the mischaracterisation of the petit-bourgeoisie, that would make students part of the lumpenproletariat in that they fall outside of the relations of production. As noted above however students do not constitute a class in themselves.

How the hell could they become lumpenproletariat? Lumpenproletariat live by means of anti-social activities&#33;

Again, I would say that students, in general, are not yet participating in the social production of commodities or services. they are still studying and dependent (for the most part) upon their parents. And their non-participation to labor is more of a closer relationship with the petty-bourgeoisie than any other class, though it is just transitory for the students.

[kurt]

So, do you think students aren&#39;t more petty-bourgeois in characteristics than to be other class?

No. There are more working-class students than petty-bourgeois students.



So, the petty-bourgeoisie produce commodities? Well, to clarify my position, what I mean by that "do not participate in production" is that they are not involved in the direct production of commodities. That&#39;s a petty-bourgeoisie character. And the students, are not involved in it too, that&#39;s why I said they are more of a petty-bourgeois in character.

This highlights your gross mis-understanding of marxist class analysis. Petty-bourgeois can and do produce commodities. For example, someone who runs their own furniture buisness, and produces chairs for exchange on the market. This person is petty-bourgeois; they are involved in the direct production of commodities.



Read again dude, students do not sell labor and own tools for production. <_<

Being a "student" has nothing to do with ones relations to the means of production. Students can technically be any class.



How the hell could they become lumpenproletariat? Lumpenproletariat live by means of anti-social activities&#33;

Robbing a bank can be a very social activity. :lol:

Anyways, he wasn&#39;t saying that students were lumpenproletariat, he was saying that if your warped "class analysis" of students was consistant with a marxist outlook, then they would be lumpenproletariat. Fortunately, it&#39;s not.

The reason students aren&#39;t treated as a class is because their classification as a student has nothing to do with the means of production, nor how they aquire their means of sustinence.

[red_che]

Wello, in the first place, students are not a class so this is not a class analysis of sort but rather analysis of what the students are.


No. There are more working-class students than petty-bourgeois students.

Their parents and family background, yes. But the students themselves, not yet, they can be other class after finshing their studies. So, in reality, they are not workers since they are not the ones participating.


Petty-bourgeois can and do produce commodities. For example, someone who runs their own furniture buisness, and produces chairs for exchange on the market. This person is petty-bourgeois; they are involved in the direct production of commodities.

Not all petty-bourgeois are like this. In fact, only few are like the ones you described. More often, they are professionals working in an office environment. What is to be given emphasis should be their general characteristics, not the few ones.


Being a "student" has nothing to do with ones relations to the means of production. Students can technically be any class.

My answer is already stated above and below.


The reason students aren&#39;t treated as a class is because their classification as a student has nothing to do with the means of production, nor how they aquire their means of sustinence.

Precisely. I am not saying they should be treated as a class. As I said, they are a special group with special role in society. And my linking them with the petty-bourgeoisie is not an analysis that it is their class. I am merely pointing out that they are like the petty-bourgeoisie who are not involved in manual-intensive labor. They more involved in mental participation in society.

[kurt]

Their parents and family background, yes. But the students themselves, not yet, they can be other class after finshing their studies. So, in reality, they are not workers since they are not the ones participating.

Many students hold part-time and full-time jobs.


Not all petty-bourgeois are like this. In fact, only few are like the ones you described. More often, they are professionals working in an office environment. What is to be given emphasis should be their general characteristics, not the few ones.

Well, if only a "few" are like this, then it certainly does put a hole in your little analysis. Secondly, you&#39;re being rather vague with your reference to "professionals working in an office enviroment".


I am merely pointing out that they are like the petty-bourgeoisie who are not involved in manual-intensive labor. They more involved in mental participation in society.

As I have already demonstrated, petty-bourgeois can, and are involved in manual-intensive labour. Secondly, labour need not be "manual-intensive" for it to be proletarian. Mental labour can just as easily be proletarian, depending on how the individual performing this labour stands in relation to the means of production.

[KC]

I see where you are getting but from my experience bourgeois kids don’ t go to public schools or popular universities — the bourgeois kids get their own junior private clubs aka private &#39;schools&#39;.

Yes, but you can&#39;t, from this analysis, come to the conclusion that kids that went to public school are proletarian and kids that went to private are bourgeois.


So, do you think students aren&#39;t more petty-bourgeois in characteristics than to be other class?

What about the kid that works a full-time factory job to pay for his schooling, a job that he works at year-round. You consider this person to be petty-bourgeois? The whole point is that you can&#39;t lump all students into one class. Sure, you can say "most students are..." but that certainly doesn&#39;t mean that all are.


since we are not a class

Class is determined based on how you maintain your life, i.e. where your means of subsistence (in capitalism&#39;s case, money) comes from. Obviously students can fit into any class, but they certainly aren&#39;t classless.


they are still studying and dependent (for the most part) upon their parents.

So don&#39;t you think that they would fit into the same social class as their parents? Their class desires are the same as their parents for two reasons: first, that their means of subsistence is coming from the same source as their parents; second, that they were raised with class-ideals by their parents. No, a student might not be working, but in the second sense of the word "class" one can certainly put them into the same category as their parents.


students are not a class

They certainly can be called a class using the informal sense of the word: "A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category."


My answer is already stated above and below.

And it was crap. ;)

[red_che]

Many students hold part-time and full-time jobs.

Well, students with part-time jobs are still students for the most part of it. And if we discuss students based on their being workers, then we should discuss their being workers, not their being students.


As I have already demonstrated, petty-bourgeois can, and are involved in manual-intensive labour. Secondly, labour need not be "manual-intensive" for it to be proletarian. Mental labour can just as easily be proletarian, depending on how the individual performing this labour stands in relation to the means of production.

I can definitely say then that yours is the one that has a hole in class analysis. Petty-bourgeois is a separate class from the workers. If, what you are demonstrating here are people doing manual-intensive labor, such as factory workers, then you are confused as to who the petty-bourgeois are.

Most people who belong to the petty-bourgeois class are those professionals such as Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, etc. and those who own small property for which serves only as an additional source of income, not their main source of income. <_<

Labor isn&#39;t only exclusive for workers. Yes, I agree. but those manual-intensive labor are most exclusively done by workers and peasants. Petty-bourgeois people are not heavily involved in manual-intensive labor. :cool:

[kurt]

I can definitely say then that yours is the one that has a hole in class analysis. Petty-bourgeois is a separate class from the workers. If, what you are demonstrating here are people doing manual-intensive labor, such as factory workers, then you are confused as to who the petty-bourgeois are.

I never said the petty-bourgeois weren&#39;t seperate from the workers; I said that the petty-bourgeois can and do manual-intensive labour. Your second sentence makes absolutely zero sense to me, you&#39;ll have to clarify.


Most people who belong to the petty-bourgeois class are those professionals such as Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, etc. and those who own small property for which serves only as an additional source of income, not their main source of income. dry.gif

Teachers are proletarian. They produce a commodity (education), and work for a wage. Furthermore, you won&#39;t find many doctors with a "private" practice anymore, as their job has increasingly become more and more proletarian in nature (as marx predicted).


Labor isn&#39;t only exclusive for workers. Yes, I agree. but those manual-intensive labor are most exclusively done by workers and peasants. Petty-bourgeois people are not heavily involved in manual-intensive labor.

Proletarians are the ones doing a majority of society&#39;s manual-intensive labour, but this is by no means "exclusive".

[red_che]

What about the kid that works a full-time factory job to pay for his schooling, a job that he works at year-round. You consider this person to be petty-bourgeois? The whole point is that you can&#39;t lump all students into one class. Sure, you can say "most students are..." but that certainly doesn&#39;t mean that all are.

Well, we are discussing them as a group, not individually.


Class is determined based on how you maintain your life, i.e. where your means of subsistence (in capitalism&#39;s case, money) comes from. Obviously students can fit into any class, but they certainly aren&#39;t classless.

Yeah, but students, as the group, is not a class in itself. The individual student do belong to a certain class because of his family background and source of income. But when they are grouped as Students, or more precisely as Youth, they are not a social class.


So don&#39;t you think that they would fit into the same social class as their parents? Their class desires are the same as their parents for two reasons: first, that their means of subsistence is coming from the same source as their parents; second, that they were raised with class-ideals by their parents. No, a student might not be working, but in the second sense of the word "class" one can certainly put them into the same category as their parents.

I don&#39;t think you are getting what is being pointed out. Students as a group, their being one because of the same status, that is being young and going to school, is not a class in itself. They are a special social group for which they have a special role into society.


They certainly can be called a class using the informal sense of the word: "A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category."

I don&#39;t know how were you able to come up with this nonsense. A class is the division of people based on their participation in production, ownership of the means of production and share in production. Not merely a collection or group of people. Because if that is so, then women is a class, so are men. And even minorities can be considered a class, even nationalities can be a class. You are rather more vague and confused. :(

[KC]

Well, we are discussing them as a group, not individually.

But we can&#39;t lump them all into one class. That&#39;s my point.


A class is the division of people based on their participation in production, ownership of the means of production and share in production.

That&#39;s certainly one definition that Marx used.


Because if that is so, then women is a class, so are men.

You could say that according to the definition I provided, yes.


You are rather more vague and confused.

Marx used two definitions when talking about class - the strict historical materialist one that you are talking about, and the informal one that I provided above.

[red_che]

I never said the petty-bourgeois weren&#39;t seperate from the workers; I said that the petty-bourgeois can and do manual-intensive labour. Your second sentence makes absolutely zero sense to me, you&#39;ll have to clarify.

Now you are confusing more the issue.


Teachers are proletarian. They produce a commodity (education), and work for a wage. Furthermore, you won&#39;t find many doctors with a "private" practice anymore, as their job has increasingly become more and more proletarian in nature (as marx predicted).

Really, you are confused. If teachers, doctors, and their likes are workers, then who else is petty-bourgeois? Therefore, following this line of analysis from yours, a petty-bourgeois belong to the working class. Oh, such kind of analysis is gross distortion of class analysis.


Proletarians are the ones doing a majority of society&#39;s manual-intensive labour, but this is by no means "exclusive".

Yeah, let me say that&#39;s what I mean there.

[red_che]

But we can&#39;t lump them all into one class. That&#39;s my point.

Precisely, we can&#39;t lump them all into one class, but we can describe them based on their genetral characteristics that are most common to them all. And that, again I emphasized, they are not a class.


You could say that according to the definition I provided, yes.


Marx used two definitions when talking about class - the strict historical materialist one that you are talking about, and the informal one that I provided above.

Can you cite where? And oh, whatever, but I am referring here of the class on the strict historical material one, not anything else.

[KC]

Can you cite where? And oh, whatever, but I am referring here of the class on the strict historical material one, not anything else.


There&#39;s a few instances in the Manifesto that I remember. I think in chapter one he talks about workers "organizing into a class". If you want I could find specific passages and post them tomorrow, but if you look through it you&#39;ll find them.

[kurt]

Now you are confusing more the issue.

I suppose this broken sentence simply clarifies the fact that even you had no idea what you meant :lol:


Really, you are confused. If teachers, doctors, and their likes are workers, then who else is petty-bourgeois?

Lawyers are usually petty-bourgeois, if not fully bourgeois. Furthermore, they are ideologues of capitalism, and thus, even if the nature of their work was proletarian, they would still be class traitors. Small buisness owners are petty-bourgeois. Most managers are petty-bourgeois. Perhaps you were unaware?


Therefore, following this line of analysis from yours, a petty-bourgeois belong to the working class. Oh, such kind of analysis is gross distortion of class analysis.

I&#39;d just like to state for the record that your use of english is, well, peculiar. <_<

No, unfortunately, it doesn&#39;t "follow", although it&#39;s cute that you try to "force the issue". Aside from that, I can&#39;t really comprehend what in the fuck you&#39;re saying.

[Janus]

I would agree with what DJ-TC said earlier about students being part of a social group rather than a clear social class.

Students generally come from a diversity of different classes, and some become workers while others become petty bourgeois or bourgois. Also, some students work while studying so those students could be considered workers due to that.

And really, I don&#39;t see what the fuss is about classifying everyone into a strict class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jun 13 2006, 10:51 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill &#064; Jun 13 2006, 10:51 PM)I see where you are getting but from my experience bourgeois kids don’ t go to public schools or popular universities — the bourgeois kids get their own junior private clubs aka private &#39;schools&#39;.[/b]

Probably depends on the size of the aware we are discussing. My secondary school, for instance, had a catchment area that included both working class and petty-bourgeois areas. So, there were a few kids in school with me who had parents that could be defined as bourgeois....just not big bourgeois/big capitalist.

But, essentially, the class you&#39;ve not mentioned here, the petty-bourgeois, is really the one which is most represented, bar the working class, in public sector schools. The children of Managers, shopkeepers and so on, represent the interests of the petty-bourgeois "on campus" and, essentially, make political struggles within a school struggles between small capital and the working class.

And, I&#39;d say, in higher education, the petty-bourgeois are possibly the most represented class....which means any analysis of higher education, can&#39;t just ignore that.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)To be more precise, students/youth are a special social group since we are not a class but with special role in society.[/b]

So, say, Paris Hilton or Brooklyn Beckham don&#39;t have a class? :blink:

Neither, as far as I&#39;m aware, participates in production nor to they, at this point, own any capital....but I sure as fuck wouldn&#39;t call them classless.


Originally posted by red_che
So, the petty-bourgeoisie produce commodities?

Yes. What do you think, say, a Plumber with his own business and an apprentice produce? Or is pipework not a commodity? Certainly, if you&#39;re going to say Engineers are petty-bourgeois, then you should be aware that many Engineers (Engineer is to vague a word to just lump into a specific class....but I&#39;ll discuss that later) produce a commodity. Or do you think building plans that are bought and sold do not represent a commodity?


Originally posted by red_che
Well, to clarify my position, what I mean by that "do not participate in production" is that they are not involved in the direct production of commodities. That&#39;s a petty-bourgeoisie character.

No, that&#39;s the character of a section of the petty-bourgeois....Management. Yet, like most classes, there are sub-sections of said class; and this means that there are varying characteristics involved here.


Originally posted by red_che
Read again dude, students do not sell labor and own tools for production.

Ok that&#39;s clarified your original statement, but this statement is still, technically, incorrect.

Most University courses incorporate a years learning experience; I, for instance, know someone who is studying Nursing....and she spends three weeks working and three weeks learning. Meaning that the exploitation of her labour is incorporated into the learning program.

Additionally, just to be a picky bastard, a computer is a "tool for production" and nearly all students own one of those....and use it to "produce". But, you&#39;re wrong in saying that not owning "tools for production" is a characteristic of the petty-bourgeois....as I said, look at the Construction Industry.


Originally posted by red_che
While there are petty-bourgeoisie who own tools, these are not big enough to make them a ruling national bourgeoisie.

So? That&#39;s, essentially, an irrelevant point.


Originally posted by red_che
But my point here is that, the petty-bourgeois are not involved in manual-intensive labor....

Then what type of "labour" would you say a builder does if it&#39;s not "manual-intensive"?


Originally posted by red_che
Well, students with part-time jobs are still students for the most part of it.

And?

That&#39;s like saying women with part-time jobs are still women. Great, but what&#39;s the point in stating the fricking obvious? Unless you&#39;re saying that, from a revolutionary perspective, there&#39;s something important about students, then mentioning the fact that they are students is about as relevant as saying I play football.

I mean, as I said earlier, I don&#39;t think student activism is all that important....and I certainly think it should subordinate itself to the greater movement of the class. So unless you would like to discuss what potential practical tasks students can carry out, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s really any use in defining people as students....especially when you do this at the expense of defining them as an objective class.


Originally posted by red_che
Most people who belong to the petty-bourgeois class are those professionals such as Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, etc. and those who own small property for which serves only as an additional source of income, not their main source of income.

[i]Are Teachers petty-bourgeois? No.


Originally posted by Me; from a previous debate on class
Take a teacher who works in a Private School, just to make matters simpler....the parents of the children who attend the school will be paying for the labour of said teachers with regards producing a product; education.

Further, whoever owns the School, will take a portion of this money for themselves and therefore, s/he is profiting off the labour of said teacher; and under basic Marxist economics, this means that they are extracting surplus value from the teacher which makes the teacher a wage-labourer....in other words, working class.

Link to said debate. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49379&hl=actors)

Are Doctors petty-bourgeois? Depends.

Certainly, in my opinion, Doctors who work in major hospitals, like NHS hospitals, can be classified as working class. Though particularly good Doctors, tend to have a degree of autonomy and are able to sell their labour as an individual contractor....which makes them petty-bourgeois. At the very least, I&#39;d say Interns are most definitely working class....as was George Clooney&#39;s character on ER. <_<

Are Lawyers petty-bourgeois? Probably.


Me; from yet another previous debate on [email protected]
Well whether the "public defender attorney" and the "high powered corporate lawyer" are in the same class is something we can&#39;t say without more information.

From my understanding, most "high powered corporate lawyer(s)" are partners in the law firm they represent....hence the "high power". So, in light of this, one would consider the "high powered corporate lawyer" to be bourgeois.

Where as the "public defender attorney" would generally be considered part of the petty-bourgeois....though given Capitalisms tendency towards "proletarianisation", it wouldn&#39;t surprise me to find that the job of a "public defender attorney" is become more and more proletarian in nature.

In some of the professions, like Doctors and Architects for instance, the "proletarianisation" is becoming more and more an objective fact....the autonomy and individualism that these people used to have, is being destroyed by the natural functioning of Capitalism; particularly the "monopolisation" of industry.

However, right now, the "public defender attorney" would be considered, by Marxist and most other forms of class analysis, to be petty bourgeois ("middle class").

Though one could, if they wished, maker a reasonable argument that lawyers, especially ones at the lower end of the profession, constituted the class position of an epoch specific worker....like for instance, Policemen.

Either definition, would be useful as it would identify lawyers as class enemies....their occupation relies on the Capitalist system and therefore, they&#39;ll oppose its destruction.

They are, if you will, part of the bureaucratic apparatus that Capitalism produces and therefore, one wouldn&#39;t expect them to stand on our side of the barricades&#33; :lol:

Additionally, one would expect to find that a "public defender attorney" had a more liberal political bias, where as a Public Prosecutor would likely have a more conservative bias....I suspect the evidence of this particular hypothesis would be pretty strong.

My post from said debate. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48739&view=findpost&p=1292057480)

Are Engineers petty-bourgeois? Fuck knows....Engnieering is to broad a field to pigeon hole. There are, for instance, around about 15 separate fields of Civil Engineering alone; so unless you cite a more specific Engineering field, and the function said Engineers have, I can&#39;t really comment here.

And your mention of "own small property" just confuses shit here. What are you defining as "small property"? Stuff that produces a profit for the owner? Like, say, a second home that they rent out?


red_che
If teachers, doctors, and their likes are workers, then who else is petty-bourgeois?

Well, at present, most of the petty-bourgeois is involved in some form of Middle-Management. That is, big capital has, more or less, destroyed small capital and members of the petty-bourgeois have either been "proletarianised" or gone into the bureaucratic management of big capital. So, your local shopkeeper is now a Manager in Tesco&#39;s.

[red_che]

So, say, Paris Hilton or Brooklyn Beckham don&#39;t have a class?

One individual student certainly belong to a class. But, what I was pointing out is that The Students (the group) isn&#39;t a class.

Why did I say that the Students are more closely related to petty-bourgeois? It&#39;s because they are not directly involved in production. Petty-bourgeois class isn&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodites. What they produce are services, yes this can be classified a product, but certainly it is not a commodity (i.e., industrial commodity) in its strict sense.


Yes. What do you think, say, a Plumber with his own business and an apprentice produce? Or is pipework not a commodity? Certainly, if you&#39;re going to say Engineers are petty-bourgeois, then you should be aware that many Engineers (Engineer is to vague a word to just lump into a specific class....but I&#39;ll discuss that later) produce a commodity. Or do you think building plans that are bought and sold do not represent a commodity?

Then why did that Plumber doesn&#39;t belong to the working class? Becuase he owns the business, and does not produce all the products of his business, got what I mean? He is the owner and he uses the labor of others to extract profit more than what he himself produces.

An Engineer also is not a proletarian. Why? Because he was involved mainly on mental labor, not manual/physical. It is the construction workers who do the construction of the building. Now, are you getting my point? That&#39;s what I mean, manual-intensive labor, I can&#39;t think of other adjectives for that, sorry.

And I am not trying to lump the Students into one class, since Students itself isn&#39;t a class. What I am trying to figure out is that they, being Students, are more closely connected or related to the characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class.


No, that&#39;s the character of a section of the petty-bourgeois....Management. Yet, like most classes, there are sub-sections of said class; and this means that there are varying characteristics involved here.

But the main characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class is their not involvement into the manual/physical labor. Because if they are involved, that is they do the manual/physical construction or production, then they are not to be classified petty-bourgeois, but rather they are proletariat.


Are Teachers petty-bourgeois? No.


Take a teacher who works in a Private School, just to make matters simpler....the parents of the children who attend the school will be paying for the labour of said teachers with regards producing a product; education.

Further, whoever owns the School, will take a portion of this money for themselves and therefore, s/he is profiting off the labour of said teacher; and under basic Marxist economics, this means that they are extracting surplus value from the teacher which makes the teacher a wage-labourer....in other words, working class.

Well, the proletariat (working class), strictly speaking, is one that is selling labor in the industrial/collective production of commodities. One that sells labor doesn&#39;t exactly characterize him/her to be a proletariat in the strictest sense. For example, a peasant sells his labor too, but in an agricultural/feudal set-up, and he/she is not a proletariat. Likewise, a teacher sells labor, but not to produce a commodity, but to produce a service (education), and that doesn&#39;t make him/her a proletariat. Because if we outrightly characterize anybody who sells labor as proletariat, then there are only two classes existing now, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, no peasants, no petty-bourgeoisie, no other classes.

But that is not the case. People were divided into classes according to their economic and political standing in the society. That&#39;s why there are proletariats, peasants, petty-bourgeois, etc. In some other countries, there are even three sections of the bourgeoisie (the bourgeois-compradors, the national/ethnic bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie).

Now, my point is that not simply because one sells his/her labor automatically makes him proletariat. It would depend on what kind of product he/she produces, how much labor he/she extracts, and how much he/she gets out of his/her produce.


So? That&#39;s, essentially, an irrelevant point.

How is it so?


Are Doctors petty-bourgeois? Depends...

Are Lawyers petty-bourgeois? Probably...

Are Engineers petty-bourgeois? Fuck knows....

Then who are petty-bourgeois?

Why, in the first place this class was called petty-bourgeois? Was it because they are petty, or small bourgeoisie? Was it because Marx simply liked to call them that name? :rolleyes: Why?

I believe it is because they are not involved in the direct production of industrial commodities, but are merely supervising, managing, or whatever is that called, or in my term, they simply produce support services. And that&#39;s what separates them from the proletariat.

However, not all doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the likes are petty-bourgeois. It depends again on how much they acquire profit. A doctor who owns a big hospital is certainly not a petty-bourgeois, but the doctors who worked for him/her are petty-bourgeois. A lawyer who owns a large firm is also not petty-bourgeois, but his/her lower associates certainly are petty-bourgeois. And so on..

So, the chracteristics of the petty-bourgeois, in general, is that it is not involved in the direct-production of commodities or manual labor. They are mostly into mental labor.

[Floyce White]

Following is an excerpt from No Compromise With Capitalism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A16), March 1, 2002:

What role do capitalists have in the self-organization of the working class? None. How can it be the self-organization of the working class if capitalists are involved? It cannot be. This simple logic has no apparent flaws and is confronted by roundabout contortions. Some argue that communism does not come from the self-organization of the working class. In this series of articles, I show that the movement of the poor is undermined by the intervention of the rich. Without self-organization, capitalist-led dual-class alliances use liberalism to divide and conquer working-class activists. Capitalist-led workers’ revolts help small capitalists replace big capitalists as the ruling exploiters. Any compromise on the principle of workers’ self-organization condemns humanity to another generation of class warfare.

Another way to attack the self-organization of the working class is to define classes as something other than property classes. In this way, capitalists can pretend to be working-class people and can continue to infiltrate workers’ groups and prevent self-organization. For example, classes could be defined by occupation. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker–all are forms of work, so all doers of work are supposedly working class. Managers, executives, and “the bosses” are seen as “real” capitalists. If the butcher also owns a rent house, we are told to ignore it. Of course, the butcher’s tenants are still exploited. They continue to rent according to the conditions dictated by property owners. The tenants pay off the mortgage and the landlord gets the deed. The landlord then takes out another mortgage and uses it to buy yet another rent house. The family of the butcher inherits the property and continues the cycle of capital circulation and accumulation. The tenants are exploited in exactly the same way regardless of whether the rent house is sold to a bank, a management company, a government agency, a co-op, or a family. The relation of landlord to tenant is a social relation of violence. It is a form of capitalist rule. To tell tenants that some landlords are their friends and allies is to betray the struggles of hundreds of millions of working-class families who have small landlords, small employers, or buy from small merchants. The kicker is that this method also looks at ownership to determine whether a “real” (big) capitalist is “really” exploiting tenants. Defining classes by occupation has such glaring flaws as to be a way of disguising capitalist relations rather than exposing them. As long as the landlord, employer, merchant, or investor can successfully hide the extent of his family’s business activity, he can use definition of classes by what-little-you-know-about-his-occupation to suppress your struggle against his capitalism.

Since occupation is usually a source of income, defining classes by occupation is a subset of defining classes by amount of income. Small capitalists generally do not take high incomes from their business activity–capital is circulated rather than being consumed. The income from rental properties is zero, so the occupation of being a landlord seems insignificant compared to the income from any day job. Defining classes by income intentionally overlooks the accumulation of assets. This dishonest method further disunites the working class by profiling and stereotyping people with very little income as a “lumpenproletariat” or “underclass” of “bums,” “criminals,” and “welfare mothers.” These loathsome and vile labels go hand-in-hand with the racism, anti-foreigner bigotry, and superiority trips that increased their unemployment and lowered their wages in the first place. Besides the long-term underemployed, other non-income-earning occupations such as “student” or “retired” are posers for this method, which cultivates the mystique of individual “classlessness” or nihilistically slams all human relations as “exploitation.”

[red_che]

Okay, so what are you trying to say in connection with the topic being discussed here?

I don&#39;t wanna make a guess. :)

[kurt]

One individual student certainly belong to a class. But, what I was pointing out is that The Students (the group) isn&#39;t a class.

They are certainly not a class in the marxist sense of the word, no.


Why did I say that the Students are more closely related to petty-bourgeois? It&#39;s because they are not directly involved in production. Petty-bourgeois class isn&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodites. What they produce are services, yes this can be classified a product, but certainly it is not a commodity (i.e., industrial commodity) in its strict sense.

Ok, being a student does not affect your class. It&#39;s like comparing a soccer player to the petty-bourgeois; it&#39;s useless.

You can keep reasserting the fact that the petty-bourgeois aren&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodities until you&#39;re blue in the face, but you&#39;ve already been proven wrong on several occassions in this very thread. Furthermore, services are commodities in the strictest marxist sense of the word.


Originally posted by "Capital Vol [email protected] Chapter 1"
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production

So, from this it should be clear to you that a commodity need not be material, it only need satisfy a "human [want] of some sort". This includes commodities such as "education", computer programs. Performing mental labour is still using labour-power.


Then why did that Plumber doesn&#39;t belong to the working class? Becuase he owns the business, and does not produce all the products of his business, got what I mean? He is the owner and he uses the labor of others to extract profit more than what he himself produces.

Someone can be petty-bourgeois without employing others. The petty-bourgeois class also refers to those who have day to day control over the means of production, but not ownership (managers).


An Engineer also is not a proletarian. Why? Because he was involved mainly on mental labor, not manual/physical. It is the construction workers who do the construction of the building. Now, are you getting my point? That&#39;s what I mean, manual-intensive labor, I can&#39;t think of other adjectives for that, sorry.

As AS pointed out, engineering an enormously broad umbrella term. It&#39;s perfectly clear what you mean when you say manual-labour, but unfortunately you fail to realize that mental-labour also produces commodities.


But the main characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class is their not involvement into the manual/physical labor. Because if they are involved, that is they do the manual/physical construction or production, then they are not to be classified petty-bourgeois, but rather they are proletariat.

You have a rather thick skull, don&#39;t you? Doing "manual" labour does not automatically make someone proletarian&#33; Someone who owns their own concrete cutting buisness, and works by themselves, while doing manul labour, are still petty-bourgeois. Marxist class is about how you stand in relation to the means of production. It has nothing to do with your rather absurd distinction between manual and mental labour.


Well, the proletariat (working class), strictly speaking, is one that is selling labor in the industrial/collective production of commodities. One that sells labor doesn&#39;t exactly characterize him/her to be a proletariat in the strictest sense. For example, a peasant sells his labor too, but in an agricultural/feudal set-up, and he/she is not a proletariat.

Well, a peasant in the modern sense is usually petty-bourgeois, or perhaps even bourgeois (if they are "big" enough). However, in the feudal sense, you&#39;ve completely missed the mark.

Serfs (which is what I assume you mean when you say peasants) are not proletarians because they do not produce commodities. Under fuedalism, the "food" and "goods" serfs create are not commodities, they have no exchange value, as they are simply given to the lord for nothing "in exchange".


Likewise, a teacher sells labor, but not to produce a commodity, but to produce a service (education), and that doesn&#39;t make him/her a proletariat. Because if we outrightly characterize anybody who sells labor as proletariat, then there are only two classes existing now, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, no peasants, no petty-bourgeoisie, no other classes.

Services are a commodity.

No one said that "anybody who sells their labour" is a proletariat. Managers sell their labour, but they are still petty-bourgeois. Also, you&#39;re neglecting small proprietors who are also petty-bourgeois.


(the bourgeois-compradors, the national/ethnic bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie)

I assume by "compradors", you mean "foreign-bourgeois". Geography hasn&#39;t much to do with class in the marxist sense however, so, you&#39;re wrong.



Then who are petty-bourgeois?

Why, in the first place this class was called petty-bourgeois? Was it because they are petty, or small bourgeoisie? Was it because Marx simply liked to call them that name?

As I have said above, petty bourgeois are small proprietors, and small managers.

Perhaps you should look at the MIA glossary (lmao).
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm


So, the chracteristics of the petty-bourgeois, in general, is that it is not involved in the direct-production of commodities or manual labor. They are mostly into mental labor.

That has nothing to do with marxist economics. There is no distinction between mental and manual labour in marxist economics.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)One individual student certainly belong to a class. But, what I was pointing out is that The Students (the group) isn&#39;t a class.[/b]

No, actually if you look back to your initial post in this thread, you commented that "we [students] do not have a class of our own" and in your next post you said that "students/youth are a special social group since we are not a class but with special role in society". In neither of those posts did you accept that, as a group, are made up of numerous individuals of differing classes. You didn&#39;t, as you are saying here, classify students as just a group....in your own words students are "a special social group" with no class.

You see, by admitting that individual students have a distinct class, be that bourgeois, petty-bourgeois or working class, you are rubbishing your earlier arguments that individual students, as in the individual actors who compromise the social group of students, have no class. Rather, you said that they "are like the petty-bourgeoisie"....which, when viewed with the above statement made by yourself, means that there is a huge contradiction in your analysis.

You see, originally, you said that the social group of students wasn&#39;t, in and of itself, a class and that individual students had no class....yet now you&#39;ve said that individual students do indeed have a distinct social class. So, frankly, I don&#39;t know what the fuck you&#39;re babbling about.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Petty-bourgeois class isn&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodites. What they produce are services, yes this can be classified a product, but certainly it is not a commodity (i.e., industrial commodity) in its strict sense.[/b]

You&#39;re just confused here. A service worker is a worker....that is, a cook who works in a greasy spoon has the same class relationship as a Coal Miner. Even in the "strict sense", a fry up is a commodity in every way shape and form....it&#39;s just not an "industrial commodity" which you seem to, somewhat curiously, think has to be produced by the individual in order for said individual to be classified as working class. Under your analysis, a truck driver wouldn&#39;t be working class, s/he&#39;d be working class; where as a self-employed Plumber who employs an apprentice may well be classified as working class.

Essentially, you give too much attention to commodities in the "strict sense" and complete ignore a persons direct relationship to the means of production. Which means that you end up classifying Joe Smith who stacks shelves in Tesco&#39;s as petty-bourgeois....which is, frankly, an absurd classification.

Plus, you&#39;re still asserting that the petty-bourgeois "isn&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodites"....which, again, is, frankly, absurd. As I&#39;ve pointed out, most builders who own a smallish company do participate in the direct production of commodities....as do most tradesman who fall into the petty-bourgeois category. And, just so there&#39;s no confusion here, the commodity they produce here is a commodity in the "strict sense".


Originally posted by red_che
Then why did that Plumber doesn&#39;t belong to the working class? Becuase he owns the business, and does not produce all the products of his business, got what I mean? He is the owner and he uses the labor of others to extract profit more than what he himself produces.

That is simple irrelevant to the point we are discussing. You know your assertion that the petty-bourgeois don&#39;t participate directly in the production of commodities and nor do they produce a commodity. It, essentially, doesn&#39;t matter that said Plumbers "owns the business" or that he "does not produce all the products of his business" or that "he uses the labor of others to extract profit more than what he himself produces"....at least in the context of this discussion. All that matters here is that the example I presented, completely rubbishes your weird notions about the petty-bourgeois and their role in contemporary society.


Originally posted by red_che
An Engineer also is not a proletarian. Why? Because he was involved mainly on mental labor, not manual/physical.

A proletarian doesn&#39;t have to be just involved in "manual/physical" labour to be classified as proletarian. Rather, "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour" (Marx)....and, under the old mans definition, some Engineers are working class.

A Building Services Engineer, for instance, will sell his/her labour power and produce a commodity of some form, often building plans. Furthermore, they have no capital to invest and they are wage-labourers. Which, all in all, makes said Engineer a member of the working class.

Where as a Foreman, who may well be a qualified Civil Engineer, and his/her job on a building site is to coordinate and manage said site as an administrator for capital. S/he will produce no commodities, nor add value to the product, which makes them the people who work, as MIA puts it, "servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists"....in other words, member of the petty-bourgeois.

The divide between "mental" and "manual" labour, is a false divide which is essentially meaningless. Though it&#39;s curious that you shifted your emphasis here, from the production of commodities to the, rather subjective, divide between "mental" and "manual" labour. Is there a particular reason why you&#39;ve changed your point of emphasis? Or is it, as I suspect, that your just trying to bluff your way out of the poor hand you gambled on earlier?


Originally posted by red_che
It is the construction workers who do the construction of the building. Now, are you getting my point?

No, because your talking out of your arse here with regards Engineering. A Structural Engineer, for instance, is absolutely vital to the construction of buildings, especially large ones. And likewise, a Surveyor plays an important part in the construction of a building....and as anyone who is even remotely familiar with the role of a Surveyor knows, they do do "manual" labour, though whether it is "intensive" is a pretty subjective point. I mean, how do you measure "intensive"? Buckets of sweat per hour? :lol:

Honestly, you seem completely unaware of the workings of a Construction site, so I&#39;d advise you to refrain from further commenting on the intricate workings of said site. Because if there&#39;s one thing I do know a fair bit about, it&#39;s the dynamics involved on these sites.

Oh, and on the subject of Engineers, what class position does your average Heating Engineer have? Do you even know what a Heating Engineer is?


Originally posted by red_che
What I am trying to figure out is that they, being Students, are more closely connected or related to the characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class.

Which, as myself and others have pointed out, is fuey. Especially given you [mis]characterisation of the characteristics of the patty-bourgeois.

Furthermore, if students are "related to the characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class", then this poses interesting questions with regards you earlier statements that students can play a progressive role in society. Are you suggesting that class enemies are now our friends? :blink:


Originally posted by red_che
But the main characteristics of the petty-bourgeois class is their not involvement into the manual/physical labor.

Once again, you&#39;re talking out of your ass. It&#39;s honestly quite amusing when someone like myself, who would not describe themselves as a Marxist, has to explain the basic class analysis of Marxist theory to self-described Marxists. What next? Will Thierry Henry be asked to explain the rules of baseball to Barry Bonds? :lol:

Actually, Monsieur Henry could probably give Mr. Bonds a few tips on how to be a supreme athlete without having to use performance enhancing substances; but that&#39;s somewhat of a minor point in the context of this discussion. <_<


Originally posted by red_che
Because if they are involved, that is they do the manual/physical construction or production, then they are not to be classified petty-bourgeois, but rather they are proletariat.

So are the thousands of builders who own their own businesses and participate in the "manual/physical construction or production" of a building proletarian? Don&#39;t dodge the question this time with irrelevancies about the ownership of capital, because under your curious method of class analysis where "manual/physical" labour and "strict sense" commodities reign supreme, relationship to the means of production doesn&#39;t really factor. So, technically, you&#39;d classify small business owning tradesmen as proletarian and shelve stackers in Tesco&#39;s as petty-bourgeois. Fucking bizarre.


Originally posted by red_che
Well, the proletariat (working class), strictly speaking, is one that is selling labor in the industrial/collective production of commodities.

No, they&#39;re not.

This "strictly speaking" category you&#39;ve added, has nothing to do with orthodox Marxist class analysis. Regardless of what you mean by the term "collective" in this context, it has never been a requirement that someone produce commodities in an "industrial/collective" context in order for them to be defined as working class.

Rather, the key factors are relationship to the means of production, the extraction of surplus value, the sale of labour and the production of something which is sold as commodity....that is, something which can be sold on the Market. And teachers "tick all the boxes" which they need in order to be considered petty-bourgeois....at least in modern-capitalist countries.

Additionally, it occurred to me that by "collective" you could mean that the job is one in which there is collective bargaining? As in Union battles? In which case, it is worth pointing out that the Teachers Union is a pretty large Union and one of the more militant Unions as well. Once again, seriously damaging the credibility of your analysis.


Originally posted by red_che
For example, a peasant sells his labor too, but in an agricultural/feudal set-up, and he/she is not a proletariat.

No, here you&#39;re confusing agricultural workers with Peasants. Peasants, as a class, generally own small patches of land which they work in backward and archaic ways....and, in some cases, they turn over an amount of their produce to the landed aristocracy. An agricultural worker, by contrast, neither owns nor controls anything, they simply work like any other worker producing a commodity....say tomatoes.

Now, not only is there a distinct difference between the way in which they work, non-industrialised vs. industrialised, but there is also an objective difference between the way in which a Peasant relates to both the means of production and other classes when compared to agricultural workers.

Granted, the development of capitalism is a fluid process, which can somewhat blur the lines between the Peasantry and agricultural workers, and, for that matter, the petty-bourgeois, but still, there is a real difference between these classes regarding agricultural work. But, as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, I can see why you&#39;ll be horrified at the prospect of there being no Peasant class in modern-capitalist countries, but still, the class is being wiped out....don&#39;t worry though, there are plenty of petty-bourgeois "radicals" who&#39;ll be receptive to your message. :)


Originally posted by red_che
Because if we outrightly characterize anybody who sells labor as proletariat, then there are only two classes existing now, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, no peasants, no petty-bourgeoisie, no other classes.

Only if you completely ignore the relationship to the means of production that a person has.

Though, it is worth noting, that as old Charlie pointed out, the petty-bourgeois is a class in "decline". Generally speaking, their numbers get less and less every year* as big capital continues to "gobble up" small capital....which means that it&#39;s not inconceivable that within our lifetime we&#39;ll see the end of the petty-bourgeois as a significant class in the modern-capitalist countries; we&#39;re already seeing the death of the Peasantry. :o

*Certain events do lead to a sharp increase in the number of people who can be classed as petty-bourgeois. Like, for instance, when the Regulations were changed in the 60&#39;s (?) which meant that people other than British Gas could do stuff with Gas. This change, obviously, meant that many new firms came into existence....undeniably increasing the size of the petty-bourgeois. But as most Industries are now "open", such a phenomena is unlikely to occur again.


Originally posted by red_che
People were divided into classes according to their economic and political standing in the society.

Uh, no.

Class position is derived from ones objective relationship to the means of production. It&#39;s got fuck all to do with "their economic and political standing in the society"....that&#39;s Weberian rubbish.


Originally posted by red_che
How is it so?

Uh, because it&#39;s not particular important to know that "While there are petty-bourgeoisie who own tools, these are not big enough to make them a ruling national bourgeoisie". I would of thought it was common sense myself, that the owners of small capital don&#39;t own enough to form a ruling class. After all, that&#39;s why we use the adjective small before the word capital.


Originally posted by red_che
Then who are petty-bourgeois?

Managers, Foremen, Shopkeepers and so on. Essentially, the petty-bourgeois either are the owners of small capital or they are those who don&#39;t use their labour to produce, rather they use they labour to help administer capital in order to help further facilitate the smooth running of capitalism.


Originally posted by red_che
Why, in the first place this class was called petty-bourgeois? Was it because they are petty, or small bourgeoisie? Was it because Marx simply liked to call them that name? :rolleyes: Why?

I wouldn&#39;t, if I were you, pull funny faces in order to try and make a smug point when you are, quite clearly talking out of an orifice that isn&#39;t located one your face.

The word, petty, of course derives from the language which produced the word bourgeois....that language, of course, being French. The original term was petit-bourgeois which, roughly translated, means, of course, small capitalists. That is, the owners of a little bit of capital. Now, anyone with half a brain will be able to tell you that the examples you listed don&#39;t own capital....small or big.

Therefore, as a phrase, petty-bourgeois isn&#39;t all that accurate for these occupations....though in it&#39;s more thorough sense, as a descriptive term used in Marxist analysis, it does apply, as I&#39;ve said, to some Engineers, Lawyers and, possibly, Doctors. But it doesn&#39;t apply in the sense that it describes them as owners of capital, but rather in the context of Marxist theory, it describes their objective relationship to the means of production.

Why Charlie chose that word, is not that important....what it describes, is. But as of yet, you&#39;ve left me feeling that you wouldn&#39;t know the patty-bourgeois from your big toe and your class analyses has more holes than a Vatican condom.


[email protected]
I believe it is because they are not involved in the direct production of industrial commodities, but are merely supervising, managing, or whatever is that called, or in my term, they simply produce support services. And that&#39;s what separates them from the proletariat.

Well, not only has your classification of the petty-bourgeoisies "indirect" participation in production been pretty much rubbished, but, as I&#39;ve mentioned, your curious analysis has some weird implications....namely that a Debenhams girl becomes a class enemy where as business owning builder becomes a "comrade".

And you see, our theoretical positions should help aid our practical pursuits, so can I expect you to denounce the next strike by teachers? After all, you&#39;re not going to support one class enemy against another are you? You see, the kind of analysis you&#39;re promoting, is the kind of analysis bourgeois sociology loves. Why? Because it tries to create a divide withing the working class....on a certain level, there&#39;s absolutely no difference between trying to divide the class between "manual" and "mental" labour and trying to divide the class between "white folks" and "black folks". That is, essentially, your acting to cloud the issue and disrupt class unity. Which means that we can all be quite thankful that you don&#39;t have the kind of influence needed to make a significant impact.


red_che
A doctor who owns a big hospital is certainly not a petty-bourgeois....

Doctors "owning big hospitals"; good grief&#33;

Most Industrialised Nations have Nationalised Healthcare; and even the privatised bits, aren&#39;t owned by Doctors. Fucking bizarre the world you live in.

[red_che]

kurt:


So, from this it should be clear to you that a commodity need not be material, it only need satisfy a "human [want] of some sort". This includes commodities such as "education", computer programs. Performing mental labour is still using labour-power.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Either you did not understand that quote or you intentionally took it out of context to back up your false analysis. Either way, your analysis is grossly distorted.

A commodity is something a man produces to be exchanged with another commodity. Therefore "education", "services", "managing" and the likes are not commodities. They cannot be exchanged into another commodity. A worker produces material things that has use-values and can be exchanged into another thing, and that is called a commodity. So education is not something a teacher produces by himself/herself. He/she cannot create education to be given to students, which in turn the students cannot exchange into another thing.

Well, since you took refuge from the Capital, I would like to add what was written there in the succeeding paragraphs where you got this quote, it states:

"The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value."(emphasis in italics are mine)

So, from this it should be clear to you now what a commodity is. ;)


You can keep reasserting the fact that the petty-bourgeois aren&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodities until you&#39;re blue in the face, but you&#39;ve already been proven wrong on several occassions in this very thread. Furthermore, services are commodities in the strictest marxist sense of the word.

Now this argument is invalidated.


As AS pointed out, engineering an enormously broad umbrella term. It&#39;s perfectly clear what you mean when you say manual-labour, but unfortunately you fail to realize that mental-labour also produces commodities.

And also this.


You have a rather thick skull, don&#39;t you? Doing "manual" labour does not automatically make someone proletarian&#33; Someone who owns their own concrete cutting buisness, and works by themselves, while doing manul labour, are still petty-bourgeois. Marxist class is about how you stand in relation to the means of production. It has nothing to do with your rather absurd distinction between manual and mental labour.

Now you&#39;ve gone out of control just to defend your already distorted arguments.


Services are a commodity.

:huh:


No one said that "anybody who sells their labour" is a proletariat. Managers sell their labour, but they are still petty-bourgeois. Also, you&#39;re neglecting small proprietors who are also petty-bourgeois.

Read again my statement there.


I assume by "compradors", you mean "foreign-bourgeois". Geography hasn&#39;t much to do with class in the marxist sense however, so, you&#39;re wrong.

See what I mean? You can&#39;t even know the different types of bourgeoisie. This validates my claim that your class analysis is distorted. Compradors are not foreign bourgeois, they are the ruling bourgeoisie in a certain country, and they are the puppets of the Imperialists.


That has nothing to do with marxist economics. There is no distinction between mental and manual labour in marxist economics.

You have a seriously aggaravated distorted view. Sorry for the term, no insults intended.

Armchair Socialism:


No, actually if you look back to your initial post in this thread, you commented that "we [students] do not have a class of our own" and in your next post you said that "students/youth are a special social group since we are not a class but with special role in society".

Oh, I&#39;m sorry, it must be a typographical error. I should have written "we are not a class of our own", my mistake. :blush:

That is what I really mean.


You&#39;re just confused here. A service worker is a worker....that is, a cook who works in a greasy spoon has the same class relationship as a Coal Miner. Even in the "strict sense", a fry up is a commodity in every way shape and form....it&#39;s just not an "industrial commodity" which you seem to, somewhat curiously, think has to be produced by the individual in order for said individual to be classified as working class. Under your analysis, a truck driver wouldn&#39;t be working class, s/he&#39;d be working class; where as a self-employed Plumber who employs an apprentice may well be classified as working class.

Essentially, you give too much attention to commodities in the "strict sense" and complete ignore a persons direct relationship to the means of production. Which means that you end up classifying Joe Smith who stacks shelves in Tesco&#39;s as petty-bourgeois....which is, frankly, an absurd classification.

Plus, you&#39;re still asserting that the petty-bourgeois "isn&#39;t involved in the direct production of commodites"....which, again, is, frankly, absurd. As I&#39;ve pointed out, most builders who own a smallish company do participate in the direct production of commodities....as do most tradesman who fall into the petty-bourgeois category. And, just so there&#39;s no confusion here, the commodity they produce here is a commodity in the "strict sense".

What I give much emphasis is that workers (proletarians) do the production, the actual work of producing. From the very basic raw material to the product that becomes the commodity, i.e., from metal ore to a screwdriver, machine, etc., or from fishes to sardines, etc. It is this kind of labor which makes the proletariat a different class from the other classes. A truck driver is in fact a semi-proletarian, not industrial proletarian. And so is a cook, a waiter, a sales teller of a department store, a service crew, etc.

But the petty-bourgeois is a different class in the sense that it is not involved in the same manner of production as the proletariat are. And they also own small properties or means of production, but generally, what separates them from the proletariat is their non-involvement in the production of a commodity like what I have already described above.


A proletarian doesn&#39;t have to be just involved in "manual/physical" labour to be classified as proletarian. Rather, "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour" (Marx)....and, under the old mans definition, some Engineers are working class.

You are cutting short what is actually a long description of a proletarian. If you continue to assert that anyone who sells labor is proletarian, then you are implying a very vague, broad and ambiguous characteristic of the proletarian class.

Yes, no one argues that a proletarian lives only by selling his labor. But it is not exactly that only one character that makes him a proletariat. It is his, as I will repeat, participation into the production, non-ownership of properties or means for production, and his share into the production. And I would like to emphasize that the proletariat is involved in the modern, industrial, collective production. And in this sense, he is a proletariat, not simply because he sells labor. Because peasants also do sell labor, but they are not proletariat because they are not in an industrial, modern, collective way of production.


The divide between "mental" and "manual" labour, is a false divide which is essentially meaningless. Though it&#39;s curious that you shifted your emphasis here, from the production of commodities to the, rather subjective, divide between "mental" and "manual" labour. Is there a particular reason why you&#39;ve changed your point of emphasis? Or is it, as I suspect, that your just trying to bluff your way out of the poor hand you gambled on earlier?

There is a difference between a mental labor and manual labor. Mental labor produces no material commodity. It is mental labor that produces commodities. And the proletariat does manual labor, while the managers, whom you described were the petty-bourgeois, does only mental labor. That makes them different.


No, because your talking out of your arse here with regards Engineering. A Structural Engineer, for instance, is absolutely vital to the construction of buildings, especially large ones. And likewise, a Surveyor plays an important part in the construction of a building....and as anyone who is even remotely familiar with the role of a Surveyor knows, they do do "manual" labour, though whether it is "intensive" is a pretty subjective point. I mean, how do you measure "intensive"? Buckets of sweat per hour?

I am not talking here of the importance of roles every person involved in a construction work has, but rather I am merely pointing out what kind of labor they do.


This "strictly speaking" category you&#39;ve added, has nothing to do with orthodox Marxist class analysis. Regardless of what you mean by the term "collective" in this context, it has never been a requirement that someone produce commodities in an "industrial/collective" context in order for them to be defined as working class.

I don&#39;t know where you are getting your ideas of what is the working class is, but obviously, you are confused. The historical development of society shows that the proletarians are the product of the industrialization of society. There was no proletariat during feudal times. The proletariat emerged only in the capitalist society, so therefore, they should be in an industrial/collective set up of production.

Okay, I ask you then is a peasant proletariat?

[kurt]

A commodity is something a man produces to be exchanged with another commodity. Therefore "education", "services", "managing" and the likes are not commodities. They cannot be exchanged into another commodity. A worker produces material things that has use-values and can be exchanged into another thing, and that is called a commodity. So education is not something a teacher produces by himself/herself. He/she cannot create education to be given to students, which in turn the students cannot exchange into another thing.

Surely when you say "man", you mean person, right? Women can produce things too you know.

And yes, a service such as education is a commodity. It is something that "useful", it&#39;s a use-value. It becomes a commodity when the teacher exchanges their labour-power (also a commodity) to the state (or private school owner) for a wage. This service (a commodity) is then exchanged to the student, in exchange for money.

And no, the quote was not pulled "out of context". I pulled it directly from the MIA glossary, which quotes what I posted, and then proceeds to state : "As these paragraphs makes clear, for Marx, products of labour may be either goods or services, but in the way Marx understands the term, remain commodities provided only that they are produced for the purpose of exchange."


The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Notice how he is only speaking of a tangible commodity when he mentions that "so far as it is a material thing"? Of course corn is a use-value only "so far as it is a material thing". This quote does nothing to say that a commodity must be something tangible.

But seriously, I&#39;m not suprised you didn&#39;t understand this quote; you clearly lack basic english comprehension, and this is demonstrated by your poor grammar in every single post you make.




Services are a commodity.

:huh:
Yeah :(

Originally posted by "Marxist Internet Archive"
As these paragraphs makes clear, for Marx, products of labour may be either goods or services, but in the way Marx understands the term, remain commodities provided only that they are produced for the purpose of exchange.

I&#39;ll stop quoting Marx directly. I suspect his writing is far too difficult for you to comprehend.


See what I mean? You can&#39;t even know the different types of bourgeoisie. This validates my claim that your class analysis is distorted. Compradors are not foreign bourgeois, they are the ruling bourgeoisie in a certain country, and they are the puppets of the Imperialists.

Um, I was "assuming" that "comprador" meant foreign bourgeois. I don&#39;t speak spanish, or whatever language that happens to be. Next time say "native bourgeois", or something in well... english.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)A truck driver is in fact a semi-proletarian....[/b]

Uh, "semi-proletarian"??? :huh:

So, from the waist up, s/he is what? Maybe "semi-petty-bourgeois"? :blink:

You&#39;ve used the terms working class and proletarian interchangeably, so I don&#39;t think you are arguing the position where those involved in the direct production of material commodities are classed as proletarians; where as other wage-labourers are classed as working class. Which, frankly, makes the "semi-proletarian" truck driver an even more curious phenomena. After all, based on your posts so far, I&#39;d imagine that you would class a truck driver as petty-bourgeois....if you were being consistent that is. I mean, they don&#39;t produce a material commodity and, possibly, one could term driving as (mostly) "mental" labour.

But see, if you were consistent, your analysis would produce obviously stupid results. And, therefore, there must be something wrong in your analysis....namely your emphasis on the production of material commodities. You see, capitalism was a different "beast" back in Charlie&#39;s day, which perhaps excuses his emphasis on material commodities....but in 2006, it is pretty clear to most people that service workers produce a commodity in the Marxist sense of the word. And, personally, I don&#39;t think Charlie would have objected to such an analysis....indeed he would have likely pointed out that whilst the labour of worker X doesn&#39;t necessarily produce an object, their labour would have added value to the (already made) product. And that, from out perspective, is all that matters.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)And so is a cook, a waiter, a sales teller of a department store, a service crew, etc.[/b]

Well, I don&#39;t see how any of the above could be classified as "semi-(industrial) proletarian"....as none of them work in an "industrial" context. But, you see, you&#39;ve added an irrelevant, in this context, category to this; the category of "industrial".

We&#39;re not discussing the specific sub-sections of the proletariat, rather, we&#39;re talking about the proletariat....as a whole. And, with regards this discussion, the "industrial" part is meaningless. What matters is that your hypothetical cook doesn&#39;t own capital, sells his/her labour, produces a commodity and has surplus value extracted by his boss(es)....therefore, making him/her a proletarian.

Your mythical class of "semi-proletarian", is no more relevant to this discussion than the lump on my cock. After all, what makes someone "semi-proletarian"? That is, what is it that makes people who are "semi-proletarian" distinct from the other social and economic classes? And, furthermore, where did the old man discuss this "semi-proletarian" class of yours?

Your on the ropes now....and your eye is cut. I mean, your analysis is becoming so weak, that your inventing new classes to explain anomalies. I mean, we know how you love this who work in "industry", so what class would you say the person who cleans blast furnaces is? They don&#39;t produce a material commodity....they just clean shit. Which, if you&#39;re being consistent, would make them "semi-proletarian"(?). Yet, what would make said person "semi-proletarian" whilst the teacher is petty-bourgeois? Or would you say the kid who cleans the furnaces is petty-bourgeois? :blink:


Originally posted by red_che
But the petty-bourgeois is a different class in the sense that it is not involved in the same manner of production as the proletariat are.

No, once again, it&#39;s not the "manner" in which they produce that defines their class, it&#39;s their relationship to the means of production. As has been shown, you don&#39;t even understand the "manner" in which they produce....so I don&#39;t think that can form the foundation of your theoretical position.


Originally posted by red_che
....but generally, what separates them from the proletariat is their non-involvement in the production of a commodity like what I have already described above.

Well, then respond to my examples from the Construction Industry about tradesmen who are involved in both "manual" labour but are also petty-bourgeois.

Your just evading the issues now, like you did above with regards kurt&#39;s example.


Originally posted by red_che
If you continue to assert that anyone who sells labor is proletarian....

I&#39;m "asserting" no such thing. I&#39;ve merely said that the sale of labour is a factor in the definition of a proletarian. You&#39;re setting up a strawman here, because I&#39;ve never said that wage-labour alone defines someone as proletarian....merely that wage-labour is a significant factor.

Indeed, if you look at my whole response to the question of "Engineers", you&#39;ll see that I further elaborated what constituted a proletarian. In fact, I even said what classifies petty-bourgeois in this context. So, please, respond to that and refrain from setting up strawmen.


Originally posted by red_che
It is his, as I will repeat, participation into the production, non-ownership of properties or means for production, and his share into the production.


Originally posted by Me; from my last post
A Building Services Engineer, for instance, will sell his/her labour power and produce a commodity of some form, often building plans. Furthermore, they have no capital to invest and they are wage-labourers. Which, all in all, makes said Engineer a member of the working class.

Now, respond to that. That is, given the real life example I provided, tell me how a Building Services Engineer is petty-bourgeois.


Originally posted by red_che
And I would like to emphasize that the proletariat is involved in the modern, industrial, collective production.

Could you clarify what you mean by "modern, industrial, collective production"? Because you&#39;re really going off on a tangent now....one that is leading us to some peculiar places.


Originally posted by red_che
Mental labor produces no material commodity.

So, if someone is working on AutoCad all day drawing up building plans ("mental" labour) and then they put said plans on a disk and their boss sells it to a client, that is not a "commodity"?

And if the difference between "mental" and "manual" labour is the production of a material commodity, then does a cleaner now do "mental" labour? See what I mean about peculiar places. <_<


Originally posted by red_che
And the proletariat does manual labor, while the managers, whom you described were the petty-bourgeois, does only mental labor.

No, again, your drastically simplifying matters here....and using stupid categories to boot. Rather than the distinction being one of "mental" and "manual" labour, the distinction is (from my last post) "Managers [....] are those who don&#39;t use their labour to produce, rather they use they labour to help administer capital in order to help further facilitate the smooth running of capitalism.

You see the difference between our approaches here? I&#39;m talking about the relationship one has to the means of production; where as you&#39;re babbling on about imaginary categories. I mean, now we&#39;ve established that, in your opinion, Sue the cleaner is a "mental" labourer, I don&#39;t think that the categories are of any use myself.


Originally posted by red_che
I am not talking here of the importance of roles every person involved in a construction work has, but rather I am merely pointing out what kind of labor they do.

And nor am I. I&#39;m pointing out that Structural Engineers and Surveyors produce both a commodity and do "manual" labour....though, as you&#39;ve pointed out, to you, those two terms mean the same thing. So, are you going to admit that you were talking out of your arse when you labelled "all" Engineers petty-bourgeois?


Originally posted by red_che
....but obviously, you are confused.

You&#39;ve failed to answer the majority of my last post, created strawmen and added absurd categories to salvage a destroyed analysis....and yet you call me "confused"&#33;? :o

I don&#39;t know whether to laugh....or laugh louder&#33; :lol:


[email protected]
The historical development of society shows that the proletarians are the product of the industrialization of society. There was no proletariat during feudal times.

And there was no Debenham&#39;s "during feudal times"....so the point is mute unless you are going to admit that Debenham&#39;s workers are indeed working class.


red_che
Okay, I ask you then is a peasant proletariat?

I answered the "Peasant question" in my last post....so I can&#39;t be arsed to answer it again.

[red_che]

kurt:


And yes, a service such as education is a commodity. It is something that "useful", it&#39;s a use-value. It becomes a commodity when the teacher exchanges their labour-power (also a commodity) to the state (or private school owner) for a wage. This service (a commodity) is then exchanged to the student, in exchange for money.

As you have said here, the teacher exhanges his/her labor-power for wage. If it is so, then it is his labor-power that is the commodity, not education.

And, education is not the product of the teacher, so how could it become a commodity?

From that quote I posted Marx said:


Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

So, is education something than can be used or consumed? Is it a "tangible" thing? Is it a product of the teacher? Does it have a material depository of exhange value.


I pulled it directly from the MIA glossary, which quotes what I posted, and then proceeds to state : "As these paragraphs makes clear, for Marx, products of labour may be either goods or services, but in the way Marx understands the term, remain commodities provided only that they are produced for the purpose of exchange."

You may pull it out from anything or anywhere, but still your analysis/understanding is wrong. Okay, I may admit I chose the wrong word "service" to describe education. However, you should have easily understood that teachers are not proletariat/workers because they do not produce material things that are to be exhanged into other commodities.


Notice how he is only speaking of a tangible commodity when he mentions that "so far as it is a material thing"? Of course corn is a use-value only "so far as it is a material thing". This quote does nothing to say that a commodity must be something tangible.

Because a commodity "is a material thing". Did he ever mention of any other else?

Okay here again is the quote:

"The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value."

From those emphasis, you should have an idea of what a commodity is, or its use-value.


I&#39;ll stop quoting Marx directly. I suspect his writing is far too difficult for you to comprehend

Better, becuase his words are too high-falutin for you to comprehend.


Um, I was "assuming" that "comprador" meant foreign bourgeois. I don&#39;t speak spanish, or whatever language that happens to be. Next time say "native bourgeois", or something in well... english.

I don&#39;t have to invent other words, besides, native bourgeois is different from a comprador-bourgeois.

Armchair:


You&#39;ve used the terms working class and proletarian interchangeably, so I don&#39;t think you are arguing the position where those involved in the direct production of material commodities are classed as proletarians; where as other wage-labourers are classed as working class.

Because proletarians and working class are one and the same. Not all wage-earners are working class. Because if it is so, then there are only two classes existing now, the bourgeoisis and the proletariat.


Which, frankly, makes the "semi-proletarian" truck driver an even more curious phenomena.

Yes, because I don&#39;t see things merely in black and white. There other situations or conditions which makes the analysis of classes even more complex. Such as the phenomena of the semi-proletarian class, which is a transitory class, and in some cases is a different class asides from the proletarian class.


But see, if you were consistent, your analysis would produce obviously stupid results. And, therefore, there must be something wrong in your analysis....namely your emphasis on the production of material commodities. You see, capitalism was a different "beast" back in Charlie&#39;s day, which perhaps excuses his emphasis on material commodities....but in 2006, it is pretty clear to most people that service workers produce a commodity in the Marxist sense of the word. And, personally, I don&#39;t think Charlie would have objected to such an analysis....indeed he would have likely pointed out that whilst the labour of worker X doesn&#39;t necessarily produce an object, their labour would have added value to the (already made) product. And that, from out perspective, is all that matters.

Yeah, okay. In this case are you saying that all the people involved in the entire production process workers? Let&#39;s say in a cloth factory. In my understanding, the people who are called workers or belong to the working class were those sewing the clothes, or producing the fabric, or whatever is that called. Their supervisors, obviously, are not workers and they belong to the petty-bourgeois class. Even if these managers and supervisors are selling their labor by supervising or managing the production process, they are not involved in the production itself. And that, in my perspective, is the matter that doesn&#39;t make all wage-earners proletariat.


Well, I don&#39;t see how any of the above could be classified as "semi-(industrial) proletarian"....as none of them work in an "industrial" context. But, you see, you&#39;ve added an irrelevant, in this context, category to this; the category of "industrial".

We&#39;re not discussing the specific sub-sections of the proletariat, rather, we&#39;re talking about the proletariat....as a whole. And, with regards this discussion, the "industrial" part is meaningless. What matters is that your hypothetical cook doesn&#39;t own capital, sells his/her labour, produces a commodity and has surplus value extracted by his boss(es)....therefore, making him/her a proletarian.

Your mythical class of "semi-proletarian", is no more relevant to this discussion than the lump on my cock. After all, what makes someone "semi-proletarian"? That is, what is it that makes people who are "semi-proletarian" distinct from the other social and economic classes? And, furthermore, where did the old man discuss this "semi-proletarian" class of yours?

Your on the ropes now....and your eye is cut. I mean, your analysis is becoming so weak, that your inventing new classes to explain anomalies. I mean, we know how you love this who work in "industry", so what class would you say the person who cleans blast furnaces is? They don&#39;t produce a material commodity....they just clean shit. Which, if you&#39;re being consistent, would make them "semi-proletarian"(?). Yet, what would make said person "semi-proletarian" whilst the teacher is petty-bourgeois? Or would you say the kid who cleans the furnaces is petty-bourgeois?

As I have said above, there are conditions which should not make us see things in black and white only. Or maybe that we live in different countries that&#39;s why you don&#39;t know what I am talking here. But even so, in most if not all countries, there are these semi-proletarians.

I just wonder why you don&#39;t know it. Or that your view is so much restricted by your analysis that all wage-earners are proletariat and the only other class is bourgeois, that&#39;s why you cannot distinguish people into classes.


No, once again, it&#39;s not the "manner" in which they produce that defines their class, it&#39;s their relationship to the means of production. As has been shown, you don&#39;t even understand the "manner" in which they produce....so I don&#39;t think that can form the foundation of your theoretical position.

So, in this sense, you say that a petty-bourgeois is no different from a proletariat? Well, why not explain? As you say, it is their relationship to the means of production that define their class. Then why don&#39;t you explain? In my understanding, it is not only their relationship to the means of production, but also their participation in the production itself that defines their class.


I&#39;m "asserting" no such thing. I&#39;ve merely said that the sale of labour is a factor in the definition of a proletarian. You&#39;re setting up a strawman here, because I&#39;ve never said that wage-labour alone defines someone as proletarian....merely that wage-labour is a significant factor.

Indeed, if you look at my whole response to the question of "Engineers", you&#39;ll see that I further elaborated what constituted a proletarian. In fact, I even said what classifies petty-bourgeois in this context. So, please, respond to that and refrain from setting up strawmen....

...Now, respond to that. That is, given the real life example I provided, tell me how a Building Services Engineer is petty-bourgeois.

That example of yours is basically absurd. Yes, he produces something, you said a building plan. But that doesn&#39;t classify him a proletariat. He is petty-bourgeois even in that sense. Because what he produces is not the product which the capitalist really wanted. It helps only to give a picture of what the end-product the capitalist really wanted. But that end-product, let&#39;s say a building, is what the workers do, not the engineer.


Could you clarify what you mean by "modern, industrial, collective production"? Because you&#39;re really going off on a tangent now....one that is leading us to some peculiar places.

I was showing here the difference of the proletariat from the peasantry. The proletariat is an industrial, modern, collective class, while peasants are not. And in most places today, peasants still work in backward, agrarian, small production, that is, feudal.


So, if someone is working on AutoCad all day drawing up building plans ("mental" labour) and then they put said plans on a disk and their boss sells it to a client, that is not a "commodity"?

Sorry, my mistake again. A slip-of-the-tounge, or in this case a slip-of-the-keyboard... :blush:

Well, what I mean here is that mental labor produces support services or commodities but not the final product itself. Such as your example of engineers, what he produced is a plan, which is a product in itself, but not the end-product, which is the building.


No, again, your drastically simplifying matters here....and using stupid categories to boot. Rather than the distinction being one of "mental" and "manual" labour, the distinction is (from my last post) "Managers [....] are those who don&#39;t use their labour to produce, rather they use they labour to help administer capital in order to help further facilitate the smooth running of capitalism.

You see the difference between our approaches here? I&#39;m talking about the relationship one has to the means of production; where as you&#39;re babbling on about imaginary categories. I mean, now we&#39;ve established that, in your opinion, Sue the cleaner is a "mental" labourer, I don&#39;t think that the categories are of any use myself.

I see what you mean here, but I have already described this above, in the example of the factory.


You&#39;ve failed to answer the majority of my last post

I was in a hurry, sorry then if I missed to answer most of your post.

[Severian]

No, students aren&#39;t a class. They&#39;re a very heterogenous social layer; students later become part of a range of different classes.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by red_che in response to kurt+--> (red_che in response to kurt)And, education is not the product of the teacher, so how could it become a commodity?[/b]

In what sense isn&#39;t education a "product of the teacher"? If we use Private Schools, just to makes things simpler, a Parent pays to send their children there, in return for said payment, they receive something....education. That makes education, in this context, most certainly a commodity and it is the teacher that produces said product. After all, who else is going to "produce" said product? The cleaners? :lol:

Additionally, if you want something in a material form to denote said commodity, then one would simply have to refer to the material object one receives after the successful finishing of their School career. In other words, the piece of paper which has a Students qualification, becomes the commodity the parents have produced. And that&#39;s why parents pay more to send their children to attend certain Academic facilities....because the labour of the teacher that goes into the production of said qualification, is worth more. I mean, a kid who graduates from Oxford is going to have his/her pick of jobs....when you graduate from Swansea University the case is not quite the same. <_<


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Not all wage-earners are working class. Because if it is so, then there are only two classes existing now, the bourgeoisis and the proletariat.[/b]

Undeniably. But, still, even if it were the case that "all wage-earners are working class", there would still be a significant petty-bourgeois....namely those that own small capital. Yet, you seem totally unaware of this phenomena, despite myself and kurt repeatedly mentioning it. And this, to be honest, baffles me.


Originally posted by red_che
Yes, because I don&#39;t see things merely in black and white.

We are talking about objective classes here....that&#39;s as "black and white" as it gets. Please, for all our sakes, stop tainting objective class analysis with post-modernist nonsense.


Originally posted by red_che
Such as the phenomena of the semi-proletarian class....

....which you&#39;ve made up.

However, I&#39;m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and, therefore, I&#39;m interested in your answers to the following questions:

1) What is the difference between a "semi-proletarian" and a proletarian?

2) What is the difference between the "semi-proletariat" and the petty-bourgeois?

3) How is a teacher petty-bourgeois where as a truck driver is "semi-proletarian"?

If, as you say, "[the "semi-proletarian" class is] in some cases [....] a different class asides from the proletarian class", I want to know what the distinct features of this class are....and, furthermore, what is so distinct about these features that makes the members of this new class different from those of the petty-bourgeois and the proletariat.


Originally posted by red_che
In this case are you saying that all the people involved in the entire production process workers?

No.


Originally posted by red_che
And that, in my perspective, is the matter that doesn&#39;t make all wage-earners proletariat.

I doesn&#39;t make them workers in my perspective either. But, you see, there&#39;s a significant difference between a teacher and a Manager, as I&#39;ve pointed out....and it is that difference, that means that they have different classes.

What seems rather evident from your posts, is somewhat of a misconception of what actually happens in work places. That, for instance, you confuse Tesco&#39;s workers with Management, is, frankly, quite bizarre....and, personally, I&#39;d wager that you haven&#39;t actually entered the workforce yet, which perhaps explains your misconceptions with regards the differences between Management and workers.


Originally posted by red_che
Or that your view is so much restricted by your analysis that all wage-earners are proletariat and the only other class is bourgeois, that&#39;s why you cannot distinguish people into classes.

Honestly, if your going to keep "debating" like this, I&#39;m not going to bother responding. I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a petty-bourgeois, how they differ from the working class and I have never said that "all wage-earners are proletariat" or that "the only other class is bourgeois". It&#39;s not my "restriction" that makes my analysis seem poor in your eyes, it&#39;s your ignorance about the nature of the modern workplace and various jobs.


Originally posted by red_che
So, in this sense, you say that a petty-bourgeois is no different from a proletariat?

In terms of production? Depends. That is, some members of the petty-bourgeois directly produce commodities, but as I have explained in previous posts, it is their relationship to the means of production, that is that they own said means of production, that differentiates them from the petty-bourgeois. Additionally, I&#39;ve also already outlined the characteristics of those who don&#39;t directly produce that are classified as members of the petty-bourgeois. I have no desire to repeat my arguments, so you can just read my previous posts for the answers....but, honestly, that you keep asking questions that I&#39;ve already answered and that you persist in creating strawmen, is especially annoying.


Originally posted by red_che
In my understanding, it is not only their relationship to the means of production, but also their participation in the production itself that defines their class.

Well, your "understanding" is wrong. As kurt and I have shown with numerous practical examples, it is possible for someone to be both petty-bourgeois and directly participate in the production of commodities. Which is why your emphasis on this is, essentially, a flawed approach.


Originally posted by red_che
He is petty-bourgeois even in that sense.

Oh, do explain.

After all, previously in this discussion, you have flat out denied that members of the petty-bourgeois can produce anything. Yet, now, once you&#39;ve been disproven, you resort to another line of argument by calling said production "petty-bourgeois". Quite why you are calling commodity production by a wage-labourer who owns no capital "petty-bourgeois", baffles me.

And the example is not "basically absurd"; unless you consider real world examples "basically absurd"???


Originally posted by red_che
Because what he produces is not the product which the capitalist really wanted.

And how is it that you know the subjective desires of a capitalist?

The Engineer produces the commodity, the capitalist purchases the commodity from the Engineers boss and, therefore, the process that defines capitalism is taking place. Whether the capitalist "really" wanted the product, or whether he "moderately" wanted the product, is of no consequence here.


Originally posted by red_che
It helps only to give a picture of what the end-product the capitalist really wanted. But that end-product, let&#39;s say a building, is what the workers do, not the engineer.

Oh dear. I mean, "give[s] a picture"?&#33; :blink:

You really don&#39;t have a clue what Structural plans represent do you? They don&#39;t just "give a picture". Rather, they specify the exact things that need to be done in order to construct a livable dwelling. And, on larger projects especially, without said plans, there could be no building....which makes the Structural Engineer an intricate part of the production process. Which makes the "end-product", as much a product of the labour of the Engineering team as of the various Tradesmen and Labourers.


[email protected]
I was showing here the difference of the proletariat from the peasantry.

Yeah, but I want to know what you mean when you use the phrase "modern, industrial, collective production". That is, in this context, what do the words "modern", "industrial" and "collective" mean???


red_che
Well, what I mean here is that mental labor produces support services or commodities but not the final product itself. Such as your example of engineers, what he produced is a plan, which is a product in itself, but not the end-product, which is the building.

Again, you&#39;re talking out of your arse. A Scaffolder doesn&#39;t, in any sense of the word, produce an "end-product", yet you wouldn&#39;t classify a Scaffolder working for a Construction company as petty-bourgeois or "semi-proletarian", or would you? Likewise, many different people working in the Construction Industry will not produce an "end-product", they&#39;ll just produce a part of the "end-product"....as is the case in various Industries. Yet you wouldn&#39;t classify these people as "semi-proletarian" or petty-bourgeois, would you?

Essentially, if you did, you would be virtually denying the existence of a working class. Because, despite your misconceptions, most workers don&#39;t produce an "end-product", they produce a part of it. Heck, you used the example of a clothes factory earlier, so I&#39;ll use it now. Now, most people who work in clothes factory, work on piece-work....that is, they make a part of the garment and not the garment itself. So, under your definition, there is not a single worker in your average clothes factory. Truly bizarre.

And, by the way, they don&#39;t "produce the fabric" in a clothes factory, that is ordered in from somewhere else. In a clothes factory, they simply produce garments.

[kurt]

As you have said here, the teacher exhanges his/her labor-power for wage. If it is so, then it is his labor-power that is the commodity, not education.

... labour-power is a commodity, yes. This commodity (labour-power) is exchanged for a wage... yes. Did you not know that this happens for every proletariat as well? Why would a capitalist pay the worker a wage if he/she was not making another commodity? The commodity teachers create is education.


And, education is not the product of the teacher, so how could it become a commodity?

If education is the "the product of the teacher", then who&#39;s producing it? Education is a commodity.



So, is education something than can be used or consumed? Is it a "tangible" thing? Is it a product of the teacher? Does it have a material depository of exhange value.

You can&#39;t read... I have nothing more to say on this matter.


You may pull it out from anything or anywhere, but still your analysis/understanding is wrong. Okay, I may admit I chose the wrong word "service" to describe education. However, you should have easily understood that teachers are not proletariat/workers because they do not produce material things that are to be exhanged into other commodities.

Services are commodities. I have no further use in arguing this, so you can read the marxist encyclopedia for yourself.

Originally posted by "MIA"
Firstly, both goods and services are commodities, i.e., meeting someone else’s need to earn a living. In general, the kind of labour may be the same; what differs is the manner in which the exchange is effected.


Better, becuase his words are too high-falutin for you to comprehend.

Nice dodge, but I&#39;m not the one who has trouble with rudimentary english.

Really, there&#39;s not much left to say to you. If your analysis was correct (which it isn&#39;t), then the petty-bourgeois is massive, and proletarian revolution would be a minority act.

After all, waiters, half of all mcdonalds&#39; employees, mechanics, nurses, maids, ad nauseum are all petty-bourgeois :lol:

[red_che]

I&#39;m sorry for this late reply.

Armchair Socialism:

It seems that the issues we are in disagreement are the concept and difference of classes and the issue of commodity.

Okay, I will address these in summations, not on a quote-by-quote response.

First, on the issue of class.

Classes are distinguished according to a) participation in the production, b) ownership of tools or relations in the means of production and c) share in the products ("share of the pie"). People are classified into classes according to this. It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor. Because if that is the case, it will be a very narrow and vague determination. It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.

People are divided into classes by determining a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?, b) do they own tools for production? were their ownership of properties that relevant or big?, and c) how much of their income was derived from labor and how much was derived from using other&#39;s labor?

In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc. The proletarian produces the product, the commodity that which the capitalist sells into the market and was engaged in industrial, modern, large-scale production. The proletarian doesn&#39;t own any property/tools for production except only his labor-power, and that he/she produces surplus value which is the profit for the capitalist while receiving less than what he/she actually produced. A peasant, on the other hand, is not involved in industrial production, but rather is involved in agricultural/agrarian production, being enslaved into feudal relations, works on a small-scale production.

In this description, one can also distinguish very well the difference of a proletariat with that of a petty-bourgeois. A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process. On that example you gave regarding an engineer in the construction thing, we can now discern what that engineer does, he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct. And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

On commodity:

Marx, in Part 1 of his Critique of Political Economy states:


Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.


To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is ““any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,”” an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity.


A commodity as a use-value has an eminently material function. Wheat for example is used as food. A machine replaces a certain amount of labour. This function, by virtue of which a commodity is a use-value, an article of consumption, may be called its service, the service it renders as a use-value. But the commodity as an exchange-value is always considered solely from the standpoint of the result. What matters is not the service it renders, but the service rendered to it in the course of its production. Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.


The exchange-value of one commodity thus manifests itself in the use-values of other commodities.

From these statements, I cannot understand how education becomes a commodity. It cannot be exchanged into other commodites. After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces. Therefore, all of your arguments saying education is a commodity is totally absurd.


1) What is the difference between a "semi-proletarian" and a proletarian?

2) What is the difference between the "semi-proletariat" and the petty-bourgeois?

3) How is a teacher petty-bourgeois where as a truck driver is "semi-proletarian"?

The semi-proletarian class is basically a class-in-transition. However, in the third world countries, it is becoming a permanent class. For example, a truck driver&#39;s son in a third world country is more likely to inherit the same occupation due to massive unemployment and underemployment. How does it differ to the proletarian? It is stated above, they mostly do not produce commodities but rather render some service in the production and distribution of commodities. How does it differ with the petty-bourgeois? They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian. Of course, that is a general description, particularities differ in every situation, such as the operator of a small trucking company, even if he drives himself a truck, he is still to be considered a petty-bourgeois because he earns more and profits from the labor of his other drivers.

[red_che]

I&#39;m sorry for this late reply.

Armchair Socialism:

It seems that the issues we are in disagreement are the concept and difference of classes and the issue of commodity.

Okay, I will address these in summations, not on a quote-by-quote response.

First, on the issue of class.

Classes are distinguished according to a) participation in the production, b) ownership of tools or relations in the means of production and c) share in the products ("share of the pie"). People are classified into classes according to this. It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor. Because if that is the case, it will be a very narrow and vague determination. It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.

People are divided into classes by determining a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?, b) do they own tools for production? were their ownership of properties that relevant or big?, and c) how much of their income was derived from labor and how much was derived from using other&#39;s labor?

In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc. The proletarian produces the product, the commodity that which the capitalist sells into the market and was engaged in industrial, modern, large-scale production. The proletarian doesn&#39;t own any property/tools for production except only his labor-power, and that he/she produces surplus value which is the profit for the capitalist while receiving less than what he/she actually produced. A peasant, on the other hand, is not involved in industrial production, but rather is involved in agricultural/agrarian production, being enslaved into feudal relations, works on a small-scale production.

In this description, one can also distinguish very well the difference of a proletariat with that of a petty-bourgeois. A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process. On that example you gave regarding an engineer in the construction thing, we can now discern what that engineer does, he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct. And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

On commodity:

Marx, in Part 1 of his Critique of Political Economy states:


Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.


To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is ““any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,”” an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity.


A commodity as a use-value has an eminently material function. Wheat for example is used as food. A machine replaces a certain amount of labour. This function, by virtue of which a commodity is a use-value, an article of consumption, may be called its service, the service it renders as a use-value. But the commodity as an exchange-value is always considered solely from the standpoint of the result. What matters is not the service it renders, but the service rendered to it in the course of its production. Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.


The exchange-value of one commodity thus manifests itself in the use-values of other commodities.

From these statements, I cannot understand how education becomes a commodity. It cannot be exchanged into other commodites. After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces. Therefore, all of your arguments saying education is a commodity is totally absurd.


1) What is the difference between a "semi-proletarian" and a proletarian?

2) What is the difference between the "semi-proletariat" and the petty-bourgeois?

3) How is a teacher petty-bourgeois where as a truck driver is "semi-proletarian"?

The semi-proletarian class is basically a class-in-transition. However, in the third world countries, it is becoming a permanent class. For example, a truck driver&#39;s son in a third world country is more likely to inherit the same occupation due to massive unemployment and underemployment. How does it differ to the proletarian? It is stated above, they mostly do not produce commodities but rather render some service in the production and distribution of commodities. How does it differ with the petty-bourgeois? They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian. Of course, that is a general description, particularities differ in every situation, such as the operator of a small trucking company, even if he drives himself a truck, he is still to be considered a petty-bourgeois because he earns more and profits from the labor of his other drivers.

[red_che]

I&#39;m sorry for this late reply.

Armchair Socialism:

It seems that the issues we are in disagreement are the concept and difference of classes and the issue of commodity.

Okay, I will address these in summations, not on a quote-by-quote response.

First, on the issue of class.

Classes are distinguished according to a) participation in the production, b) ownership of tools or relations in the means of production and c) share in the products ("share of the pie"). People are classified into classes according to this. It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor. Because if that is the case, it will be a very narrow and vague determination. It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.

People are divided into classes by determining a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?, b) do they own tools for production? were their ownership of properties that relevant or big?, and c) how much of their income was derived from labor and how much was derived from using other&#39;s labor?

In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc. The proletarian produces the product, the commodity that which the capitalist sells into the market and was engaged in industrial, modern, large-scale production. The proletarian doesn&#39;t own any property/tools for production except only his labor-power, and that he/she produces surplus value which is the profit for the capitalist while receiving less than what he/she actually produced. A peasant, on the other hand, is not involved in industrial production, but rather is involved in agricultural/agrarian production, being enslaved into feudal relations, works on a small-scale production.

In this description, one can also distinguish very well the difference of a proletariat with that of a petty-bourgeois. A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process. On that example you gave regarding an engineer in the construction thing, we can now discern what that engineer does, he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct. And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

On commodity:

Marx, in Part 1 of his Critique of Political Economy states:


Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.


To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is ““any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,”” an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity.


A commodity as a use-value has an eminently material function. Wheat for example is used as food. A machine replaces a certain amount of labour. This function, by virtue of which a commodity is a use-value, an article of consumption, may be called its service, the service it renders as a use-value. But the commodity as an exchange-value is always considered solely from the standpoint of the result. What matters is not the service it renders, but the service rendered to it in the course of its production. Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.


The exchange-value of one commodity thus manifests itself in the use-values of other commodities.

From these statements, I cannot understand how education becomes a commodity. It cannot be exchanged into other commodites. After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces. Therefore, all of your arguments saying education is a commodity is totally absurd.


1) What is the difference between a "semi-proletarian" and a proletarian?

2) What is the difference between the "semi-proletariat" and the petty-bourgeois?

3) How is a teacher petty-bourgeois where as a truck driver is "semi-proletarian"?

The semi-proletarian class is basically a class-in-transition. However, in the third world countries, it is becoming a permanent class. For example, a truck driver&#39;s son in a third world country is more likely to inherit the same occupation due to massive unemployment and underemployment. How does it differ to the proletarian? It is stated above, they mostly do not produce commodities but rather render some service in the production and distribution of commodities. How does it differ with the petty-bourgeois? They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian. Of course, that is a general description, particularities differ in every situation, such as the operator of a small trucking company, even if he drives himself a truck, he is still to be considered a petty-bourgeois because he earns more and profits from the labor of his other drivers.

[KC]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm)

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

[KC]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm)

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

[KC]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm)

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I see nothing that Fist Of Blood said that points to a lack of sanity. What purpose does it serve to wantonly insult someone without so much a a scrap of constructive argument?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I see nothing that Fist Of Blood said that points to a lack of sanity. What purpose does it serve to wantonly insult someone without so much a a scrap of constructive argument?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I see nothing that Fist Of Blood said that points to a lack of sanity. What purpose does it serve to wantonly insult someone without so much a a scrap of constructive argument?

-Alex

[Guest1]

To humiliate bad ideas and bad analysis, and hopefully motivate people into rethinking them without us having to respond to every kind of bad idea in detail.

I&#39;m kidding though, I&#39;ll jump into this thread when I have more sleep and actually offer an analysis.

[Guest1]

To humiliate bad ideas and bad analysis, and hopefully motivate people into rethinking them without us having to respond to every kind of bad idea in detail.

I&#39;m kidding though, I&#39;ll jump into this thread when I have more sleep and actually offer an analysis.

[Guest1]

To humiliate bad ideas and bad analysis, and hopefully motivate people into rethinking them without us having to respond to every kind of bad idea in detail.

I&#39;m kidding though, I&#39;ll jump into this thread when I have more sleep and actually offer an analysis.

[Floyce White]

I thought it was funnier when Red Che said he just couldn&#39;t understand.

[Floyce White]

I thought it was funnier when Red Che said he just couldn&#39;t understand.

[Floyce White]

I thought it was funnier when Red Che said he just couldn&#39;t understand.

[red_che]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

Yes, it is a commodity because it can be sold/exhanged for wage.

But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

[red_che]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

Yes, it is a commodity because it can be sold/exhanged for wage.

But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

[red_che]

"Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist."
-Marx, Wage Labour & Capital

Labour Power isn&#39;t a material thing, yet it is a commodity.

Yes, it is a commodity because it can be sold/exhanged for wage.

But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

[KC]

The teacher is selling their teaching ability for a wage. Teaching is a form of labour power and therefore a commodity.



But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

The students&#39; parents pay the school for education of their children. The teacher sells their labour power to the owner of the school (I&#39;m using a private school as an easy example) for a wage. The teacher educates the children. The teacher has "produced" a commodity - education - which the school owner profits on by extracting surplus value from the teacher (where the amount the parents paid is greater than the wage of the teacher). Education was produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else (in this case, money); this is exactly what a commodity is. Here is the definition of a commodity as given by marxists.org:


A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else, and as such, is the material form given to a fundamental social relation — the exchange of labour.

As you can see, to be a commodity the product must be produced for exchange for something else. In this case, education was produced for exchange for money.

[KC]

The teacher is selling their teaching ability for a wage. Teaching is a form of labour power and therefore a commodity.



But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

The students&#39; parents pay the school for education of their children. The teacher sells their labour power to the owner of the school (I&#39;m using a private school as an easy example) for a wage. The teacher educates the children. The teacher has "produced" a commodity - education - which the school owner profits on by extracting surplus value from the teacher (where the amount the parents paid is greater than the wage of the teacher). Education was produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else (in this case, money); this is exactly what a commodity is. Here is the definition of a commodity as given by marxists.org:


A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else, and as such, is the material form given to a fundamental social relation — the exchange of labour.

As you can see, to be a commodity the product must be produced for exchange for something else. In this case, education was produced for exchange for money.

[KC]

The teacher is selling their teaching ability for a wage. Teaching is a form of labour power and therefore a commodity.



But education? Can the student sell his/her education?

The students&#39; parents pay the school for education of their children. The teacher sells their labour power to the owner of the school (I&#39;m using a private school as an easy example) for a wage. The teacher educates the children. The teacher has "produced" a commodity - education - which the school owner profits on by extracting surplus value from the teacher (where the amount the parents paid is greater than the wage of the teacher). Education was produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else (in this case, money); this is exactly what a commodity is. Here is the definition of a commodity as given by marxists.org:


A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else, and as such, is the material form given to a fundamental social relation — the exchange of labour.

As you can see, to be a commodity the product must be produced for exchange for something else. In this case, education was produced for exchange for money.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Dude, you just gotta&#39; bang your head harder....cause it&#39;s not bleeding yet&#33;


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor.[/b]

Indeed. But, you see, I have not said that it is "only the relations in the means of production"....just that you continue to ignore said relations and focus, excessively, on physical production itself. As is the case, for instance, with regards you [mis]characterisation of the specific work of those included within the limits of the petty-bourgeois.

And, you see, category a, participation in the production, is, from the perspective of this debate, totally and utterly irrelevant. For the simple reason that for someone to even be put in a social class, they must, in some form, "participate in .... production". So that category can be left out....though as brief as they are, ones class could be determined from the other factors. But, essentially, a somewhat longer list would be preferable....one which took into account a few other factors.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.[/b]

No, it wouldn&#39;t. Granted, I understand that you are not willing to read my previous refutations of your statements, so I&#39;ll explain to you, once again, that even if someone decided to define class by such a narrow criteria, then there would still be a petty-bourgeois.

For starters, if one wanted to define solely by relationship to the means of production, then Managers would undeniably be a different class to wage-labourers. That is, because their relationship to said means of production, would be different to the relationship of a proletarian. Do you understand that? That Managers are there to facilitate the smooth running of capital rather than the expansion of capital and, therefore, they have a different relationship to the means of production.

I don&#39;t know whether you&#39;ve worked yet, I suspect not, but as anyone who has worked, even for a short period of time, will be able to tell you, there is a noticeable difference between the way a Manager operates and the way everyone else operates. And that difference, relates to differing relationships to the means of production.


Originally posted by red_che
a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?

Once again, a poor criteria if one is seeking an objective definition. Because, as I pointed out previously, your distinction between "mental" and "manual" labour leads to a cleaner being a "mental" labourer....and, therefore, petty-bourgeois. And, also, as kurt and I have shown, members of the petty-bourgeois do, in some cases, "participate in .... production" in a way you&#39;ve solely defined as proletarian.

Had you engaged either myself or kurt on these points, then I suspect you would have found that your arguments fail to hold weight. However, given your preference to just continually assert rubbish and perpetually erect strawmen, I really don&#39;t know what will get the point across to you. Perhaps you should read this thread again and see just how your arguments have been responded too?


Originally posted by red_che
In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc.

Well the Peasants and "semi-proletarians" don&#39;t really interest me....mainly because there ain&#39;t a lot of them around here. However, as for separating the proletariat from the other classes, I find little wrong with your criteria....bar its brief nature. Indeed, what, in my opinion, lets you down, is both your failure to put that criteria into practice and your confusion about the nature of the petty-bourgeois.

You see, from the perspective of Marxist theory, whether someone produces a "visible commodity" or not, that their employer extracts surplus value from their labour, indicates that the social relation involved is one of capitalist and worker. And this is why teachers, cleaners and so on, are working class.

Now, if you retort that that would only leave two classes, bourgeois and proletariat, then I&#39;m going to jump through the screen and hit you. Because, as I&#39;ve explained, both the owners of small capital and those involved in Management don&#39;t meet the criteria....making these people, therefore, petty-bourgeois.


Originally posted by red_che
A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process.

Once again, look at the refutations given in this thread of this perspective. Many Plumbers, for instance, own a small business but still they are involved in the direct production of commodities. As is the case with many, if not most of the Trades.

Additionally, as I pointed out about, the "rendering" of a "service", is a somewhat dubious category. Because, essentially, in this day and age, many workers do "piecework"....and under your criteria, this would make them petty-bourgeois. Additionally, of course, one wonders what distinguishes a "service" from a legitimate addition to the production process. You, I think, don&#39;t consider a hot water system a "service", but you consider detailed plans a "service". This distinction, seems incredibly dubious to me....indeed, it seems to lack objective clarification. So, really, I&#39;d like to know what you would consider the distinction? And, remember, said distinction can&#39;t be a commodity, because you&#39;ve already said that building plans, a commodity, represent a "service".

To me, it seems as though you are trying to modify your analysis in order to shoehorn your previous statements into your grand schema. And that, I suspect, is why your analysis becomes less rigid and more mushy with every post....indicating, of course, that your analysis is wrong.


Originally posted by red_che
....he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct.

Uh, a chippy could be said to just "render some service" rather than "directly producing" said building. Doesn&#39;t mean that said chippy is petty-bourgeois.

Indeed, one wonders what it is about building plans that makes them not a commodity? Once again, I feel you&#39;re just trying to shoehorn the facts into the wrong categories....sort of like trying to put a circular object through a square hole on one of those kids games.


Originally posted by red_che
And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

Uh, I didn&#39;t say that all Engineers "supervise the construction". Some do and some don&#39;t....once again emphasising the broad nature of the field of Engineering. There are plenty of fields of Engineering that don&#39;t "supervise" shit....that is "supervise" in the Managerial sense. And, therefore, I really wish that you&#39;d refrain from making ignorant remarks until you actually understand something about this.


Originally posted by Marx
Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.

Me: Like building plans Charlie?

Charlie: Yeah, like building plans squire.


Originally posted by Marx
Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.

You see, if we use this quote when talking about students, then I think we start to get a clearer picture of the class nature of the teaching profession. If we think of said student as a "machine", then the eduction provided by the teacher represents the "labour-time expended in its production". So, a student with X qualification will be, essentially, something with Y amount of stored labour power and, therefore, a more efficient labourer.

And that&#39;s the thing, you see, like the hypothetical "machine", the hypothetical "student" has a certain amount of labour put into their development, which enables them to work more efficiently. Which makes the teachers labour and the commodity they produce, an important part in the production of the future workforce. Why else, after all, would the bourgeois continue to provide State Education if it weren&#39;t for the fact that it produces efficient workers?


[email protected]
After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces.

Indeed. But, one must remember that the better the qualification, the more the capitalist will pay. Which indicates that education, in and of itself, represents stored labour which is expressed by the former student during the production process.

That&#39;s why, for instance, a Degree from Oxford is more valuable than a Degree from Shithole Polytechnic....the labour power of the teachers in Oxford, is worth more.


red_che
They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian.

Bourgeois sociology beckons. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Dude, you just gotta&#39; bang your head harder....cause it&#39;s not bleeding yet&#33;


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor.[/b]

Indeed. But, you see, I have not said that it is "only the relations in the means of production"....just that you continue to ignore said relations and focus, excessively, on physical production itself. As is the case, for instance, with regards you [mis]characterisation of the specific work of those included within the limits of the petty-bourgeois.

And, you see, category a, participation in the production, is, from the perspective of this debate, totally and utterly irrelevant. For the simple reason that for someone to even be put in a social class, they must, in some form, "participate in .... production". So that category can be left out....though as brief as they are, ones class could be determined from the other factors. But, essentially, a somewhat longer list would be preferable....one which took into account a few other factors.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.[/b]

No, it wouldn&#39;t. Granted, I understand that you are not willing to read my previous refutations of your statements, so I&#39;ll explain to you, once again, that even if someone decided to define class by such a narrow criteria, then there would still be a petty-bourgeois.

For starters, if one wanted to define solely by relationship to the means of production, then Managers would undeniably be a different class to wage-labourers. That is, because their relationship to said means of production, would be different to the relationship of a proletarian. Do you understand that? That Managers are there to facilitate the smooth running of capital rather than the expansion of capital and, therefore, they have a different relationship to the means of production.

I don&#39;t know whether you&#39;ve worked yet, I suspect not, but as anyone who has worked, even for a short period of time, will be able to tell you, there is a noticeable difference between the way a Manager operates and the way everyone else operates. And that difference, relates to differing relationships to the means of production.


Originally posted by red_che
a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?

Once again, a poor criteria if one is seeking an objective definition. Because, as I pointed out previously, your distinction between "mental" and "manual" labour leads to a cleaner being a "mental" labourer....and, therefore, petty-bourgeois. And, also, as kurt and I have shown, members of the petty-bourgeois do, in some cases, "participate in .... production" in a way you&#39;ve solely defined as proletarian.

Had you engaged either myself or kurt on these points, then I suspect you would have found that your arguments fail to hold weight. However, given your preference to just continually assert rubbish and perpetually erect strawmen, I really don&#39;t know what will get the point across to you. Perhaps you should read this thread again and see just how your arguments have been responded too?


Originally posted by red_che
In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc.

Well the Peasants and "semi-proletarians" don&#39;t really interest me....mainly because there ain&#39;t a lot of them around here. However, as for separating the proletariat from the other classes, I find little wrong with your criteria....bar its brief nature. Indeed, what, in my opinion, lets you down, is both your failure to put that criteria into practice and your confusion about the nature of the petty-bourgeois.

You see, from the perspective of Marxist theory, whether someone produces a "visible commodity" or not, that their employer extracts surplus value from their labour, indicates that the social relation involved is one of capitalist and worker. And this is why teachers, cleaners and so on, are working class.

Now, if you retort that that would only leave two classes, bourgeois and proletariat, then I&#39;m going to jump through the screen and hit you. Because, as I&#39;ve explained, both the owners of small capital and those involved in Management don&#39;t meet the criteria....making these people, therefore, petty-bourgeois.


Originally posted by red_che
A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process.

Once again, look at the refutations given in this thread of this perspective. Many Plumbers, for instance, own a small business but still they are involved in the direct production of commodities. As is the case with many, if not most of the Trades.

Additionally, as I pointed out about, the "rendering" of a "service", is a somewhat dubious category. Because, essentially, in this day and age, many workers do "piecework"....and under your criteria, this would make them petty-bourgeois. Additionally, of course, one wonders what distinguishes a "service" from a legitimate addition to the production process. You, I think, don&#39;t consider a hot water system a "service", but you consider detailed plans a "service". This distinction, seems incredibly dubious to me....indeed, it seems to lack objective clarification. So, really, I&#39;d like to know what you would consider the distinction? And, remember, said distinction can&#39;t be a commodity, because you&#39;ve already said that building plans, a commodity, represent a "service".

To me, it seems as though you are trying to modify your analysis in order to shoehorn your previous statements into your grand schema. And that, I suspect, is why your analysis becomes less rigid and more mushy with every post....indicating, of course, that your analysis is wrong.


Originally posted by red_che
....he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct.

Uh, a chippy could be said to just "render some service" rather than "directly producing" said building. Doesn&#39;t mean that said chippy is petty-bourgeois.

Indeed, one wonders what it is about building plans that makes them not a commodity? Once again, I feel you&#39;re just trying to shoehorn the facts into the wrong categories....sort of like trying to put a circular object through a square hole on one of those kids games.


Originally posted by red_che
And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

Uh, I didn&#39;t say that all Engineers "supervise the construction". Some do and some don&#39;t....once again emphasising the broad nature of the field of Engineering. There are plenty of fields of Engineering that don&#39;t "supervise" shit....that is "supervise" in the Managerial sense. And, therefore, I really wish that you&#39;d refrain from making ignorant remarks until you actually understand something about this.


Originally posted by Marx
Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.

Me: Like building plans Charlie?

Charlie: Yeah, like building plans squire.


Originally posted by Marx
Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.

You see, if we use this quote when talking about students, then I think we start to get a clearer picture of the class nature of the teaching profession. If we think of said student as a "machine", then the eduction provided by the teacher represents the "labour-time expended in its production". So, a student with X qualification will be, essentially, something with Y amount of stored labour power and, therefore, a more efficient labourer.

And that&#39;s the thing, you see, like the hypothetical "machine", the hypothetical "student" has a certain amount of labour put into their development, which enables them to work more efficiently. Which makes the teachers labour and the commodity they produce, an important part in the production of the future workforce. Why else, after all, would the bourgeois continue to provide State Education if it weren&#39;t for the fact that it produces efficient workers?


[email protected]
After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces.

Indeed. But, one must remember that the better the qualification, the more the capitalist will pay. Which indicates that education, in and of itself, represents stored labour which is expressed by the former student during the production process.

That&#39;s why, for instance, a Degree from Oxford is more valuable than a Degree from Shithole Polytechnic....the labour power of the teachers in Oxford, is worth more.


red_che
They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian.

Bourgeois sociology beckons. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Dude, you just gotta&#39; bang your head harder....cause it&#39;s not bleeding yet&#33;


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It is not only the relations in the means of production that is the determining factor.[/b]

Indeed. But, you see, I have not said that it is "only the relations in the means of production"....just that you continue to ignore said relations and focus, excessively, on physical production itself. As is the case, for instance, with regards you [mis]characterisation of the specific work of those included within the limits of the petty-bourgeois.

And, you see, category a, participation in the production, is, from the perspective of this debate, totally and utterly irrelevant. For the simple reason that for someone to even be put in a social class, they must, in some form, "participate in .... production". So that category can be left out....though as brief as they are, ones class could be determined from the other factors. But, essentially, a somewhat longer list would be preferable....one which took into account a few other factors.


Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)It would mean that only two classes exist, the proletarians and the bourgeois.[/b]

No, it wouldn&#39;t. Granted, I understand that you are not willing to read my previous refutations of your statements, so I&#39;ll explain to you, once again, that even if someone decided to define class by such a narrow criteria, then there would still be a petty-bourgeois.

For starters, if one wanted to define solely by relationship to the means of production, then Managers would undeniably be a different class to wage-labourers. That is, because their relationship to said means of production, would be different to the relationship of a proletarian. Do you understand that? That Managers are there to facilitate the smooth running of capital rather than the expansion of capital and, therefore, they have a different relationship to the means of production.

I don&#39;t know whether you&#39;ve worked yet, I suspect not, but as anyone who has worked, even for a short period of time, will be able to tell you, there is a noticeable difference between the way a Manager operates and the way everyone else operates. And that difference, relates to differing relationships to the means of production.


Originally posted by red_che
a) how they participate in the production, what kind of labor they do?

Once again, a poor criteria if one is seeking an objective definition. Because, as I pointed out previously, your distinction between "mental" and "manual" labour leads to a cleaner being a "mental" labourer....and, therefore, petty-bourgeois. And, also, as kurt and I have shown, members of the petty-bourgeois do, in some cases, "participate in .... production" in a way you&#39;ve solely defined as proletarian.

Had you engaged either myself or kurt on these points, then I suspect you would have found that your arguments fail to hold weight. However, given your preference to just continually assert rubbish and perpetually erect strawmen, I really don&#39;t know what will get the point across to you. Perhaps you should read this thread again and see just how your arguments have been responded too?


Originally posted by red_che
In this sense, we can distinguish how a proletarian is different from a bourgeois or a petty-bourgeois or a peasant, or a semi-proletarian, etc.

Well the Peasants and "semi-proletarians" don&#39;t really interest me....mainly because there ain&#39;t a lot of them around here. However, as for separating the proletariat from the other classes, I find little wrong with your criteria....bar its brief nature. Indeed, what, in my opinion, lets you down, is both your failure to put that criteria into practice and your confusion about the nature of the petty-bourgeois.

You see, from the perspective of Marxist theory, whether someone produces a "visible commodity" or not, that their employer extracts surplus value from their labour, indicates that the social relation involved is one of capitalist and worker. And this is why teachers, cleaners and so on, are working class.

Now, if you retort that that would only leave two classes, bourgeois and proletariat, then I&#39;m going to jump through the screen and hit you. Because, as I&#39;ve explained, both the owners of small capital and those involved in Management don&#39;t meet the criteria....making these people, therefore, petty-bourgeois.


Originally posted by red_che
A petty-bourgeois is not the direct producer/laborer of the commodity, but rather renders some service in the production process.

Once again, look at the refutations given in this thread of this perspective. Many Plumbers, for instance, own a small business but still they are involved in the direct production of commodities. As is the case with many, if not most of the Trades.

Additionally, as I pointed out about, the "rendering" of a "service", is a somewhat dubious category. Because, essentially, in this day and age, many workers do "piecework"....and under your criteria, this would make them petty-bourgeois. Additionally, of course, one wonders what distinguishes a "service" from a legitimate addition to the production process. You, I think, don&#39;t consider a hot water system a "service", but you consider detailed plans a "service". This distinction, seems incredibly dubious to me....indeed, it seems to lack objective clarification. So, really, I&#39;d like to know what you would consider the distinction? And, remember, said distinction can&#39;t be a commodity, because you&#39;ve already said that building plans, a commodity, represent a "service".

To me, it seems as though you are trying to modify your analysis in order to shoehorn your previous statements into your grand schema. And that, I suspect, is why your analysis becomes less rigid and more mushy with every post....indicating, of course, that your analysis is wrong.


Originally posted by red_che
....he is not the direct producer of the building, but rather renders some service by creating a plan, which is what the workers will construct.

Uh, a chippy could be said to just "render some service" rather than "directly producing" said building. Doesn&#39;t mean that said chippy is petty-bourgeois.

Indeed, one wonders what it is about building plans that makes them not a commodity? Once again, I feel you&#39;re just trying to shoehorn the facts into the wrong categories....sort of like trying to put a circular object through a square hole on one of those kids games.


Originally posted by red_che
And most of the labor (and the salary being paid of him/her) of that engineer will only be to supervise the construction, which is also the same as how you have described a manager was paid for.

Uh, I didn&#39;t say that all Engineers "supervise the construction". Some do and some don&#39;t....once again emphasising the broad nature of the field of Engineering. There are plenty of fields of Engineering that don&#39;t "supervise" shit....that is "supervise" in the Managerial sense. And, therefore, I really wish that you&#39;d refrain from making ignorant remarks until you actually understand something about this.


Originally posted by Marx
Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect –– use-value and exchange-value.

Me: Like building plans Charlie?

Charlie: Yeah, like building plans squire.


Originally posted by Marx
Thus the exchange-value of a machine, for instance, is determined not by the amount of labour-time which it can replace, but by the amount of labour-time expended in its production and therefore required for the production of a new machine of the same type.

You see, if we use this quote when talking about students, then I think we start to get a clearer picture of the class nature of the teaching profession. If we think of said student as a "machine", then the eduction provided by the teacher represents the "labour-time expended in its production". So, a student with X qualification will be, essentially, something with Y amount of stored labour power and, therefore, a more efficient labourer.

And that&#39;s the thing, you see, like the hypothetical "machine", the hypothetical "student" has a certain amount of labour put into their development, which enables them to work more efficiently. Which makes the teachers labour and the commodity they produce, an important part in the production of the future workforce. Why else, after all, would the bourgeois continue to provide State Education if it weren&#39;t for the fact that it produces efficient workers?


[email protected]
After graduating or finishing a degree, one is paid by the capitalist not by his education but by his/her labor, by the product which he/she produces.

Indeed. But, one must remember that the better the qualification, the more the capitalist will pay. Which indicates that education, in and of itself, represents stored labour which is expressed by the former student during the production process.

That&#39;s why, for instance, a Degree from Oxford is more valuable than a Degree from Shithole Polytechnic....the labour power of the teachers in Oxford, is worth more.


red_che
They differ basically in income, petty-bourgeois earn much more than a semi-proletarian.

Bourgeois sociology beckons. :lol: