What class are politicians?

[apathy maybe]

Politicians can come from any class, the proletariat, the lumpen-proletariat, the bourgeois and the petite bourgeois. While politicians they can own capital, or not. They can donate all their income (except enough to live) to "good" causes or accumulate it. They can be in government or in opposition.

So it seems to me that they do not obviously fit in any of the major classes that Marx proposed. So, what class are they?

[Hit The North]

From what you've said above, they aren't a class in themselves as they have no common and specific relationship to the means of production.

[LSD]

You're looking at this backwards. Politicians don't derive their class status from their political power, they derive their political power from their class status.

That's why, overwhelmingly, "democratic" government tend to be constituted of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois "representatives". Theoretically, "anyone" can be a politician, but in practice it requires the a good deal of money and the "right background", both of which translate to rulling class credentials.

Besides, capitalist economics are such that power and money are basically interchangable commodities. So even, in that rare case, when a politican actually does start off poor, they quickly rise through the class ranks. Remember, class isn't ethnicity, it may not be exactly fluid, but it also isn't concrete.

So, someone like Andrew Jackson may have been born a peasant, but he died bourgeois.

Capitalist politics are just like every other "money-making" system. For the most part, they're nothing more than a means for the perpetuation of inherited class, but every so often, for the sake of legitimacy and because no system is perfect, someone else manages to ride them to sucess.

That doesn't change the inherent classism of capitalist society!

[YKTMX]

Classically, politicians would have had definite class positions.

Certainly, in Britain at least, Conservative politicians were the landed gentry and they were capitalists. And they represented the interests of their class rather well.

The Labour party was also, for the most part, actually working class. MP's were nearly always Trade Unionists from a working class or impoverished background. Sadly, most of them didn't protect their class interests in parliament as jealously as the bourgeoisie.

Today, in the West at least, the vast majority of Tory politicians are just salesman who hold no clear political philosophy. They do however represent the interests of the boss class just as much as the old Tory politicians.

Labour MP's, for the most part, are careerists, who have joined the party because they want to a seat in parliament, not because they are socialists or hold the working class movement close to their heart.

I think the experiences in Latin America show that certain politicians and leaders, under the right circumstances, can represent the interests our class, even within the confines of the bourgeois system.

I heard someone, I can't remember who, call Evo Morales a "bourgeois politician". That is such a boneheaded and non-Marxist analysis. Evo Morales and Chavez are avatars of wider movements. They represent a constituency seperate from the ruling class. And they represent that constituency fairly well, though not perfectly.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 6 2006, 07:45 AM
Politicians can come from any class, the proletariat, the lumpen-proletariat, the bourgeois and the petite bourgeois. While politicians they can own capital, or not. They can donate all their income (except enough to live) to "good" causes or accumulate it. They can be in government or in opposition.

So it seems to me that they do not obviously fit in any of the major classes that Marx proposed. So, what class are they?
Politicians are virtually always members of the bourgoisie because of the necessity for campaign finances. The majority of them are lawyers. Also, though politicians don't apparently make much money while in office, it's deceiving, because like CEOs, they make most of their money from their assets, which grow as a result of pleasing business partners and passing favorable legislation.

[Vargha Poralli]

Somewhere i read that politics is a art of getting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other. so politicians are placed somehere seperately.


The Labour party was also, for the most part, actually working class. MP's were nearly always Trade Unionists from a working class or impoverished background. Sadly, most of them didn't protect their class interests in parliament as jealously as the bourgeoisie.


In India it is worse.most of the politicians came from below poverty line and after coming to power they are palced in forbes list.they never think about poor people except for the election times. and poor people here basically sell their votes highest bidder during the elections.

[D_Bokk]

Politicians are viturally the same, whether they rule under a socialist or capitalist economy. They produce nothing and live off of that labor of the proletariat. By definition they're a lot closer to the bourgeois than they are to the proletariat. Hence, they're all reactionary - which explains why nearly all socialist governments have gradually embraced capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+--> (Citizen Zero)From what you've said above, they aren't a class in themselves as they have no common and specific relationship to the means of production. [/b]Which really is my point. According to a Marxian analysis of class (or at least my understanding of it) they do not fit in any particular class. Yet they obviously have power derived from their position as politicians. This leads me to think that Marx may have missed something ...



Originally posted by Ace Ironbody+--> (Ace Ironbody)You're looking at this backwards. Politicians don't derive their class status from their political power, they derive their political power from their class status.

That's why, overwhelmingly, "democratic" government tend to be constituted of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois "representatives". Theoretically, "anyone" can be a politician, but in practice it requires the a good deal of money and the "right background", both of which translate to rulling class credentials.[/b]
Yet is seems (at least where I am), that constantly union bosses and union officials are getting elected. This is partly to do with the party structure which means that money isn't needed (the fact that successful candidates also get lots of money from the taxpayer (above and beyond their salary) for such things as electioneering also helps). In these cases the right background seems to consist of being a good unionist, getting a union position and then getting nominated by the party (the Labor party in this case).


Originally posted by Ace Ironbody
Besides, capitalist economics are such that power and money are basically interchangable commodities. So even, in that rare case, when a politican actually does start off poor, they quickly rise through the class ranks. Remember, class isn't ethnicity, it may not be exactly fluid, but it also isn't concrete.

So, someone like Andrew Jackson may have been born a peasant, but he died bourgeois.Sure, control of resources does represent power. But as I said in the original post, often politicians do not have much more money then before they entered politics. Take Bob Brown for example, a senator for Tasmania (it doesn't matter if you do not know Australian politics or the Australian political system for this example). He was a medical doctor, a general practitioner, he also was not a rich one. He entered politics and was elected (first to the state then the federal parliament). He is now not much more richer then what he was, he does not own any means of production as far as I know (except a small farm which he had before entering politics). He donates lots of his money to 'worthy' causes. So he has stayed the same 'class'. As a poor doctor, what does that make him? Some would say a proletariat, others bourgeois or petite bourgeois.


Originally posted by Ace Ironbody
Capitalist politics are just like every other "money-making" system. For the most part, they're nothing more than a means for the perpetuation of inherited class, but every so often, for the sake of legitimacy and because no system is perfect, someone else manages to ride them to sucess.Yet it seems that quite often a 'member' of the 'working class' gets elected. It has to do with the party system you see. Anybody can get elected (at least where I am), if they have worked hard in the system and become a good little union boss. According to Marx, they would be proletariat wouldn't they?


Originally posted by Ace Ironbody
That doesn't change the inherent classism of capitalist society!I never said it did. Yes society is (currently) divided into classes. The ruling, rich & wealthy, the others. I just think that perhaps Marx's analysis is not so useful any more.


Just because a person becomes a politician, does not mean that they become a member of the bourgeoisie.



Originally posted by YKTMX
I think the experiences in Latin America show that certain politicians and leaders, under the right circumstances, can represent the interests our class, even within the confines of the bourgeois system.

I heard someone, I can't remember who, call Evo Morales a "bourgeois politician". That is such a boneheaded and non-Marxist analysis. Evo Morales and Chavez are avatars of wider movements. They represent a constituency seperate from the ruling class. And they represent that constituency fairly well, though not perfectly.Firstly, YKTMX, so do you consider a politician's class to be based on what it was before elected?

Secondly, I would have to say that these politicians bare members of the ruling class now. They have they power, can tell people what to do, control the army. Sure there maybe two ruling classes, or a split or something, but you cannot say that Chavez is not a 'ruler'.

And this is part of my problem with Marx's class analysis. Chavez and Morales are not bourgeois politicians, but they are also not poor, working class or members of the proletariat. Chavez was an army officer! They are part of a new ruling class in Venezuela.



[email protected]
Politicians are virtually always members of the bourgoisie because of the necessity for campaign finances. The majority of them are lawyers. Also, though politicians don't apparently make much money while in office, it's deceiving, because like CEOs, they make most of their money from their assets, which grow as a result of pleasing business partners and passing favorable legislation.Not here in Australia (or I think in most or all Westminster systems). The party finances the election campaigns.



D_Bokk
Politicians are viturally the same, whether they rule under a socialist or capitalist economy. They produce nothing and live off of that labor of the proletariat. By definition they're a lot closer to the bourgeois than they are to the proletariat. Hence, they're all reactionary - which explains why nearly all socialist governments have gradually embraced capitalism.Um... This is actually one of the better replies and gets more to the heart of the matter then other posts in this thread so far. However, unlike the traditional bourgeois they do not take a profit as it where, they are not directly exploiting the proletariat. As such I disagree that they are bourgeois according to traditional Marxian analysis. I do agree that they are reactionary however. (Fuck the state!)

(And g.ram, the reason I did not respond specifically to your post, is because I did not see anything to respond to as such with in the theoretical discussion.)



And so to get to the point of this thread. I find that the traditional Marxian analysis of class, as I understand it and as explained to me in this thread, is sadly lacking. Yes explains relationships in society; however, I disagree that it adequately explains the relationship of politicians and the state in regards to the power they have. Politicians are not uniform members of any of Marx's classes, yet they all have power that the majority of people in society do not have.

Another example might be the USSR. What class where the politicians and bureaucrats who took power after Lenin died (trying not to alienate Leninists any more then any other Marxist here)? They were a new class, or rather a reimplementation of the old ruling class, which is not static, but changes. It embraces the wealthy when they are in power, or the bureaucrats when they are.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
Um... This is actually one of the better replies and gets more to the heart of the matter then other posts in this thread so far. However, unlike the traditional bourgeois they do not take a profit as it where, they are not directly exploiting the proletariat. As such I disagree that they are bourgeois according to traditional Marxian analysis. I do agree that they are reactionary however. (Fuck the state!)
Which is why I said they were a lot closer to the bourgeois than the proletariat.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim all politicians are bourgeois because they, like you said, do not profit. However, money is power in capitalism while power under socialism derives from politics. Essentially, they resemble the bourgeois class greatly since both are trying to obtain the greatest amount of power. Same goal, different means.

[Janus]

As politicians generally do come from a variety of class origins, it's difficult to clearly define their class status in general. It's comparable to asking what class military leaders belong to.

They certainly benefit from their positions and it is usually contributors who give them their money though we are seeing more and more bourgeois going into politics themselves. Thus I would say the gov. bureaucracy warrant their own separate social class. But I really see no need to fit everything into the Marxist paradigm of classes though.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Janus
As politicians generally do come from a variety of class origins, it's difficult to clearly define their class status in general. It's comparable to asking what class military leaders belong to.

They certainly benefit from their positions and it is usually contributors who give them their money though we are seeing more and more bourgeois going into politics themselves. Thus I would say the gov. bureaucracy warrant their own separate social class. But I really see no need to fit everything into the Marxist paradigm of classes though.So you agree that with me that the Marxist idea of classes is limited?

I am working on an analysis which would not matter what the economic system was, it would group people into ruling and non-ruling classes. More useful in the long run I feel (if I ever finish it).

(Next question, what class are military leaders? They are not obviously any class using a Marxian analysis. Is the Marxian analysis limited? Yes!)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2006, 12:37 PM
So you agree that with me that the Marxist idea of classes is limited?

The sociologist Max Weber has attempted to address these alleged limitations in his work on 'status groups' and 'social closure'.

His argument is that power is more often exercised by status groups rather than social classes. A status group is a conscious collective of individuals united by a specific social characteristic (could be economic, ethnic, etc.) and would include 'men'/'women'; 'whites'/'blacks'; 'management'/'workers'; etc. Status groups can exist within classes or cut across them.

You can read about Weber's work HERE (http://http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm#Printable) if you're not familiar with it.

The upshot of Weber's analysis is that power is exercised by certain status groups over others and that conflict in society is therefore rarely class conflict but more often status group conflict which doesn't jeopardise the integrity of the capitalist system. So he provides an analysis of power and conflict in society which avoids revolutionary conclusions.

A weakness of Weber's analysis is that he can't explain why some status groups are able to dominate over others and why inequalities of power and prestige exist in a relatively stable form across generations.

As Marxists we understand that the surface reality which Weber describes can only be explained by seeing it as an expression of the deeper reality of class conflict.

In terms of Marxist attitudes to the social composition of politicians, military high commands and other powerful positions within the political state I'm familiar with two broad positions:

1. Self-recruiting elites where social composition is deemed as important. The State is seen to be staffed by a network of upper class personnel who are connected through schooling (Eton to Oxford, for instance) and are consciously reproduced through patronage. The strength of this position is that it describes the empirical reality of the state, staffed as it is with a majority of personnel from a handful of private schools.

2. Structural logic (or logic of the system) theory where the social composition of those who run the state is seen as unimportant. This theory argues that whomever reaches the command positions of the political state will be forced to act in favour of capital. The strength of this approach is in explaining how working class parties (like the Labour Party) or individuals (like Prescott) act in nearly identical ways to their upper class counterparts when faced with the task of managing capitalist society.

These positions are the focus of the Miliband-Poulantzas debate. If you google it there's bound to be some overviews of it.

[Janus]

So you agree that with me that the Marxist idea of classes is limited?
In certain respects, yes. But the mainstream class system is also quite limited as it is usually dependent on a few variables such as salary and education.

Currently as economic relationships become more complex, the Marxian class system may find it tougher to categorize certain people.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks for that Citizen Zero, I think that the second position (Structural logic) seems to be more in line with my thinking. However, it doesn't seem to apply in the case of Venezuela or other "socialist" states. I think the first position is just obviously wrong.

I don't find Weber's work to be useful either, partly for the reasons you have stated, but partly also because classes do exist. I find his status groups idea to limited, though it has its good points.


Janus, yes mainstream class analysis is limited I agree. However, it does explain some things that are not explained using Marxian ideas. And of course as systems become complicated, all theories tend towards not being able to describe everything.