Log in

View Full Version : A Class Question



Rawthentic
2nd January 2007, 05:47
Theres something on my mind that I have been pondering a lot upon lately. I want to know if I really am a proletarian, at least according to Marxist theory. Alright, my mother works at my high school, she is a secretary for a vice-principal. My father works for an organization that helps in the development of children ages 0-5 years, and is funded by the cigarette tax.
What do you all think?

JKP
3rd January 2007, 00:19
If their principle means of survival is from wages, then yeah.

Brownfist
3rd January 2007, 00:25
Your family does not own the means of production; rather, they are employed within the wage system to guarantee their own survival thus within a larger sense of the word, yes you are a member of the proletariat. Having said that, just because your family does not own the means of production does not mean that you are necessarily the same as another proletarian because you could be what is called "the labor aristocracy". For example, some members of the trade unions, like those who work in autoplants receive wages that no longer allows them to identify with the rest of the proletariat; rather they start to identify with the petite bourgeoisie. They have been bought off by the super-profits that is garnered through an imperialist system. Thus, the proletariat itself is composed of numerous economic classes and social groups which relate to one another in a myriad of ways.

Rawthentic
3rd January 2007, 00:40
So this classifies me as a proletarian right? I mean, I cant be petty-bourgeois, and my mother works for a wage, and I believe that my father does as well.

Brownfist
3rd January 2007, 01:00
If you dont mind me asking, what does your father do? Also, I think that you need to see the proletariat as a much more heterogeneous identity, because it doesnt mean that you necessarily become Marx's notion of proletariat, because he has a very specific set of socio-economic relations. So for example, my parents have been wage-earners their entire lives but I identify myself as part of the middle-class and as part of the petite-bourgeoisie.

Rawthentic
3rd January 2007, 18:12
Well, he works for, or his a part of, an organization called First 5 that helps to teach communities and parents ways and methods to develop their child in a healthy way. This includes going to school and eating healthy, etc. I am not sure what his specific position is, but thats what he does pretty much. I think that my parents wages put together make us part of the 'middle class', but since we handle no means of production, we cannot be petty-bourgeois.

A.J.
30th March 2007, 14:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:12 pm
Well, he works for, or his a part of, an organization called First 5 that helps to teach communities and parents ways and methods to develop their child in a healthy way. This includes going to school and eating healthy, etc. I am not sure what his specific position is, but thats what he does pretty much. I think that my parents wages put together make us part of the 'middle class', but since we handle no means of production, we cannot be petty-bourgeois.
^He's about as proletarian as Paris Hilton!!!!! :lol:

http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes2.htm

Louis Pio
30th March 2007, 14:37
Him it depends, since I don't know your fathers concrete position it's hard to judge.

But of course if you have a total rigid class interpretation of workers being only factory workers he ain't. But that definition is just studpid. Let's take for example nurses, they don't produce surplus value, but they have a job that is pretty usefull for society. From the capitalists point of view they help fix the workers so they can go and produce much profit, since today with the increasing amount of skilled workers it's to expensive just to let them die. In that way a nurse is as much a worker as the people in industry. Of course a nurse can get working positions that put them in a managerial position, so then it sorta changes. It seems to me your fathers work is along some of the same line as nurses, so it really depends on what his concrete tasks are.

Anyway never mind bout O.J or what's his name, guys never have anything to contribute to discussions other than oneliners and smileys.

A.J.
30th March 2007, 14:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:37 pm
Him it depends, since I don't know your fathers concrete position it's hard to judge.

But of course if you have a total rigid class interpretation of workers being only factory workers he ain't. But that definition is just studpid. Let's take for example nurses, they don't produce surplus value, but they have a job that is pretty usefull for society. From the capitalists point of view they help fix the workers so they can go and produce much profit, since today with the increasing amount of skilled workers it's to expensive just to let them die. In that way a nurse is as much a worker as the people in industry. Of course a nurse can get working positions that put them in a managerial position, so then it sorta changes. It seems to me your fathers work is along some of the same line as nurses, so it really depends on what his concrete tasks are.


Only the industrial proletariat counts because they generally have a far greater level of class consciousness due to the nature of the work performed.

From the link I posted....

The industrial proletariat is the heart of the working class and has traditionally been its largest and most powerful section. The decisive role of the industrial proletariat is derived, first, from the productive nature of its work, and, second, from the collective and large-scale nature of its work.

Proletarians who work in production are in the best position to understand the nature of capitalist exploitation. It is their hands that produce the goods and services which provide sustenance for all of society. Factory workers, farm workers, construction workers, contract janitors, etc., are in a position to see that the product of their labor is the source of the capitalists’ profits. This picture of the essence of capitalist exploitation, which is critical to the development of class consciousness, is not so readily visible to the bank teller, the government clerk, or the private domestic worker. In addition, the conditions of work in the productive sector sharpen class antagonisms. Industrial workers are driven by capital to continually intensify their labor to the limits of human endurance, and their workplaces are almost universally dirty, unhealthy, and dangerous. Of course, many workers in the non-productive sector suffer under similar conditions, but these conditions are most extreme where material production and the creation of surplus value are involved.

The industrial proletariat stands out among productive workers, not only because it is the largest contingent of the productive workers, but also because in manufacturing and mining production takes place in the most collective fashion, and. on the largest scale.* Many factories and mines employ thousands and even hundreds of thousands of workers. The highly collective nature of this work imbues the industrial workers with a sense of discipline and organization which is invaluable in waging the class struggle.

The massive concentration of workers facilitates organization and political and economic activity. The dependence of the economy, first and foremost, on the production of industrial goods gives the industrial proletariat decisive economic strength. The concentration of industrial production in the hands of the monopoly bourgeoisie (to an even greater degree than other economic sectors) places the main contingent of the industrial proletariat in a position of direct confrontation with the ruling sector of the capitalist class. For these reasons the industrial proletariat has always played the decisive role in the working class movement.

The industrial proletariat includes within its ranks major contingents of all nationalities that make up the U.S. working class and a large proportion of industrial workers are women (39% of "non-transport operatives", an occupational classification that principally refers to the operators of factory machinery).14 Some industries are predominantly female (i.e. textiles, electronics, food processing) while others are predominantly male (i.e. mining, iron and steel, chemicals). National composition varies by region, and even though the majority of industries have been integrated, systematic discrimination and artificial stratification have kept national minority workers, in most cases, in the lowest paying, hardest and most dangerous jobs. There are, however, a great number of Anglo-American and national minority and male and female workers laboring side by side in the same jobs in many factories and this is a major factor which builds unity within the industrial working class.

In 1979, according to government statistics, there were 15,787,000 production and related workers employed in the manufacturing and mining sectors.15 This number specifically included production, maintenance, construction, repair, material handling and power plant workers in manufacturing and mining. This then was the approximate size of the employed section of the industrial proletariat, to which must be added the several million industrial workers who were on layoff.

The size of the industrial proletariat has varied greatly over the years. The industrialization of the economy led to the growth in the absolute and relative size of the industrial proletariat until World War II, although this growth was stunted and irregular because of the recurring, severe, capitalist economic crises. During the colossal industrial expansion that accompanied World War II the number of industrial workers grew to an all-time high of over 16,000,000. During the industrial contraction that followed the war, millions of workers were laid-off with the number of industrial workers reaching a low of 12,629,000 in 1949.16 Since then the number of industrial workers has grown again, reaching, as we reported, 15,787,000 in 1979. This growth was once again marked by severe contractions during the periods of industrial crises.

Another long-term trend, however, also began to limit the growth of the industrial proletariat. The accelerated introduction of labor-saving technology and the intensification of labor had reached the point that the size of the industrial proletariat had begun to decline in comparison to other sectors of the working class. In 1947, the first year for which comparable statistics are available, the industrial proletariat made up over 41% of all "non-supervisory workers on private non-agricultural payrolls." By 1979 this proportion had fallen to just over 26% (despite the fact that the absolute number of industrial workers had grown).17

The decline in the relative size of the industrial proletariat does not in the least take away from its role as the leading and decisive section of the working class. This leading role is connected with social and economic factors (the productive, collective, large-scale and decisive nature of its work) and not with its relative size. In czarist Russia, the industrial proletariat was only a small minority of the working masses (most of whom were peasants) but this did not diminish its leading role in the revolution. The industrial proletariat plays the leading role in the working class movement in all capitalist countries regardless of its size relative to the entire working population.

That why communists should orientate themselves towards industrial workers(factory workers, coal miners, dockers etc etc....) rather than white-collar stuff like school teachers, social-workers etc etc... who tend to have a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois attitudes.


Anyway never mind bout O.J or what's his name

That leather glove dosen't fit my hand, I tells ya!!! :P

LuĂ­s Henrique
30th March 2007, 14:59
This is not a moral issue. Being petty-bougeois isn't a kind of moral disease, and does disqualify your toughts and political positions.

It isn't an issue of wages, too. There are plenty of bourgeois who receive wages. The issue is, can the people under scrutiny survive if they do not sell their labour force? That's the difference between proletarians and non-proletarians.

If for any reason you conclude that your background is petty-bourgeois, do not let this make feel bad, and, especially, never allow others to discount your views because of that.

Luís Henrique

Louis Pio
30th March 2007, 15:01
Only the industrial proletariat counts because they generally have a far greater level of class consciousness due to the nature of the work performed

Actually this is quite wrong, as experience will probably show your later on. Nurses at least here in Denmark has a very high level of class consciousness. Alot of them work in large hospitals and suffer cutdowns all the times, this is quite the recipie for high class consciousness, the same being the case with teacers here. Or let's take for example the french firefighters, they have been on the streets countless times and fought the police. Of course the point about industrial workers are quite true. But your inability to look deeper into other trades are quite rigid, to perform succesfull revolutionary work one has to not just follow some predefined definition, but rather develop the theory further when conditions change. After all theory is just accumulated experience of the workers movement.

Alot of trades have become proletarianised so to speak, so of course we develop theory accordingly.

bloody_capitalist_sham
30th March 2007, 15:25
There is a lot of confusion about what job makes you proletarian and what job doesn't.

So, far as i understand it, your class broadly determines what job you will have as an adults.

These days though, most working class people, will have both proletarian and non proletarian jobs throughout their lives.

So, the distinction in terms of being proletarian is one that changes often.

Like, unemployed people, don't have a relation to the economy while they are unemployed.

a week later though, they could be hired to build computer components. Thats going to make them proletarians, but they might only have a six months contract, and work in a Pub for a while after that. Which means they are no longer proletarian.

However, throughout their life, they will have produced more wealth than they have received back.

So, you likely are proletarian. Its not purely job dependant, its dependant on your class!

apathy maybe
30th March 2007, 15:33
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 30, 2007 02:59 pm
This is not a moral issue. Being petty-bougeois isn't a kind of moral disease, and does disqualify your toughts and political positions.

It isn't an issue of wages, too. There are plenty of bourgeois who receive wages. The issue is, can the people under scrutiny survive if they do not sell their labour force? That's the difference between proletarians and non-proletarians.

If for any reason you conclude that your background is petty-bourgeois, do not let this make feel bad, and, especially, never allow others to discount your views because of that.

Luís Henrique
I have to basically agree with LH. It doesn't matter what your class is, you can still have a good (or bad) knowledge of revolutionary theory. Even being petite-bourgeois doesn't mean much in the general scheme of things in a lot of cases.


Basically, if you live and rely on your parents to support you (and you don't have any other realistic options), then don't worry. If you work for a wage, generally don't worry (unless you are a cop or similar). If you don't have to work, but can survive of savings or investments, then maybe you should start worrying.


But unless you are oppressing people, it doesn't matter what your 'class' is when it comes to your ideas. Rest assured, you aren't going to be one of the ruling class.

Rawthentic
30th March 2007, 23:16
He's about as proletarian as Paris Hilton!!!!
Aren't you that Stalinist? That trumps everything you say.


Basically, if you live and rely on your parents to support you (and you don't have any other realistic options), then don't worry.
Well, thanks. Im actually going to have to get a job soon because I'm getting my driver's license and the interest rates for insurance go way up.

I consider myself working-class because my parents work hard for us to make it and have everything we need. My parents don't own or use any means of production.

Issaiah1332
31st March 2007, 00:25
Originally posted by A.J.+March 30, 2007 01:19 pm--> (A.J. @ March 30, 2007 01:19 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:12 pm
Well, he works for, or his a part of, an organization called First 5 that helps to teach communities and parents ways and methods to develop their child in a healthy way. This includes going to school and eating healthy, etc. I am not sure what his specific position is, but thats what he does pretty much. I think that my parents wages put together make us part of the 'middle class', but since we handle no means of production, we cannot be petty-bourgeois.
^He's about as proletarian as Paris Hilton!!!!! :lol:

http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes2.htm [/b]
Whether or not you are proletarian (Which I believe you are) doesnt mean anything. You can be bourgeois and still be a Marxist fighting for a revolutionary cause. If you remember Engles was a factory owner...

There are also many upper class people that believe and invest time in the revolution. So, dont worry so much.

rouchambeau
31st March 2007, 02:14
I don't see what your parents do as having any effect on your class.

cenv
31st March 2007, 02:17
Well, there are so many different interpretations of Marxian class and things have changed so much since Marx's time that it's really not worth all the work figuring out which class to "identify" with (that's not to say, though, that Marxian class analysis is irrelevant or inaccurate). In the end, the abolition of capitalism is either in your interests or it's not. That's what matters, and you can decide that for yourself. And if your parents work hard for you to make it, then they're probably proletarian.

which doctor
31st March 2007, 02:48
Don't worry about what "class" your parents are.

Even if your parents are petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie, you can always be a class homecomer and use your advantages in life to advance the proletarian cause.

black magick hustla
31st March 2007, 03:20
the destruction of class society in the long run is in the interests of everyone if we dont want humanity to selfdestruct

socialisme ou barbarie!

Rawthentic
31st March 2007, 05:13
Well thanks comrades, but I'm a communist. This means that I believe and stress working-class self-emancipation, because we are the only thoroughly revolutionary class.

Sand Castle
31st March 2007, 06:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:20 am
the destruction of class society in the long run is in the interests of everyone if we dont want humanity to selfdestruct

socialisme ou barbarie!
That is what I was about to say. Communism is supposed to be a classless society, so it shouldn't matter what your class is now. All that should matter is that you support the liberation of the working-class and a classless society. Your present class is just a financial label.

Kropotkin Has a Posse
31st March 2007, 07:03
If we slam someone for coming from a well-off family we're perpetuating the class idea, not dissolving it. There's a difference between class consciousness and class prejudice. As it is, plenty of communists have been from middle-class families but refused to follow that life.

OneBrickOneVoice
31st March 2007, 15:55
well at least one family member is proletariat. Same here. My other family member, who also happens to be my father makes alot less yet I am not exactly sure what class he exactly fits into. I think that is why saying "workers only can be communists" is a bit silly since classes in America at least are less rigid than elsewhere.

If you have a job or are looking for a job to support yourself then I think your proletariat.

OneBrickOneVoice
31st March 2007, 15:57
Aren't you that Stalinist? That trumps everything you say.

why do you make these stupid comments rather than refuting his claim?

Rawthentic
31st March 2007, 17:29
Somebody already did.


I think that is why saying "workers only can be communists" is a bit silly since classes in America at least are less rigid than elsewhere.

Who said this? Only proletarians can have a working-class consciousness, and communism is a working-class ideology.

Question everything
3rd April 2007, 22:50
That is up for debate, It is not hard to see class consiousness (sorry in a rush so my spelling is going to suck) for either side, there are petty bourgeous who are sympathizers, Engels owned a Factory :engles: , as for Parents Marx's Dad was a lawyer :marx: and Castro's Dad owned a factory :castro: ... my point is that communist are not all proletarian...

Rawthentic
3rd April 2007, 22:54
But communism is a proletarian ideology and the proletarian viewpoint can only be held by proletarians. Its called historical materialism.