Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[ComradeJunichi]

How will I be sure that the government will distenigrate or the man in power will step down and evolve in to a communist state?
What about all the crimes. Wouldn't someone want to take absolute power? How do you stop all that?


I'm just curious...

[Xvall]

I personally think that Dictatorship of The Proletariot means that the working class controlls the country. It doesn't mean to make a dictator. That would be a 'dictator of the proletariot'. This is 'dictatorSHIP of the proleatiot', meaning the proletariot has dictatorship over the place.

[oki]

so then there'll be people assigned by the proletariat to do the job.will they be elected?will they be democraticly controlled?

I'm really curious too.

[Xvall]

Maybe you didn't get me. The proletariot will NOT elect a dictator. The proletariot will control.. (It's vague! I'll add more later!)

[Nateddi]

do a search for a thread on Leninism, this has been discussed detailed before

[oki]

I'm not too interestsd in lenism.I'm interestsd in communism.and nobody ever gave me a satisfieeing explanation about this.

[Linksradikaler]

Marx was talking about the ethics, morals, and sensibilities of the worker class dictating the direction of the society, as opposed to a country like America where those things are dictated by an upper/middle class. I think he was talking about a dictatorship of the philosophical VALUES of the proletariat, so that a bourgeois-type social class doesn't re-group after the revolution, as was the case in the USSdR. Visit the Kremlin sometime. The idea that the administrators of a "worker's state" could have lived in palatial comfort while crushing the worker under an iron heel! Bourgeois values are deadly to genuine revolution.

Bourgeois values stifle the revolutionary urge in the worker (if such an urge even exists anymore). When the producing class decides what will be done with the fruits of labor, only then is society just.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the worker collectively sets the tone of society, does the work of society, and decides what to do with the society. Nobody rides for free.

Russia was never even in the neighborhood of such a concept. The Bolsheviki inherited a brutal, top-down system and merely changed the names. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Ian]

To me the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a way to exclude the capitalist exploiters from the democratic course of society after the revolution. The D of the P is not a dictatorial government it is a dictatorial policy of one class (the proletariat) over the bourgeoisie. In the D of the P stuff like expropriation occurs, with industry being nationalized, democratization of the economy so as to put it to work for all people.

I think you could make a joke type of thing out of the sub-heading under the main title of the post eg. 10 clues there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. I will pat you on the back if you make up ten funny clues.

[oki]

okay,the marx filosophy is pretty clear.
after a revolt the values that rule(money,upperclass)should be abandoned.new values should be focussed on.equality,fairness,working class values.
how would this take form?
in the past this dict. was allways a dict.of the state.the marx words are purely fhilosophical.It doesn't mean a thing,since the whole communist revolution is about these values.not just this stage . what you need is a political translation.up to now, communists have interpretetted this any way they wanted to.all these attempts to communism have failed because of this.
how would you make this happen?

[oki]

one other thing,if you start nationalizing everything,you give rulers(the party,people that run things,whatever)the tools for repression right in their lap.I cant believe that marx really ment that.is there any room for false interpretation in this?shouldn't all these things be turned over to the people?

[Ian]

When industry is nationalized it will pretty much just go into the hands of the workers in the factories not really the government even though the government would own it

[oki]

that is only so if the workers of each individual factory are in control.if the gouv.is on top,they will have influence.
or they should be owners with no power.this should be clear and in writing.above the factory should be a union of the branch,and above that a representation of all unions,and only they should have something to do with the gouv.

why is there so little responce to this topic?yall don't know?

[maoist3]

I would suggest that any use of organized force in humyn society of people
against people involves dictatorship of one class or another.

Leninism just made that explicit. Some people
want to say that the rule of law is not dictatorship.
Persynally, I think it gets to be a sterile argument.
The real argument is what to do about the continued
existence of organized force in society and whether
society can advance with its use. I think it can,
while pacifist anarchists do not. (The only
real anarchists in my book are pacifist anarchists.)

[oki]

how?

and if classes keep existing,using force to influence eachother,how is that communist?that's actually the thing that communism should be fighting against.

[maoist3]

Well if pacifist-anarchists want to say we should
not be using force that is consistent of them if rather
ineffective.

However, pacifist-anarchism has yet to accomplish
anything in the world. Slavery had to end through
violence. The "Final Solution" by Hitler had to
be beaten out of the Germans by the Red Army.

It's very important not to make gods out of our species.
Our species has its flaws--obviously if slavery existed
in the united $tates less than 150 years ago
and the slaveowners could not be talked out of it
even after hundreds of years. Given
our species' flaws, we have to advance as best we can
and not substitute wish for reality.

(Edited by maoist3 at 1:32 pm on Aug. 5, 2002)

[oki]

okay,I et your point,non-violence cant beat anybody.on the other hand I can say that a violent revolution and regime never convinced anybody.it can maintain and sustain an regime but in the end people will allways long for freedom,just as they do now in this sosiety.I think the solution therefore is simple,this shit will never stop untill people actually GET that freedom.and it might take violence to acheave that,or it might not.might be soon,or take 300 jears.but in the end it's where the human spiecies is going.I think that violence can't change anything within people,it can only repress it.

[maoist3]

I agree that the long run goal is a society of no state and no violence.

The question is what steps have to occur before people will grow up where that can be possible. To say nothing has changed till we get to the final goal is wrong. That would be saying that for instance, abolishing slavery was not progress. It took organized force, and there were some corrupt "carpet-baggers" in the U.$. South for instance, but ending slavery was still huge progress.

Eliminating slavery is one of those things that are on the "to do" list before there can be communism. You have to make your "to do" list based on all those things that a kid cannot see growing up before such a kid can be a perfectly non-violent and harmonious persyn. Experiencing starvation or seeing slavery cannot be part, so using force to abolish those is progress.

[oki]

using force on people to maintain a system they don't want(because they maybe are not ready or not educated or symply greedy,whatever)is not progress.it will back fire in the end,see how communism has collapsed.it's a difficult point I think.for a revolution you need people to believe in that.you can teach them,but not by narrowing information,it will have to be their choice.

[ComradeJunichi]

I don't believe force should be used to sustain a communist state/socialist state. But I do think that a violent revolution is the only way. I can't see how peace will get us there, especially in an empire like the US.

(Edited by ComradeJunichi at 11:01 pm on Sep. 5, 2002)

[Marxman]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is the first step in transforming a society into a classless one. The state begins to be exterminated. The proletariat have a collective conscious and they dictate all the things in society. Bolsheviks did exactly that and not with force, like capitalism teaches you from their own school books. 9/10 was done before the October revolution. And if you deepen your minds into it, the October revolution was the most peaceful, forget the civil war that followed in the reactionary period of capitalism. Only proletariat have a socialist conscious in practice, remember that. All their work is based on collective organisation and these are the people that are best suited to transform society into a classless one. Peasants cannot do that alone but they can do that if they are in an alliance with the proletariat. But of course, proletariat is no longer the name after the socialist revolution because proletariat is only in capitalism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is currently the best democracy that we can imagine. Observe the history (not from a right-wing perspective) of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia and you shall see that it was the most democratic system of all. Even Bolshevism before the revolution was the most democratic party of all and that was the main key that it had won the votes of the majority.

[oki]

marxman,in a democracy everybody has one vote.how is a dictate of a certain group democratic for the population as a whole?it was within that group,I'm sure,though.the force was indeed used in the reactionairy war.but that was wat I meant.reactionairy people are allso citizens.

[Marxman]

Are you saying that one man dictating is democratic? It definitely isn't. This certain group that dictate is a number of millions and the conscious of this certain group (proletariat) is in nature socialistic. Proletariat have always been collective in nature, otherwise they fail to work. In order for a society to regulate normally and peacefully, needs at first a guidance from a collective consciousness, a consciousness that isn't alienated from the rest of the people but knows how to solve issues in every way possible. Proletariat dictate or should I say guide the people to socialism. Becuase dictatorship of the proletariat in day one is beginning to destroy the state. The state is only for the ruling class to rule over the lower class, in order to keep them in cage. Capitalism keeps them in cage. Lenin emphasized:"While the state exists, there is no freedom." Dicatorship of the proletariat destroys the cage (state) and liberates the people. But you must understand that the dictatorship of the proletariat is totally democratic - if 5 proletarians decide to be greedy, they become kicked out from the position of leading the people to socialism. Everybody can get kicked out by a peasant if the proletarian becomes greedy or worse. Dictatorship of the proletariat destroys the specialization of the police and army. Then exists only workers' police and army. It's totally democratic, anyone can become a cop or a soldier.

[oki]

I never said I support this current system and certainly don't think 1 person ruling is democracy.just because I have a comment on your post doesn't make me the opposite of you.
but you seem to argue that one group in society ruling is democracy,and it's not.in democracy(real dem.,not the shit we have now)everybody is equal with equal vote,and not one group with power and others with non.that's all I'm saying.I do actually like your view on communism,you know what it's about.

[Marxman]

Listen. You're not the first one that misinterpreted dictatorship of the proletariat. I've given you all reasons why proletarians should run the country. Dictatorship of the proletariat is not infinite. Like I said, it's the first step in transmuting capitalist society into a socialist one. This group of proletariat is a group of millions and more. Do you even know how much proletarians are on this planet? They are not some tyrants or some tough guys who think they can do everything. It's not a 100% democracy but it's the best we can imagine in our time. Of course, communism is a total democracy but that's a long road to achieve. Everyone at first objects to this dictatorship of a certain group, even I did. But I've realised that proletariat is the best class-conscious of socialism and they are truly the remedy for the transformation of the society. Now, you have your own mind, who do you think should be in this dictatorship, rather than proletariat?

[oki]

I think the whole concept of a dictatorship is just a solution for a hostile takeover.In the end I don't really believe in that at all.I think that if you want to make a revolution work,you need at least the majority of a country/the world to want that too.if that's the case,you can just put the ways of a new world in a constitution and take that as a guideline.you dont need a certain group to enforce it.to me this seems the only way to a lasting ,permanent change to sosialism.if you have one group,even if it's a big one,dictate the rest,you create a new class society.allso not everybody in the proletariat will agree with sosialist values.they are,just as anybody,good and bad,for equallity and greedy.the effect you say there is,that workers realise that sosial reform is needed,will only last so long,as they remember the past.the next generation wont.so then it seems to me this dictate can only last one lifetime,and after that it will loose it's relevance.how do you see that?in communism we all become proletariat I mean.will former upperclass and pesants then join this group?and have an equal say?I remember that mao had a system where landowners became untoutchebles(no rights) and allso their children,and their children,and so on.

[Marxman]

Okay, smart ass. Defy marxism and make up a new theory, you theory. Who do you think should transform soicety into a classless one after the socialist revolution? Police, army, fishermen? Come one, make your opinion and profoundly explain it.

Now, a question. How many proletarians are in the USA? How many proletarians are on this planet?

[oki]

so I'm a smartass now?
I just rase some questions about marxism.you seem to have no awnsers.if you want to start a classless society ,you cant point out a class to do this.then you don't change a thing.the people should make the change.all of them,or at least the majority.if you have a revolution ,and take the power from the ruling class and give it to the repressed class,all you do is turn the situation 180 degrees.classes is something socialism should get rid of,not continue in another way.
I don't know how many there are,but there are a lot.did you notice that most of them work in offices now?and have cars,houses,and are quite content with their lives?

[Marxman]

That wasn't my point. My point was that since you know so much about classes (you think you know) then make up a theory how to drive humanity into communism, since marxism is an excuse for a "hostile takeover." What do you suggest then? I suggest you study marxism further and I will too.

[oki]

I suggest people stop focussing on marx and think about sosialism in the year 2002.marx was a great thinker that contributed a lot,but the world has changed.

[Marxman]

The world has changed, into what? A new economic system? There is no more exploitation of the proletariat, no more burgeois, no more capitalism? I suggest you shut your mouth and learn something about Marxism and Marx before you speak such nonsense. Thinking like that is what differs between scientific socialism and utopian. Marxism is definitely scientific as it includes dialectical materialism. Oki, you really ought to rethink your foolish statements. I shall this only once, what Marx has written is more obvious and true today than it was in the 19th century. Look around, READ and you shall se that I am equitable to affirm this.

[oki]

let me explane.
back in the days there were a ruling class,small,ritch,powerfull.
there was a working class,big and poor,repressed.
the capitalists have wised up since then.they created a middle class.(kapitalist terms i know)
this middle class is what democracys focus on.keep them happy and the system is in balance.they stand between the poor and ritch.I asked you before,In what catagory will they fit?are they boug.or prolet.?
I'd say they are working class.they have got just enough to loose to not want to change the system.how would you solve this?what solution does marx have for this?his theorys were based on a strict seperation between two groups.where is the base for a revolution nowadays?
I'm not trying to be a wiseass,but I see points I dont understand and problems that need solutions.

[Conghaileach]

You said yourself, oki, the capitalists created the middle class. This "middle class" is really just the 'well-to-do', slightly better off working class that gets treated better by the ruling class.

The working and middle classes are proletariat.
The ruling class is bourgeoisie.


That's my opinion, anyway.

(Edited by CiaranB at 2:52 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)

[oki]

yea I think so too.the problem remains...

[Marxman]

If you believe that the petty-burgeois are the proletarians, then you better go back to kinder garden.

[El Che]

Your forgeting that highly skilled workers qualify as "middle class" marxman.

[Marxman]

Proletariat is proletariat. No banker, clerk, secretary, lawyer,... is a proletarian.

If a worker uses the means of production and makes a product, then this is a proletariat.

[El Che]

Take the case of a university teacher. He works either for the goverment or private sector, he doesn`t own the means of production, he sells his labor and yet he is of the middle class. Is he not a proletarian? And if not, based on what criteria?

[Marxman]

What's the product he makes? Education? Come on, I'm talking about a product like a furniture, a product that has use value. Proletarian work is called a wage and their wage is being sold to the burgeois. Now, a worker works 8 hours a day and he finishes a product in 4 hours, so he works 4 hours for nothing. Worker means a phsysical work, using the means of production (any machines that produce things). Do you get it now?

I suggest further reading on Marx's works.

[El Che]

Oh I see, so intellectual work doesn`t count? Intellectual products, like books or learning, are something not to be taken in acount in your "marxist" understanding of things, is that it?

I suggest you follow your own suggestions and drop the paternalistic tone.

[oki]

marxman you just proved my point of confusion.you say workers(proletairiat )are phisical workers.nowadays we have insuance ,banks,all capitalist services that make a virtual product.in the west the majority of people do this kind of work,behind computers in offices.what would you call them?you say that education is not a product?ofcourse it is.just one you cant phisically feel or toutch.do read on yourself,and when you get to the part where marx explanes about these things,let me know....as far as I know the only solution he had for this was that first this whole development would have to dissapear,economy drop,people unemploied,and so on,untill the situation was back to where your theory's DO apply.like argentina now for instance.

[Marxman]

Look. Education is not a product that is sold, is it? It's not a physical product. And I'm not talking about neglecting other forms of work, smart ass. I'm just trying to explain that a university teacher isn't a proletarian, no matter what your conclusions are. PROLETARIAT makes physical product that you can buy in a store, get it? That's my point, my point is not to discredit education.

Now, read this and learn:

Middle Class

The middle class, or sometimes “the middle-classes”, is a very general term indicating all those classes which lie in between the ruling class and the producing class — in capitalist society: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This middle position gives to the middle-classes their specific character, apart from the fact of their diversity, and the fact that whether or not they form a majority of the population, neither of the major classes can prevail over the other without winning a majority of the middle-classes to their side.

In essence, capitalism has two classes — bourgeoisie and proletariat, but no society can survive if oppressed and oppressor stand opposite each other like that, and especially since the late nineteenth century, the leadership of the bourgeoisie has taken steps to sustain a “buffer” between itself and the proletariat, and to introduce into the proletariat divisions which help soften the contradictions of capitalist society.

Restricting ourselves to modern capitalist society, the middle-classes may include:

the small business people (Petit-bourgeoisie), the “little people”, who like the proletariat, do real work (private labour), but possibly also employ wage-workers, thereby sharing social interests with the bourgeoisie, but being “little people” are constantly being “done over” by the big firms, and frequently find themselves thrown into the ranks of the proletariat;
the “professional middle-class”, who may earn a salary, in which case they are “strictly speaking” workers, or are self-employed but enjoy a share of the proceeds of exploitation in the form of high incomes and a life-style; this class is crucial in the ideological production of the relations of production;
the small farmers or Peasantry as they used to be called, who work like horses, but like the bourgeoisie, own their own means of production (land) and sell commodities; in some cases they enjoy politically-motivated protection from the state with subsidies and so on; living in the countryside they are often isolated from the political life of the cities; in many countries this class is facing bankruptcy and being propelled into the ranks of the proletariat; but in good times, they may grow to become large-scale landowners;
all sorts of white-collar workers, strictly speaking forming an upper layer of the proletariat, who are engaged in supervision and management of the workers, and consequently often share the standpoint of “their betters”; the ranks of these classes has been swelled throughout the past century by Taylorism, the development of the division of labour and the Commodification of the labour process;
and so on and so forth.
It should be noted however, that “middle-class” is not a subjective denotation, but is defined by the position of a class in the dominant relations of production, and the social interests which flow from that.

Bourgeois sociology determines class differently: when people are asked which class they are, the majority always reply “middle class”, just as people used to think the Earth was the centre of the Universe and “the truth lies in the middle”, etc., etc. Despite the fact that identity is often middle-class, class-consciousness among the middle-class is almost a contradiction in terms, as people finding themselves located in the middle, usually identify themselves with one side or the other when it comes to politics.

[El Che]

Marxman,

Firstly, I think you should relax. Take a deep breath. We are just having a little chat here, no-one is attacking you. If you can`t debate with someone you disagree with, while maintaining composure, then all you`re going to ultimately acomplish is a "flame-fest". If you keep throwing idiotic remarks my way I`m bound to lose my temper with you.

You write:
"Education is not a product that is sold, is it? It's not a physical product."

Ever heard of private schools? Maybe that will be sufficiente to illustrate to you that educations is as much a product and a commodity as anything else. But lets imagine for a second that there are no such things as private schools. Education remains a commodity. Even if it where provided soley by the goverment, by public institutions, it would continue to be a commodity, in the form of a service which is payed to citizens because it is understood by society that it should be so. Commodities don`t need to be physical, I don`t know where you get that but its simply foolish.

Early Marxists didn`t get everything right, one failed prediction was the professed future extinction of "well-to-do" people. The belief was that this class was condemed to exitinction because capital, by its very nature, gravitated towards its self. Kind of like black holes and matter. Trusts or corporations represent the black holes and capital represents matter. But anyway, the point is that by overlooking or mostly ignoring this class Marxists left some holes in their theories. Today the middle class is of crucial importance in advanced capitalist nations and to ignore it is throw any possibility of practical realisation of socialism out the window. Your implicit atagonism towards "middle class" folks is mere knee-jerk reaction, considering them non-proletarians and complusivly throwing them in with the rest of bourgeoisie. You forget that some of the middle class are proletarians, some produce physical products some produce intellectual products some work for them selves some are subjected to the bourgeoisie or the beurocracy. However they represent labor and not capital, merely a different kind of labor. You sound a 60 year stalinist clinging on to an 19th century prespective of the world.

"And I'm not talking about neglecting other forms of work, smart ass."

You`re not neglecting other forms of work, eh? So teachers do work? then if they work, what do you call the result of their work and where does it fit in enconomy and social relations? If they are not proletarians then I don`t understand, because I was under the impression that those who produce things are proletarians and those who own the means of production are capitalists. Here you have, so you tell me, people who produce and yet are not proletarians. Are they bourgeoisie? nop for they own no means of production and rely on selling their work to survive. People I`ve just described dont fit any of you categories so in effect its like they dont exist to you. Your "theory" fails to take into acount possibly the largest section of professionaly active population in advanced capitalist nations... Remarkable.

"I'm just trying to explain that a university teacher isn't a proletarian, no matter what your conclusions are. PROLETARIAT makes physical product that you can buy in a store, get it?"

Thats simply... wrong.
-------

Now about your article there... For starters I`d appreciate it if you posted your source next time you post work by other people

As for what the article says, I`m curious as to how you think it contradicts me. Perhaps you could help me out there.

The piece is mainly focussed on the "interests" of several of the people who make up the middle class. The author however does not commit your mistakes and therefore I fail to see how this justifies your arguments. Sorry.

Fact is, the author him self agrees with me:

"the “professional middle-class”, who may earn a salary, in which case they are “strictly speaking” workers"

Yup workers.

But then he goes on to say:
"but enjoy a share of the proceeds of exploitation in the form of high incomes and a life-style; this class is crucial in the ideological production of the relations of production;"

So in effect, what he is saying is that these are workers that, due to their life style and good incomes, share in the interests of the the bourgeoisie. Workers that share in the interests of the bourgeoisie, got it? No point in reading shit if you dont understand it.

So does that mean that because they share in the interests of the bourgeoisie, they are bourgeoisie? of course not. Anyone who says such a thing loses credibility. Firstly because these terms, proletariat and bourgeoisie, are not picked up from the sky, marxism is a science and the terms it uses are difined. The criteria for defining class is not socio-economic interest but economic activity period. Secondly, even manual laborers sometimes share the in the interests of the bourgeoisie and act to protect them. These are sometimes called worker beurocracy. They represent workers that have gained small gains relativly to their counterparts, or have gained the trust of their bosses by behaving in a asskissing manner and so fourth. Anyone who has worked before knows that there are always annoying ass kissers who will report you to the boss on the first chance they get, and nobody likes them. The black and white view of your article simply doesn´t exist, in reality things are much more complex.

True, the middle class is often more on the side of bourgeoisie, true many of them ARE bourgeoisie (petty bourgeoisie); but middle class is defined, loosely, by income. Its not a class in marxist sense. Marxist classes are defined scientificaly this is mere common language that expresses differences in wealth.

Maybe we are in agreement and are simply misundertanding each other. Let me know.

(Edited by El Che at 4:05 pm on Sep. 19, 2002)

(Edited by El Che at 4:14 pm on Sep. 19, 2002)

[Marxman]

Proletariat

"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...

How did the proletariat originate?

"The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution... [which was] precipitated by the discovery ofthe steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and awhole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were veryexpensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered thewhole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because themachines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers couldproduce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machinesdelivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and renderedentirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.).The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their handsand nothing remained to the workers....

"labour was more and more divided among the individual workers sothat the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now didonly a part of that piece. This division of labour made it possible to producethings faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual workerto simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performednot only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industriesfell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and thefactory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.

Fredrick Engels
Principles of Communism

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce.

Karl Marx
Communist Manfesto: Bourgeois and Proletarians

The following features of Marx’s definition of the proletariat should be noted: (1) proletariat is synonymous with “modern working class”, (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else, (6) although the term “labourers” carries the connotation of manual labour, elsewhere Marx makes it clear that the labourer with the head is as much a proletarian as the labourer with the hand, and finally (7) the proletariat is a class.

The proletariat is not a sociological category of people in such-and-such income group and such-and-such occupations, etc., but rather a real, historically developed entity, with its own self-consciousness and means of collective action. The relation between an individual proletarian and the class is not that of non-dialectical sociology, in which an individual with this or that attribute is or is not a member of the class. Rather, individuals are connected to a class by a million threads through which they participate in the general social division of labour and the struggle over the distribution of surplus value.

One issue that needs to be considered in relation to the definition of Proletariat is Wage Labour. Wage labour is the archtypal form in which the proletariat engages in the labour process, that is, by the sale of a worker's labour-power according to labour-time. Firstly, Marx treats piece-work, in which the worker is paid by output rather than by time, as a form of wage-labour, not essentially different from wage-labour. Secondly, nowadays it is increasingly common that workers are obliged to sell their product as such, by means of contract labour, for example. This raises the question of what is essential in the concept of proletariat. Contract labour does undermine working-class consciousness, but at the same time, the person who lives in a capitalist society, and has no means of support but to work, is a proletarian, even if they are unable to find employment(where workers may become lumpenproletariat if their living conditions are very difficult).

The other important issue in relation to the proletariat is its historical path. As Marx explains in Capital, [Chapter 32], capitalism brings about the “revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself”. The proletariat neither requires nor is able to exploit any other class; they are themselves the producers and capitalism has trained the proletariat in all the skills needed to rationally organise social labour for the benefit of humanity, without the aid of money, religion or any other form of inhuman mysticism.

Thus, the future historical significance of the proletariat is ultimately not that it is oppressed, but rather that it is the only class which is capable of overthrowing bourgeois society and establishing a classless society.

[oki]

quote: (1) proletariat is synonymous with “modern working class”, (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else, (6) although the term “labourers” carries the connotation of manual labour, elsewhere Marx makes it clear that the labourer with the head is as much a proletarian as the labourer with the hand, and finally (7) the proletariat is a class.

and why wont this apply to teachers?a labourer with the head,teachers are very mutch part of the capitalist structure.they get paied to deliver education.education is for work.

well anyway,not really the topic.

nice long read you pasted there,but it didn't awnser anything.so we both determined that the middle class exists.now,democracies are build on the fact that the majority of voters determin the policy.these voters are the midclass.they are the biggest group,and as long as that is the case,the system continues.when marx wrote his stuff,he aimed for countrys that had small middle classes and big working classes.what's the marxist/lenist solution for this problem ?I don't think there is any.

[Marxman]

I still don't believe that the teacher is a proletarian.

[El Che]

What about a cleaner? he doesn`t produce things he just cleans them. His work is physical and the result of his work is also physical, but its not "a product you can buy in the shops". The guys that clean our offices, streets and houses or those that pick up our trash are surely proletarians.

[Marxman]

Now this is pathetic. So, an astronaut is a proletarian, right? A gym teacher is a proletarian, right? A hacker is a proletarian, right? Come on, why don't you believe me?

Read marxist material and you shall see, damn it.

[Valkyrie]

Early Marxists didn`t get everything right, one failed prediction was the professed future extinction of "well-to-do" people. The belief was that this class was condemed to exitinction because capital, by its very nature, gravitated towards its self. Kind of like black holes and matter. Trusts or corporations represent the black holes and capital represents matter. But anyway, the point is that by overlooking or mostly ignoring this class Marxists left some holes in their theories. Today the middle class is of crucial importance in advanced capitalist nations and to ignore it is throw any possibility of practical realisation of socialism out the window.
---------
Hey El Che,

I am just grabbing this bit from your post so you know which post I am making a comment on.

I am guilty here of not reading all the posts in this topic, so if I repeat something that someone says, forgive me as I'm really pressed for time here.

Anyway, first... Maybe I'm wrong --- But, the middle-class has not been around long enough to see if they shall fall to demise according to Marxist theory. Also, I agree with you, that the middle-class is of crucial importance to the maintance of Capitalism. In fact, it is the upper middle-class who is keeping the Capitalist system intact. The Capitalists NEED the middle-class to stay afloat. They certainly aren't deriving raw profit from the lower class as those people can't afford to buy their commodities. Also, even though the Capitalist Corporations use the manpower of the lower class, and exploit the third-world of it, the very reason why they are low income in the first place - - it is the higher educated middle-class. the high- level employees of these Corporations that keep these Corps running at full exploitation. If they backed out, the whole system would collapse under itself. And it is the middle-class along with the Capitalists who will be digging their heels in the ground if ever someone would come to seize their private property. There are definetly three or more classes, and the upper middle-class is in cahoots with Capitalist system.

As far as education being a commodity, compulsorary Public elementary education, (specifically referring to the US) it is a commodity as far as that people are paying taxes to maintain it. Other than that it is just a dogmatic institution regulated by the government with little input from the people for whom this education is suppose to benefit. Let's face it - they teach a very skewed view of history and are behind on any recent developments in the sciences. That needs to change and the people should be more in charge of their education. I don't know what the hell the PTA's do besides organize Girl Scout cookie drives. But, the education level is pretty lame.

Teachers I would say are part of the proletariat in that they are giving a service on behalf of society. Doctors on the other hand are a bunch of capitalist pigs! They may start out with the good intent, but they generally always sell out to the $$$$$$.

Gotta go!

[oki]

paris:thank god finally someone that agrees with me....

marxman: teachers are as repressed as anyone.their aim is to teach people knowledge,that they have.this is one of the most basic things in human culture everywhere throughout the intire history.even animals do this.I think your problem is that you see teachers as instruments of the capitalist rulers,and sustainers of the syetm.an they are in fact.but basicly teachers are a natural human thing.knowledge IS a product.
do we need the stuff they teatch now?mostly not.but we definetly need teachers.I even think that knowledge is probebly the most important thing,if we ever want this world to change.

[Marxman]

I've done little research and I've come to a conclusion that a teacher can be a proletarian. Now, you already know why.
Petty-burgeois is immediately someone, like a mechanic that has his own repair-shop or a mechanic store. Which means he owns the means of production (in small sizes) and has some employees.
But, you all agree that industrial workers have got the most socialist conscious of all, right?

[El Che]

Paris,

I liked your post, and I agree with everything execpt the part about doctors being Capitalists :)

But first a mea-culpa, earlier I wrote:

"You forget that some of the middle class are proletarians, some produce physical products some produce intellectual products some work for them selves some are subjected to the bourgeoisie or the beurocracy."

If they work for them selves they are no longer proletrarians but bourgeoisie. The error ocurred because i had writen the setence differently and later edited it and overlooked the detail... But anyway its wrong and I`ll just point that out to avoid confusions.

That being said, I think I should fraise why I got envolved in this in the first place. Beyond tecnical strictnessess what is really is important is ideological backround behind certain conceptions of the world. That is what I am really fighting here. I know full well that those in the lower class of work hierarchy are the true victims of Capitalism. Its those we are fighting for not the middle class. Marxman is pissed at me because he derives from the general orientation of my argument that I think otherwise. In truth, what I oppose is the social sectarianism present in certain sectors of socialist thought. We shouldn`t only speak to the lower class, we should speak to all, all those who want to be with us belong on this side of the fence. This is the way I feel, and I`m convinced that this is the true issue here. Endless theoretical polemics on issues of detail solve nothing and are a above all a waste of time that pushes us away from reality and action. But there are some important issues, especificaly those that affect practice oriented Socialism. We need the working class or our side (something that most socialist parties often fail to achive for one reason or another), we need the middle class and we even those from the upper class that will stand with us. And why? because the "revolution" must be a revolution of the people and not in the name of the people. Those that wish to split society into opposing armies and materialise class struggle on the battlefield belong in the past, their reasoning and proposed course of action stand wounded of imorality. Its time to pull our sleves back and start working with all of civil society in a truly progressive manner.

You`re right, education is intentionaly dogmatic. And Marxist insights explain why. Education, like mass media, is a part of the propaganda, indoctrination and cultural fabrication operation in place to protect the rulling class. This is one of our mightiest enemeis, the biggest wall we need to tear down.

As a final note on the middle class, its true that they stand too lose alot from the implementation of Socialism in the true sense of the word. Or at least thats my guess... Particularly those in the west. We`d have to give up our computers and cellular phones and lots of other things. But the only way to go is to continue to fight selfishness in favor of compasion. I`m convinced we humans can do this, and one step at a time we`ll get there despite the reactionary forces that pull us back. They can slow the train but they can stop it.

[Valkyrie]

Well, I say that doctors are Capitalists (actually referring to Private Practice doctors) but because the whole US Health Care system is a Capitalist monopoly with Profit as the bottom line. I'll exclude Hospital physicans in that condemnation. And the US doctors who are participating in Doctors Without Border are doing great things. But for the most part, Private Practice Doctors are in the business of exploiting sick people of their money. If they were operating on a sliding scale basis, or by need, than that would be a different story altogether. But, unfortunetly, one who has a terminal illness and one who has a scrape on their knee gets treated all the same. I guess you can say everyone is equally exploited. so, doesn;t matter if you have a terminal illness - you either Pay or Die.
That's Capitalism to me.

8


(Edited by Paris at 12:57 am on Sep. 25, 2002)

[Turnoviseous]

From a scientific Marxist point of view a worker is that person who sells his labour power (manual or intellectual) for a wage. In that sense a doctor working for a public or private clinic is a worker. A professor working for a university is a worker.

But on the other hand, a doctor who owns his own clinic or private surgery is not a worker. He owns his own means of production and works with them. This means that he belongs to the petty-bourgeoisie.

A university professor who performs mainly managerial tasks (is in charge of the running of a university, is the rector, etc) is not a worker but also a petty bourgeois.

A high school of primary school teacher is definitely a worker.

There is also one other angle from which you can look at this problem. Are they productive or unproductive workers? They actually do not produce anything but play a role in the process of reproduction of labour power (that is what is generally known as the service sector). This means that doctors play the role of keeping the workforce healthy and professors train
future workers (skilled workers). But whether producing goods or participating in the reproduction of labour they are still workers if they sell their labour power for a wage.

A different thing is whether they consider themselves as workers or not. Probably the lower layers in both professions are more likely to consider themselves workers and get organised in trade unions and the higher layers are less likely to do so.

[Marxman]

The dictatorship of the proletariat would definitely be one of the greatest inventions in the human history. They say a wheel is the greatrst invention but I say NONSENSE. The first greatest invention is the realisation of the development of communism i.e. Marx and Engels. So why would the dictatoship of the p. be the greatest invention? Because the workers, who wield the means of production, will CONTROL them. That improves everything that we lacked yesterday. That is true democracy.

[oki]

el che,noone has to give up their computer.we don't have to return to the stoneage,actually the computer and internet are the sources of the future taht can finally bring true democracy to this world.free information is the biggest revolution since the industrial revolution.it will change things for the better,I'm sure.

paris,it's not a doctor or teacher that is capitalistic,but the system they work for.if that system is changed,these occupations become basic human needs.any community needs a doctor and teachers.just like farmers and workers.

marxman,that's just rediculous.communism is just one way of acheaving a goal.marx and engels are not gods that brought us flawless knowledge.they are theoretics,and any theory must change in time in order to stay relevant.go check out a modern carfactory.who would fight this revolution,the robots?here in my country factoryworkers make a huge amount of money a jear.the dirtyer the work,the higher the pay.things change.if workers strictly control the means of production,they are the rulers and can basicly do whatever they want.I will never agree to that.power should be from nobody,and everybody.not one group.this contiousness that you talk about,that workers have,comes from repression.it will be soon gone when they have the control.history teaches us that.give someone power,and they abuse it.

[Marxman]

I'm not going to waste my time with you now on the issue of marxism but I'll only say that you have to read more books, definitely. If you don't trust and learn the theories of marxism, then why do you claim to be a communist at all.

[Turnoviseous]

communism is just one way of acheaving a goal.marx and engels are not gods that brought us flawless knowledge.they are theoretics,and any theory must change in time in order to stay relevant.go check out a modern carfactory.who would fight this revolution,the robots?here in my country factoryworkers make a huge amount of money a jear.the dirtyer the work,the higher the pay.things change.if workers strictly control the means of production,they are the rulers and can basicly do whatever they want.I will never agree to that.power should be from nobody,and everybody.not one group.this contiousness that you talk about,that workers have,comes from repression.it will be soon gone when they have the control.history teaches us that.give someone power,and they abuse it.

I agree that Marx and Engels are not gods, but they brought us a great knowledge.

That theory has to change in order to stay relevant is stupid. Robots certainly won´t be fighting for revolution. And certainly robots can not be looked upon as a workforce. They are in basis means of production and means of production were never fighting in revolutions.

Yes, I agree that some dirty jobs are paid well, but that does not mean that every dirty job is paid well. It was never the case tha the job was paid according to the dirtiness. Labour-power is a commodity as anything else and it must be looked upon as a commodity, because same laws apply to it as to any other commodity.

Engels long ago explained that in any society in which art, science and government are the preserve of a minority, that minority will use and abuse its position in its own interests. However proletariat is not a minority.

[Marxman]

Exactly.

Changing marxism and communism into "more relevant" ideology for today's times is called Revisionism.

And it certianly isn't outdated or irrelevant.

[peaccenicked]

The abuse of power is a crime and I have no doubt it is an enemy of the working class but is this any excuse for leaving power in the hands of a minority, if we establish majority power, the abuse of that power is not any less an enemy to society as a whole. Majority power must be used against abuses.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:32 am on Sep. 25, 2002)

[oki]

marxist:I never ever called myself a communist.I tend towards anarchism ,or sosialism as a whole.I read plenty,and something else then marx too.I advise you to read something on gracchius Babeuf.I'm sure you'll like him.he came,with others,in 1796 with his manifest"conspiration des Egaux.this is a true,very basic communist manifest.he called for perfect equality,attacked private property and believed in common sharing,and a ditate by the state,run by revolutionairy's.all marx did was change this to his own revolutionairy goal.the french revolution was about bringing down the aristocracy,and marx was about boug.,by the prol.read that and you know,where marx grabbed his ideas.like he grabbed a whole bunch of other ideas from the english pesantrevolution,even the american revolution,and made it into a big theory.and that was wat he was good at.as I see it marx himself was changing revolutionairy thinking to adept it to modern times...........
and if marx is still so relevant,why cant you find an awnser to the problems I pointed out?don't you agree that the class system has changed since then?that society has changed,and that the working force as you discribed it is nowadays mutch smaller?that people are better educated,and have more administrative functions in offices?that the dirty hard work is nowadays done by immigrants?that the remaining workers have better paychecks,more rights and unions to guard they don't get used as slaves?that the current system creates a middle class that is kept satisfied,so that there is no ground for revolutionairy feelings?as long as these issues are not adressed and solved,socialism is loosing.

one other thing,I have claimed in other threads that anarchism was based upon marx,but that is not true at all(gladly...)prohound is the man!(allso french revolution.)

[Valkyrie]

Changing marxism and communism into "more relevant" ideology for today's times is called Revisionism.

And it certianly isn't outdated or irrelevant.

-------

Revisionism? Applying marxism to OUR time is Progressivism. I do want to know what Marx thought was a good alternative energy to Oil. Just page and reference will be fine.

[Marxman]

Everything that Marx wrote is more relevant today than it was in the 19th century.

Who wishes to object to that?

[oki]

me.
didn't you read all those posts I made in this thread?I would still love to see your reply to the list of issues I adressed in my last post.if marx is still relevant he must have a solution for all of them.