From a Marxist POV...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This question came up on Politics.ie. How would Marxists class a barrister, and why? Technically he has to sell his own labour to survive, but you could hardly call a barrister working class.

[la-troy]

he proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive and obtain an income for themselves and their families, they must find employment work for an employer. This means working for a capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship.

While not all will be proles a lot are still just working class people trying to make a living.
They work using there mind and are often payed by the capitalist for their labour.

Long story cut short: It has to analyze on a case by case basis.

(sorry, the source was bad)

[luxemburg89]

hmmm it's too objective for me. I would suppose that it depends on who they represent and what their own personal views are. I mean you can have a middle-class teacher and a workig-class teacher. You can have an upper class writer and a working-class writer. In terms of money they would be upper-middle but in terms of spirit who knows. Lenin was from a middle-class background and a lawyer and he's hardly bourgeois. I dunno, difficult to judge.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

While not all will be proles a lot are still just working class people trying to make a living.
They work using there mind and are often payed by the capitalist for their labour.

Long story cut short: It has to analyze on a case by case basis.

I will tell you that, in Ireland at least, most if not all barristers are extremely wealthy people.

They don't appear to have any relation to the means of production.

[la-troy]

well if they're extremely wealthy then they probably a oligarch and oppressing the working class then according to my flawed philosophy then they are bourgeois.

if they are semi wealthy and seeking power then they are the petite bourgeois that Marx told us to support and then resist, although this ideology may be outdated so...

again case by case basis

and I tend to apply that theory and definition to everything so to me it does not matter about means of production.

[apathy maybe]

If they are independent, then I guess they are selling their own means of production, whilst at the same time owning it (if you know what I mean). As such, they would be classed as petit-bourgeois.

However, if they are an employee of a firm, then it is fair to say that they aren't getting the full benefit of their labour (because some of it is going to the firm), and thus would probably be proletariat.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

AM that's the conclusion to which I came, but does it not sound a bit ridiculous to call a big rich D4 barrister "working class"? Even if he does have to sell his labour to survive, he's no doubt selling it at a very favourable price.

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:23 am
hmmm it's too objective for me. I would suppose that it depends on who they represent and what their own personal views are. I mean you can have a middle-class teacher and a workig-class teacher. You can have an upper class writer and a working-class writer. In terms of money they would be upper-middle but in terms of spirit who knows. Lenin was from a middle-class background and a lawyer and he's hardly bourgeois. I dunno, difficult to judge.
Can we really class people in relation to "spirit"? I get your point but just curious about its implications.

[Whitten]

They are members of the intelligencia, they have no direct relationship to the means of production.

[Janus]

I would suppose that it depends on who they represent and what their own personal views are.
Marxists classify people based on their relations to the means of production not on what their personal views are or what they claim to represent.

As far as lawyers go, it depends on the type. Some lawyers are independent or work for themselves while others control an entire firm and emply others.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:23 pm
As far as lawyers go, it depends on the type. Some lawyers are independent or work for themselves while others control an entire firm and emply others.
Even in the former case, they're still part of the middle classes, and almost always hangers-on of the capitalist class.

That's who has the most money to employ them....the whole occupation of lawyer is all about being a mouthpiece for the highest bidder.

That's why so many of the upper class' political representatives, in parliaments, are lawyers.

[Janus]

Even in the former case, they're still part of the middle classes
Middle classes? You're talking about a class system based off monetary earnings I presume?


and almost always hangers-on of the capitalist class.
It depends on the type of lawyer we're talking about. Corporate lawyers definitely are but regular attorneys, criminal court lawyers,etc. are not necessarily so.


That's who has the most money to employ them
Right, but the same thing can be said of just about every occupation: doctors, security guards,etc.

Who they represent or work for may certainly have an impact on their personal views but doesn't necessarily change the class that they belong in.