Is class determined by income?

[Invader Zim]

you have contributed to the myth of class being based on income.

Class is based upon income. It is irrelevent of your status at birth; if you earn 100's of thousands PA then you could be from the poorest district, but you most certanly are not working class. Had you understood this, then maybe you would be worth talking to, but you obviously do not.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 25, 2007 05:14 am


you have contributed to the myth of class being based on income.

Class is based upon income. It is irrelevent of your status at birth; if you earn 100's of thousands PA then you could be from the poorest district, but you most certanly are not working class. Had you understood this, then maybe you would be worth talking to, but you obviously do not.
Whos theory have been you reading Lou Dobbs?!

Read Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Guerin et, etc





You are the one who does not understand what you are talking about :wacko: , it should follow that you are one the main RATM critics on this thread!
You have no understanding of one of the most basic and fundemental sceintific truths that both Marxist Socialism and Anarchism are founded upon!

Class is based on the relations to production.
A proleteriat is someone who sells they're labour to a capitalist, and does not own the means of production. A wage is the fraction of the amount of revenue that a workers labour generates, so the size of the wage they are paid is irrelevent as no matter what it is still a fraction of the revenue.
Thus it follows; A computer programmer makes significantly more money than a groccery store shelf stocker but they are both proleteriat, why because they both sell they're labour to the capitalists for a wage, and they both do not own the means to production. A small Buisness owner makes significantly less money than the owner of multi-million dollar corporation but they are both capitalist, why because both employ wage labour and they both own the means of production.
Trying to determine class by income is simplistic and wholly lacking of any real annalysis.

If you take socialism serriously it would be paramount to study socialist theory.
READ

Anarchy Archives
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html

Marxist Internet Archives
http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 24, 2007 09:14 pm


you have contributed to the myth of class being based on income.

Class is based upon income. It is irrelevent of your status at birth; if you earn 100's of thousands PA then you could be from the poorest district, but you most certanly are not working class. Had you understood this, then maybe you would be worth talking to, but you obviously do not.
So that's the reason you are so against RATM. Class is not based upon income. I was really confused on why you were so against Zack. It is clear now that you are more confused than I thought at the beginning.

[Invader Zim]

Whos theory have been you reading Lou Dobbs

Maurice Dobb is the only person with Dobb in their sirname I am going to read on socio-economic theory.



Read Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Guerin et, etc

You have no understanding of one of the most basic and fundemental sceintific truths that both Marxist Socialism and Anarchism are founded upon!

I am neither a Marxist nor an Anarchist, and it is clear to even the least educated individual that the ultimate class divide is between divide is beween those who have and those who do not. Even Warners theories on class hold more weight than the obsolite Marxian perception of class. But if you insist upon Marx, then let us turn to the copies of Capital and the Manifesto I have on my shelf. In Capital Marx outlines two basic classes, the capitalist class (described in the Manifesto as) "owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor" and the proletariat (also described in the manifesto) "the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live."

The three elements remaining from this conceptualisation of class are the petit-bourgeoisie, a group of artisans and small shop owners who either do not have control of the means of production or only an insignificant share. We also have Land-Owners, old money; the owners of large tracts of land which are farmed by numerous others in the employ of the land owner. Following the bourgeois revolution, and the mass exedos of the aristo's and subsequent return to France this class were widely known as émigrés; whom Marx and Engles stated should have their lands used to fund the revolution. Finally we have the peasant, a rather self explanitory class.

Based on this brief analysis it is clear that Marx places class not upon income but upon one's place regarding the means of production. IE, capitalists are the "owners of the means of social production" and the proletariat sells its labour to the capitalists. The lumpenproletariat we can ignore.

Obviously in modern day society Marxian ideals on class are utterly worthless in anything but the most cursory of examinations of a modern economically developed society. It ignores the fact that the majority of employee's are not employed by a capitalist or even group of capitalists, but by floated companies which have hundreds if not thousands of share holders, who actually own the company which employs everyone within the company. We also have the state, which incidentally is usually one of the highest employers within any developed capitalist country. This includes not only armed forces, but the civil service, council workers, etc. Even the CEO of a massive corporation, an individual who undoubtedly earns millions of dollars, is still selling his or her labour to the corporation which is employing him.

Then what of the likes of Zach de la Rocha? Is he selling his labour to a record label, the fans who purchase his artistic creations or is he part of the petty bourgeoisie? The celebrity cannot be easily placed into a class.

This is why nobody worth taking seriously uses analytically based class systems such as Marx's or Webers', but go for the academic sociologists models, which are based upon empirical standards; specifically this empirical standard is income; and it is a far more accurate and intelligent basis for distinguishing between class than Marx's now obsolite method, but still has its flaws.

However, in historical perspective, before the rise to prominance of the stock market and the devlopments within modern society, the Marxian class system no doubt was an accurate assessment upon society, which ultimately highlighted the reasons behind those who had and who did not. It ultimately comes down to the same distinction. The bourgeois class, who owned the means of production, were in a position to earn more than those selling their labour. The land owner, in control of vast tracts of land, were able to maintain their wealth through selling the produce of the land.

As such, Marxian theories on class stratification ultimately work on division between those who have and those who do not. But from a modern perspective they are totally obsolite anyway.


It is clear now that you are more confused than I thought at the beginning.

I'm not at all confused. I am however probably much better read than you.


A proleteriat is someone who sells they're labour to a capitalist, and does not own the means of production. A wage is the fraction of the amount of revenue that a workers labour generates, so the size of the wage they are paid is irrelevent as no matter what it is still a fraction of the revenue.

Yeah, I know what you think. I knew and understood that line of reasoning years ago.


A small Buisness owner makes significantly less money than the owner of multi-million dollar corporation but they are both capitalist, why because both employ wage labour and they both own the means of production.

Actually, I think you will find that Marx would place the small buisness, employing a few individuals not a capitalist or bourgeois institution but petty-bourgeois and do not own the means of production, a distinction a lot of new comers to Marxism fail to make. Maybe you should try getting a better grasp of even the Marxist class distinctions before advising others to extend their reading; especially when that individual is probably much better read than you are your self.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 12:37 pm


I am neither a Marxist nor an Anarchist, and it is clear to even the least educated individual that the ultimate class divide is between divide is beween those who have and those who do not. Even Warners theories on class hold more weight than the obsolite Marxian perception of class.

Obviously in modern day society Marxian ideals on class are utterly worthless in anything but the most cursory of examinations of a modern economically developed society.

As such, Marxian theories on class stratification ultimately work on division between those who have and those who do not. But from a modern perspective they are totally obsolite anyway.




Yes Marxist Class analysis needs some updating as it is a science, and capitalism has eveloved, but it is in no way obsolete, that is completely absurd.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 12:37 pm

Whos theory have been you reading Lou Dobbs

I am neither a Marxist nor an Anarchist, and it is clear to even the least educated individual that the ultimate class divide is between divide is beween those who have and those who do not. Even Warners theories on class hold more weight than the obsolite Marxian perception of class. But if you insist upon Marx, then let us turn to the copies of Capital and the Manifesto I have on my shelf. In Capital Marx outlines two basic classes, the capitalist class (described in the Manifesto as) "owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor" and the proletariat (also described in the manifesto) "the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live."

The three elements remaining from this conceptualisation of class are the petit-bourgeoisie, a group of artisans and small shop owners who either do not have control of the means of production or only an insignificant share. We also have Land-Owners, old money; the owners of large tracts of land which are farmed by numerous others in the employ of the land owner. Following the bourgeois revolution, and the mass exedos of the aristo's and subsequent return to France this class were widely known as émigrés; whom Marx and Engles stated should have their lands used to fund the revolution. Finally we have the peasant, a rather self explanitory class.

Based on this brief analysis it is clear that Marx places class not upon income but upon one's place regarding the means of production. IE, capitalists are the "owners of the means of social production" and the proletariat sells its labour to the capitalists. The lumpenproletariat we can ignore.

Obviously in modern day society Marxian ideals on class are utterly worthless in anything but the most cursory of examinations of a modern economically developed society. It ignores the fact that the majority of employee's are not employed by a capitalist or even group of capitalists, but by floated companies which have hundreds if not thousands of share holders, who actually own the company which employs everyone within the company. We also have the state, which incidentally is usually one of the highest employers within any developed capitalist country. This includes not only armed forces, but the civil service, council workers, etc. Even the CEO of a massive corporation, an individual who undoubtedly earns millions of dollars, is still selling his or her labour to the corporation which is employing him.




However, in historical perspective, before the rise to prominance of the stock market and the devlopments within modern society, the Marxian class system no doubt was an accurate assessment upon society, which ultimately highlighted the reasons behind those who had and who did not. It ultimately comes down to the same distinction. The bourgeois class, who owned the means of production, were in a position to earn more than those selling their labour. The land owner, in control of vast tracts of land, were able to maintain their wealth through selling the produce of the land.


Class is much deeper than income, not even what you said supports reducing class analysis to income, what an empty sceince that would be.

The capitalism and the relations of production have evolved, but the main point remains, those who sell they're labour for a living and do not own the means of production are by they're position in society naturaly revolutionary as they are getting the short end of the stick they themselves carved. Wether its a capitalist who employs them or a group of capitalists, or a floating company owned by share holders, or a state, the workering class is the class that works for them through wage labor and does not own the company or the means of production other than some tools.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 12:37 pm



A small Buisness owner makes significantly less money than the owner of multi-million dollar corporation but they are both capitalist, why because both employ wage labour and they both own the means of production.

Actually, I think you will find that Marx would place the small buisness, employing a few individuals not a capitalist or bourgeois institution but petty-bourgeois and do not own the means of production, a distinction a lot of new comers to Marxism fail to make. Maybe you should try getting a better grasp of even the Marxist class distinctions before advising others to extend their reading; especially when that individual is probably much better read than you are your self.
I shall read further, but the point of that part was a reaction to the american obsesion with small buisness, the way some people use it as a disstraction from class, they carry on about big buissiness's and small buisiness "underdogs" like they like they some how an alternative to big bussiness capitalsim, it is a distraction from working class struggle.

[Invader Zim]

Class is much deeper than income,

I quite agree, as I noted within my post, even the most comprehensive model of class still have their flaws. I do however contest it has a lot more to do with actual income, be it in produce or capital, has far more impact upon standard of living and other factors which fully determine class. Certainly far more so than relationship to the means of production, a destinction which, based on modern examination soon fails; for reasons already noted.


not even what you said supports reducing class analysis to income, what an empty sceince that would be.

I would agree, to an extent, but ultimately - as have said - class is the divide between those who have and those who do not. The other more intricate details simply seperate these two categories into more refined groups.


those who sell they're labour for a living and do not own the means of production are by they're position in society naturaly revolutionary as they are getting the short end of the stick they themselves carved.

Untrue. The modern 'middle class', which includes those who are highly affluent, and most certainly not 'getting the short end of the stick', and are still employees are not revolutionary. They are workers yes, but they are not and except by a great stretch of the imagination, could hold revolutionary conciousness. Nor does this group limit it's self to the affluent. it also includes the bulk of the rest of the middle class, the medium earning office or clerical worker and those employed in the service industry. These individuals do not 'win' in the capitalist model but they most certainly do not do poorly and they do not fit into the typically applied Marxian class model. This is because it is a development which occured post-Marx.

As such, Marxian class grouping is simply wrong by modern standards.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 03:58 am
Untrue. The modern 'middle class', which includes those who are highly affluent, and most certainly not 'getting the short end of the stick', and are still employees are not revolutionary. They are workers yes, but they are not and except by a great stretch of the imagination, could hold revolutionary conciousness. Nor does this group limit it's self to the affluent. it also includes the bulk of the rest of the middle class, the medium earning office or clerical worker and those employed in the service industry. These individuals do not 'win' in the capitalist model but they most certainly do not do poorly and they do not fit into the typically applied Marxian class model. This is because it is a development which occured post-Marx.

As such, Marxian class grouping is simply wrong by modern standards.
The upper middle-class are part of the labor aristocracy, which arise as a cause of imperialism. Besides, Engels wrote of the English proletariat being so bourgeoisified that he referred to them as "bourgeois proletarians".

So don't act as if Marxist theory hasn't dealt with this issue in the past, because it has, and it has solved it as well. Read Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism.

I would classify all those "wealthy workers" to be part of the labor aristocracy.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 04:37 am

It is clear now that you are more confused than I thought at the beginning.

I'm not at all confused. I am however probably much better read than you.
Probably, but your academic eliteness makes you no less confused when you attack a man who is a staunch activist and supporter of the working class. You see like I said until you go down to the community meetings over here in East LA or until you go to the rally to save the farm in the middle of a city and talk to him then you can talk. Until then you really have nothing of substance to say on the matter.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Leninism+June 01, 2007 10:52 am--> (Leninism @ June 01, 2007 10:52 am)
Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 03:58 am
Untrue. The modern 'middle class', which includes those who are highly affluent, and most certainly not 'getting the short end of the stick', and are still employees are not revolutionary. They are workers yes, but they are not and except by a great stretch of the imagination, could hold revolutionary conciousness. Nor does this group limit it's self to the affluent. it also includes the bulk of the rest of the middle class, the medium earning office or clerical worker and those employed in the service industry. These individuals do not 'win' in the capitalist model but they most certainly do not do poorly and they do not fit into the typically applied Marxian class model. This is because it is a development which occured post-Marx.

As such, Marxian class grouping is simply wrong by modern standards.
The upper middle-class are part of the labor aristocracy, which arise as a cause of imperialism. Besides, Engels wrote of the English proletariat being so bourgeoisified that he referred to them as "bourgeois proletarians".

So don't act as if Marxist theory hasn't dealt with this issue in the past, because it has, and it has solved it as well. Read Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism.

I would classify all those "wealthy workers" to be part of the labor aristocracy. [/b]

The upper middle-class

I see we are appling Warner's class divisions now, so much for Marx's eh? I think you have just aptly show through demonstration just why Marx's ideas on social stratification, are incomplete by modern standards.

But I was not reffering just to them, but the entire 'white collar' belt, which expands to include Warners 'lower middle-class', but essencially your point is unaltered by that distinction.


Besides, Engels wrote of the English proletariat being so bourgeoisified that he referred to them as "bourgeois proletarians".

Actually what he said was, to quote: -

"The Jones business is most distasteful. He held a meeting here and the speech he made was entirely in the spirit of the new alliance. After that affair one might almost believe that the English proletarian movement in its old traditional Chartist form must perish utterly before it can evolve in a new and viable form. And yet it is not possible to foresee what the new form will look like. It seems to me, by the way, that there is in fact a connection between Jones’ new move, seen in conjunction with previous more or less successful attempts at such an alliance, the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat."

Don't you find that in context things have oh so very a different meaning?

But that is irrelevent, Engels was not talking about this modern phenominom, but specifically to affluent nature of the post-industrialised English proletariat which was very much more willing to accept its current role, as demonstrated by Engles dissatisfaction of the declining chartist movement. It has nothing to do with the rise of the service industry and the domination of the white collar worker; as you wrongly attribute it, but the growing affluence and in turn growing conservatism of the working class. It is most certainly not about shift in employment trends.




I would classify all those "wealthy workers" to be part of the labor aristocracy.

Oh my, you do realise that the basis of that thesis is that exploitation of developing countries leads to "scraps" falling to the working class in developed countries and leads to the rise in working class conservatism, right and forms the back bone of Lenins bullshit argument that communism can only be achieved in one country at a time? It has nothing to do with the shift in the very nature of class which occured after the second world war.

Try reading the material you provide and quote.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 12:44 pm
I see we are appling Warner's class divisions now, so much for Marx's eh? I think you have just aptly show through demonstration just why Marx's ideas on social stratification, are incomplete by modern standards.

Oh my, you do realise that the basis of that thesis is that exploitation of developing countries leads to "scraps" falling to the working class in developed countries and leads to the rise in working class conservatism, right and forms the back bone of Lenins bullshit argument that communism can only be achieved in one country at a time? It has nothing to do with the shift in the very nature of class which occured after the second world war.

I don't give a shit who came up with it, I'm just saying it how I see it, and how Marxists see it today.


But that is irrelevent, Engels was not talking about this modern phenominom, but specifically to affluent nature of the post-industrialised English proletariat which was very much more willing to accept its current role, as demonstrated by Engles dissatisfaction of the declining chartist movement. It has nothing to do with the rise of the service industry and the domination of the white collar worker; as you wrongly attribute it, but the growing affluence and in turn growing conservatism of the working class. It is most certainly not about shift in employment trends.

Frankly I don't care what he was talking about, because that was not my point, the point was that he admitted the fact that proletarians could be bourgeoisified, something that you said was "impossible" and "not dealt with" in Marxist theory. So you were full of crap.


Oh my, you do realise that the basis of that thesis is that exploitation of developing countries leads to "scraps" falling to the working class in developed countries and leads to the rise in working class conservatism, right and forms the back bone of Lenins bullshit argument that communism can only be achieved in one country at a time? It has nothing to do with the shift in the very nature of class which occured after the second world war.


Wow, you really have no clue do you? Lenin argued that socialism could only happen in one country at a time? How more out of touch with reality can you get? Seriously.

See, that's why I dislike people like you, you say stuff like "Try reading the material you provide and quote", when in reality you have no clue about that material yourself.

Take your own advice please.

[Invader Zim]

I don't give a shit who came up with it

I see. They say ignorance is bliss, so how is willful deliberate ignorance working out for you?



Frankly I don't care what he was talking about,

You don't care what Engels was talking about? Then how can you be quite as arrogant to quote a guy when you neither understand nor care what point he was making? You're without a clue, aren't you?


Lenin argued that socialism could only happen in one country at a time?

That was admittedy a somewhat poorly worded statement. But to anyone with a clue about the subject that Lenin was discussing would realise that I was refering to the argument that Lenin raised that proletarian revolution would be incapable of beginning in any but an undeveloped or semi-developed country, and as such must begin in a country such as Russia. That was the whole point of his lengthy which you suggested I read; I see you obviously failed to gather that.


the point was that he admitted the fact that proletarians could be bourgeoisified, something that you said was "impossible" and "not dealt with" in Marxist theory. So you were full of crap.

And where did I say that? Can you actually comprehend basic statements? Nobody has denied that the working class can lean towards conservatism or capitalism. And where have I used the word 'impossible', which you have placed in quotation marks? You clearly not only have no idea what Engels was talking about, Lenin was talking about but also not even what I am talking about. Perhaps you should actually appraise yourself of my basic position before attempting to debunk it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 03:43 pm
That was admittedy a somewhat poorly worded statement.
Actually it was a lot more then just that, because you wrote communism instead of socialism, which just means you have no clue what the hell Marxism is, you probably just read some textbook on it in your history course, and now you think you're all "smart and knowledgable" because of it.

As for the rest of the horse shit you posted, it doesn't deserve a reply, other than being mentioned that it is horse shit, which I just did, twice.

[black magick hustla]

. It ignores the fact that the majority of employee's are not employed by a capitalist or even group of capitalists, but by floated companies which have hundreds if not thousands of share holders, who actually own the company which employs everyone within the company.

It doesn't matter though, still corporations have a board of directors where the individuals who own the majority of stocks direct the corporation. This individuals are the real bourgeosie.

Even marx's class distinctions weren't that arbitrary during his lifetime. What is a small shop owner? Can small shop owners employ some emploiyees, or by employing people they become bourgeosie?

What happens with divisions based on income, is that ultimately, it doesn't tells us what class is "objectively revolutionary" and what class is not.

Certainly, CEO's don't mean shit in the grand scheme of history because they are not a crucial element of society. If they stopped existing, production wouldn't suddenly halt. The proletariat is revolutionary not because they "are opressed" or they "suffer more", that is christian bullshit ideology, basing merit on "pain". THe proletariat is "objectively revolutionary" because if they stopped working, society would be dissolved. That is why proffessionals like engineers can be considered proletarian, even if most of them don't generally join strikes etc, they are generally wage-slaves and they are crucial for the inner workings of history.

This is why the marxist conception of class is based on relationships of the means of production. This is the best way to understand an individual's position of society, and how his existance affects such society.

Obviously the marxist grand narrative has holes and its not perfect, but still, its impossible in sociological grounds to establish the precision hard sciences have. An individual's consciousness is affected by such an infinite amount of different kinds of stimuli, that ultimately, analyzing such consciousness is infinitely complex.



We also have the state, which incidentally is usually one of the highest employers within any developed capitalist country. This includes not only armed forces, but the civil service, council workers, etc. Even the CEO of a massive corporation, an individual who undoubtedly earns millions of dollars, is still selling his

Well this is where the state-capitalist analysis of society comes in. In modern society, due to the instability of laissez faire capitalism, creates state-capital in order to give stability to the economy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Then what of the likes of Zach de la Rocha? Is he selling his labour to a record label, the fans who purchase his artistic creations or is he part of the petty bourgeoisie? The celebrity cannot be easily placed into a class.


"A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker, to the extent that she sells her song for money she is a wage-earner and a merchant. But this very singer becomes a productive worker, when she is engaged by a contractor to sing and make money, since she directly produces capital." - Karl Marx, Results of the Immediate Process of Production

[syndicat]

a problem with defining class by income is that any boundary you draw is completely arbitrary. there are an infinite number of dividing points on income. is the division between below $10,000 and above a year a class difference? how about between $12,000 a year or less, and those above?

Class is about power in social production. The advantage to this theory of class is that it explains why there are the differences in income. The proletarian class consists of those who must rent their labor power to employers to live, and do not participate in the management of others in work. They are subordinated and controlled in their work, not having the power to define jobs or control the work process.

The major capitalists can be distinguished from the small business class by the fact that the small capital owners have to do the work of managing workers themselves whereas the big capitalists have layers of managers to do that.

In addition to these classes, there is also a class of top professionals and salaried managers whose class position is not based on ownership of capital but is based on a relative monopolization of the expertise, conceptualization and management work in social production. I would call this the "coordinator" class. This class only grew to become a major class during the corporate phase of capitalism which began at the end of the 19th century. This class peoples the hierarchies of control in both the corporations and the state. Some people call this class "the upper middle class" but that doesn't tell us what their role in social production is. This class includes the top professionals as well as managers, such as corporate lawyers who protect the legal interests of the corporations and help break unions. The top accountants. And the top engineers who help design industrial processes and define jobs in ways that assist in controlling labor.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

One of the problems with identifying people's class by their income, is that, when a crisis hits, then more wealthy workers have unemployment issues, falling living standards, difficulty keeping up payments on their mortgage ect.

So, their class can change overnight to the level of a regular wage worker.

A economic collapse though, doesn't equalize the worker and CEO like it does the working and middle classes.

[Janus]

a problem with defining class by income is that any boundary you draw is completely arbitrary. there are an infinite number of dividing points on income
Right, it also poses a problem when you get to capitalists who are exceptions to this rule like Steve Jobs and the owners of Google whose wealth is based on stock ownership rather than their salaries (I believe their actual salaries are $1).

[Invader Zim]

It doesn't matter though, still corporations have a board of directors where the individuals who own the majority of stocks direct the corporation.

Actually, that is not necessarily the case, though I take the point.


What is a small shop owner?

Petite bourgeoisie.


Can small shop owners employ some emploiyees, or by employing people they become bourgeosie?

In Marx' day, yes if only on a small scale.



What happens with divisions based on income, is that ultimately, it doesn't tells us what class is "objectively revolutionary" and what class is not.

But, in a modern day context in many developed societies, as a result of the decline of traditional "working class" labour, neither does Marx's. At least the size of a wage packet is a empirical factor which is likely to indicate a standard of living, affluent as opposed to indigent.



Certainly, CEO's don't mean shit in the grand scheme of history because they are not a crucial element of society. If they stopped existing, production wouldn't suddenly halt.

I quite agree. Though if you extend that to include all management, I would disagree.


That is why proffessionals like engineers can be considered proletarian, even if most of them don't generally join strikes etc, they are generally wage-slaves and they are crucial for the inner workings of history.

Lets take a scenario, an individual(s) is working in IT support on a stock control system is imperitive to efficient productivity. Yet they may well be employees, on a wage like any other person on the shop flaw, yet this individual will have the typical hall marks of a member of the middle class and an affluent lifestyle which reflects that. They are 'workers' in the loose sense of the word, they work either for a wage or a salary, they are employed by the company and like those on the shop floor their input is necessary for continued production, because should the system fail then the production line will be inoperable.

However, they are on £35,000 P.A. live in what would be considered an affluent middle class enviroment, have 2.4 children, a company car, their kids attend the local grammar school and the individual in question wears a suit to work and has a degree in I.T.

Based on their relationship to the means of production this person is little different to the guy on the shop floor who carries 'x' component from the forklift onto the production line. Both are fundermantally necessary for the line to continue working and without them there is no product. The guy on the shop floor however lives in a terrace house on a council estate, earns £12,000 P.A. and wears overalls to work.

The only similarity is both get invited to the work Christmas party and both are wage slaves for the same institution and their work is being exploited. The former however is by no means proletarian or part of the "working class", at least not by any colloquial definition of the terms.

It is this which I feal makes Marx totally outdated on this subject. It is standard of living or affluence which I feal really dictates class and that affluence is based on how much one pockets at the end of the day, and nothing else.



its impossible in sociological grounds to establish the precision hard sciences have.

Quite, however my problem with Marx on this issue is that the Marxian ideals of class are not based on an easily measurable empirical standard; that doesn't just make them flawed but it makes them ludicrous for the reasons I have already highlighted. This point, as already stated is because Marx's ideas on class are relevent to his time.


a problem with defining class by income is that any boundary you draw is completely arbitrary. there are an infinite number of dividing points on income. is the division between below $10,000 and above a year a class difference? how about between $12,000 a year or less, and those above?

That is a reasonable point, but I don't think a really significant one. If a person is on £12,000 then they will have enough to get by, a person on £30,000 will get by in moderate comfort, while those on £60,000 with get by with high standard of living and someone on £100,000 can afford a relatively lavish lifestyle. Perhaps it maybe difficult to pinpoint class in the case of an individual earning a wage smack in the blurred margins but for the most part I think an observable and measurable medium of comparison works better than the Marxian standard and i think if you were to walk down the street and ask people is class was based around those who have and those who don't (in an entirely material perspective) then you would recieve a firm positive.

Basically, it is my view that social stratification exists in a far more complex manner than Marx would have us believe, at least from a modern perspective.


In addition to these classes, there is also a class of top professionals and salaried managers whose class position is not based on ownership of capital but is based on a relative monopolization of the expertise, conceptualization and management work in social production. I would call this the "coordinator" class. This class only grew to become a major class during the corporate phase of capitalism which began at the end of the 19th century. This class peoples the hierarchies of control in both the corporations and the state. Some people call this class "the upper middle class" but that doesn't tell us what their role in social production is. This class includes the top professionals as well as managers, such as corporate lawyers who protect the legal interests of the corporations and help break unions. The top accountants. And the top engineers who help design industrial processes and define jobs in ways that assist in controlling labor.

That I totally agree with. But as you note this is a post-Marx development. It further complicated or if not complicated then altered society, thus Marx needs revision to take that into account.

I would also suggest that this 'class' could be expanded to include my IT support employee, a relatively well paid employee, crucial to the buisness but not a 'worker' in the traditional sense.


One of the problems with identifying people's class by their income, is that, when a crisis hits, then more wealthy workers have unemployment issues, falling living standards, difficulty keeping up payments on their mortgage ect.

So, their class can change overnight to the level of a regular wage worker.

A economic collapse though, doesn't equalize the worker and CEO like it does the working and middle classes.

As has been noted, this is by no means perfect or all inclusive.



"A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker, to the extent that she sells her song for money she is a wage-earner and a merchant. But this very singer becomes a productive worker, when she is engaged by a contractor to sing and make money, since she directly produces capital." - Karl Marx, Results of the Immediate Process of Production

And where would this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agit-Prop_Records) fit into that?

[Rawthentic]

A worker subsists solely on labor power.

"Employees" of the state are the enforcers and admins of the capitalist system, so they cannot be grouped as proletarians, even though many army soldiers join because of material necessity.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 03, 2007 10:35 pm
A worker subsists solely on labor power.

"Employees" of the state are the enforcers and admins of the capitalist system, so they cannot be grouped as proletarians, even though many army soldiers join because of material necessity.

There are a lot of state owned companies and employees outside of the military? Are those who are employed by the NHS "enforcers and admins of the capitalist system" not proletarians?

How about fire fighters? Coast-guard? Former Railtrack workers? etc.

Normally I like a fair bit of what you have to say, but on this one I think you are off the mark.

[Rawthentic]

Ok I admit I should have thought more on this one.

But they are proletarians I see, so no loss for the Marxian analysis.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 03, 2007 10:55 pm
Ok I admit I should have thought more on this one.

But they are proletarians I see, so no loss for the Marxian analysis.
I just re-read my post and thought I was a bit abrupt, I have edited my post accordingly. But on your point, are they? The Marxian class idea that the proletarians are being exploited by capitalist employers doesn't really fit when it comes to say the NHS; it is a non-profit organisation which actually is a massive drain on the state. I have no-doubt that somone makes a healthy profit from it somewhere along the lines, but that I think is probably due to it being a flawed institution. But the point remains it is not a capitalist institution out to exploit workers for a minority bourgeosie elite, unlike a 19th century factory.

That is my point of contention there.

[Rawthentic]

Would their class nature rest with the rest of proletarians or the capitalists?

I would say the proletarians.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 06:37 am
Obviously in modern day society Marxian ideals on class are utterly worthless in anything but the most cursory of examinations of a modern economically developed society. It ignores the fact that the majority of employee's are not employed by a capitalist or even group of capitalists, but by floated companies which have hundreds if not thousands of share holders, who actually own the company which employs everyone within the company. We also have the state, which incidentally is usually one of the highest employers within any developed capitalist country. This includes not only armed forces, but the civil service, council workers, etc.
How is this a problem for Marxism? It makes little difference to a worker who owns the company. They'll go on skinning us just the same.

I've worked for individual or family-owned company, large joint-stock corporations, nonprofits, and know people who've worked for the government. The employer-employee relationship is the same. Even working for supposedly "employee-owned" companies can be pretty much the same. Take a look at United Airlines.


But as you note this is a post-Marx development. It further complicated or if not complicated then altered society, thus Marx needs revision to take that into account.

Of course, our understanding of society needs constant updating! Anything else would be profoundly anti-materialist and so anti-Marxist.

But really, the existence of well-off salaried professionals isn't a totally post-Marx development, they've just expanded greatly. There were engineers, doctors, and lawyers in Marx's day - but he certainly never suggested they were part of the working class. As one of his oversimplifiers does with engineers in this thread.

And the distinction isn't simply income - there are people who work for a salry, but have more to sell than their labor-power. A piece of sheepskin that gives them an artificial monopoly of some section of the labor-market, in some cases.

So really, none of your points is as big a problem for Marxism as it is for the rigid oversimplifiers of Marx.

Who probably have their own reasons for wanting to claim these professionals are workers - possibly to misleadingly define themselves as workers?


It is this which I feal makes Marx totally outdated on this subject. It is standard of living or affluence which I feal really dictates class and that affluence is based on how much one pockets at the end of the day, and nothing else.

Most of your arguments come back to this: you just feel that income is important and nothing else. Or sometimes, you argue that most people would define class that way - but the argument from popularity is also a fallacy.

We start to see why arguing about definitions is usually dead-end: what other argument would you use to say a definition is right or wrong? A definition's more like an axiom than a conclusion....

But lemme suggest that somebody's income is not the only interesting, or socially and politically significant, fact about them. Work is where many people spend most of their waking hours. What kind of social relations do they experience there? How does that affect how they look at things?

Or where does their income come from - clearly that affects their interests. If it's from owning stock, they have an interest in making the company more profitable. If it's from a wage or salary, they have an interest in increasing it, even if that makes the company less profitable.

At Boeing, engineers actually do organize, strike, and sometimes refuse to cross workers' picket lines. I'm not going to argue they're part of the working class, but the nature of their social position as salaried professionals gives them something in common with workers, and makes this solidarity possible.

Or consider garment workers making minimum wage, and autoworkers making maybe 3 times as much. Are they not part of the same class? I disagree. They have a common interest in defending the labor movement from boss attacks, and solidarizing with each others struggles to defend the average value of the labor-power they both live by selling.

I'm certainly not going to argue that income is irrelevant or unimportant to someone's role in society and politics, or that it should be totally ignored in evaluating the class of, say, engineers.

But if you're going to argue Marx's basic concepts are irrelevant you'll have to do much better than you have so far.

[Invader Zim]

It makes little difference to a worker who owns the company.

Quite, but it does make a difference to this paradigm of class stratification which implies that the worker is always being screwed over by a capitalist group of individuals, the higher class. In this case they are being screwed over by an entire institution which provides a service for the general public and is funded through taxes.


The employer-employee relationship is the same.

Except that there is no employer. The employer is the company. There will be a boss, who is on more money, but they still are just a worker for the company, just working in a different capacity. It is on this basis that I reject the Marxian class anaysis, because it puts a person in a totally different role, with a far better lifestyle in the same theoretical catagory as a person clearly on a higher economic and social level.




But really, the existence of well-off salaried professionals isn't a totally post-Marx development, they've just expanded greatly.

I would agree with that to an extent. I would argue that they have gone from a tiny minority (which could possibly be classed along with artisana), now to quite probably a near if not full majority, especially in Britain. I have no statistics to provide on this, just a peronal and possibly erronious observation.



And the distinction isn't simply income - there are people who work for a salry, but have more to sell than their labor-power.

Now that is where you are incorrect. They only have their labour to sell, and when they work that is what they are selling. The only difference is is that their additional training or skills allows them to perform a different role when they sell their labour; obviously from a socialist point of view that role is of no greater value than any other. As such their labour is being valued (and bought) at a higher rate than other workers; thus we have an example of social stratification based upon something other than position in regards to the means of production; this is very common through out the modern day developed world. Gone is most of the traditional working class, or at least a sizable portion of it and in is a new, relatively well educated and specialised group employed in a similar manner to shop floor workers, but on much higher salaries. Never the less they still "wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live."




Most of your arguments come back to this: you just feel that income is important and nothing else.

Is anything more important?


Or sometimes, you argue that most people would define class that way - but the argument from popularity is also a fallacy.

True, but as social stratification maybe observed from numerous perspectives, ultimately popular understood definition comes down to collective perception, personal definition is also subjective; making our discussion somewhat academic.

To quote E. P Thompson, the emminant socialist historian and one time member of the communist party (until 1956 and the Soviet invasion of Poland) "Class is defined by men as the live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition."



At Boeing, engineers actually do organize, strike, and sometimes refuse to cross workers' picket lines. I'm not going to argue they're part of the working class, but the nature of their social position as salaried professionals gives them something in common with workers, and makes this solidarity possible.

Something in common? That is hardly massive support for your argument. The AUT went on industrial action relatively recently, does that mean that the intelligentsia have a great deal in common with the working classes? I don't think so, I think it means they have a common interest, which is gaining a higher income (or a suitable alternative); which is probably about as far as it goes. I certainly would not considerer them likely to be revolutionary or capable of revolution unless they joined a working class revolution.

[black magick hustla]

Who probably have their own reasons for wanting to claim these professionals are workers - possibly to misleadingly define themselves as workers?

:lol:

Sure, I am an 18 year old engineer.

[Rawthentic]

Class is defined by men as the live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition.
They do this according to the mode of production in their time and their outlook based on their relationship to the means of production within the mop.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 04, 2007 01:57 am

Class is defined by men as the live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition.
They do this according to the mode of production in their time and their outlook based on their relationship to the means of production within the mop.

I don't suppose that was quite what he had in mind when he wrote that titbit; leftist though he was.

[Rawthentic]

Well, according to you he is a socialist and I was explaining the materialist method.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 03, 2007 04:21 pm
Except that there is no employer. The employer is the company.
So the company, on its own without human help, manages to organize a division of labor, schedule production and distribution of commodities, exploits workers, and lives off surplus value? :huh: What a rather idealistic way of looking at things.

[black magick hustla]

Now that is where you are incorrect. They only have their labour to sell, and when they work that is what they are selling. The only difference is is that their additional training or skills allows them to perform a different role when they sell their labour; obviously from a socialist point of view that role is of no greater value than any other.

Err, kinda.

From a marxist point of view, the value of a commodity is based on the labor-power exerted on such commodity. Someone who spent many years studying could be argued that his labour is valued much more because simply, more labor-power (studying) was exerted on his particular skill.

It doesn't matter though, in communism, money is destroyed, so really that is a moot point.


Invader Zim, instead of arguing with you point to point, i'll just argue this. Marx tried to create a "scientific" framework, and regardless of the totality of the consciousness of a member of a certain class, him, as a member of that class, contains certain objective "self-interests". So even if a someone much better off seems to be of a different class, it doesnt matters if he has the same relationshiip to the means of production. Every exploited proletarian is going to be better off in a socialist future, regardless if he is a professional or a janitor, simply because there won't be a capitalist parasite sucking up everything. There are racist workers, there are even fascist workers, but still they have the same objective self-interests as a communist worker.

Managers btw are petty bourgeois. So if an engineer was a manager, he would be petty-bourgeois, not proletarian. However, if an engineer was in manteinance, or heck, designing stuff, he would be proletarian. AS simple as that.

[temp918273]

A person's social relationship to capital determines their class. Income does have an effect on this relationship, however it is by no means the deciding factor.

What matters most is how that income is earned.
-People who own capital and profit from the labor of others: Bourgeoisie
-If it is a doctor with his own practice or a small-business owner: Petite Bourgeoisie
-Anyone(including high-paying professionals as their incomes are subject to the currently-changing labor market) who earns a wage by working for those who own capital: Proletariat
- People who choose to earn their living outside of the law, stealing etc... Lumpenproletariat/bourgeoisie

What is it about this concept is out-of-date? Obviously the economies of the world have changed since Marx wrote, but not a whole lot has changed in the class department.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+June 04, 2007 03:21 am--> (ComradeRed @ June 04, 2007 03:21 am)
Invader [email protected] 03, 2007 04:21 pm
Except that there is no employer. The employer is the company.
So the company, on its own without human help, manages to organize a division of labor, schedule production and distribution of commodities, exploits workers, and lives off surplus value? :huh: What a rather idealistic way of looking at things. [/b]
That is a gross misunderstanding of not only what I was saying but what actually makes a company. The sharholders appoint a board of directors in order to deal with those factors and smoothly operate a company; the board of directors then appoints numerous individuals in various managerial roles and so on. These managers while not on the shop floor and not personally involved in the manual labour necessary to creating the product are still necessary.

So yes there is no employer, that is not an idealistic way of seeing it, that is the way it is and has been in every job I have ever had. (I have never worked for a private limited company) I worked for the company or trust, not an individual. Obviously I had a boss who managed what I was doing along with numerous other individuals but he; like me was an employee.



Managers btw are petty bourgeois.

That being the case then the petite bourgeoisie, a non-revolutionary class, now probably vastly outnumbers any other class.



What is it about this concept is out-of-date?

Try reading some of the several thousand words I've written on it in this thread.


So even if a someone much better off seems to be of a different class, it doesnt matters if he has the same relationshiip to the means of production.

But it does matter, that’s the whole point. A person with a much better lifestyle is far less liable to be revolutionary than an individual who's oppression is far more acute or blatant. This is because income is a form of social stratification. If it separates one persons lifestyle from another based on a purely arbitrary valuation of the labour which is being sold then it is a divide; and just about every sociologists attempt to create a model of the existing class system includes income for that very reason.

[apathy maybe]

Marmot: Please provide quotes from folks (preferably Marx or Engels) that explain why managers (people who do not own any means of production, and are forced to work to live) are petit-bourgeois (folks who own some means of production, but are also forced to work, sometimes employing others to work alongside them).

I don't think I agree with Mr Zim about how he defines class, but I do think that his criticisms of Marxian class analysis are correct, at least to a certain extent.

Anyway, Invader, so the military are included in your "income determines class" analysis?

[Invader Zim]

Anyway, Invader, so the military are included in your "income determines class" analysis?

Of course, they are perhaps the best example of class, as their is a whole heirarchy of social stratification within the military. Though obviously this is far more archaic that 'real' social stratification; it is based upon aged class divides and is based around foolish traditions.

Take the UK RAF, a person who enters the ranks can expect, at the lowest levels to be on around £15,500 PA (and if they stay in longer they will recieve considerably more), and they will of course get the working jobs.

An officer on the other hand, when they first enter as in the most junior rank will be on £22,680, they will eat in the officers mess and will recieve much better living facilities. After three-five years they will probably be on £30-35,000 PA in some form of managerial or administrative position. The squady after the same period maybe on £20,000 give or take and still doing the jobs on the ground, ie working as a mechanic or whatever.

These people are still workers, but working for the military which of course massively reduces the probability that they could ever be revolutionary (though as some examples would suggest, this is not universally the case).

[temp918273]

Try reading some of the several thousand words I've written on it in this thread.
I have. You've not addressed how marxist class analysis is out of date. Last I checked, we're still living under capitalism.


But it does matter, that’s the whole point. A person with a much better lifestyle is far less liable to be revolutionary than an individual who's oppression is far more acute or blatant. This is because income is a form of social stratification. If it separates one persons lifestyle from another based on a purely arbitrary valuation of the labour which is being sold then it is a divide; and just about every sociologists attempt to create a model of the existing class system includes income for that very reason.
Your theory is really superficial, short-sighted, and still does not refute the marxist analysis of class under capitalism as social relations to means of production(wages do happen to play a part in this relationship, but do not define it.)

In fact, you're not even addressing class in the materialist sense, but an individual's tendency towards revolutionary politics based on their lifestyle. Your approach provides no real insight into capital and how its relations shape society while Marx's does.

[Invader Zim]

I have.

Apparently not, hense this: -


You've not addressed how marxist class analysis is out of date.

See this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67163&view=findpost&p=1292324141)post.


Last I checked, we're still living under capitalism.

And? Have you not considered that the capitalism of the mid 19th century is different to its form in the 21st century?



Your theory is really superficial, short-sighted, and still does not refute the marxist analysis of class under capitalism as social relations to means of production


In fact, you're not even addressing class in the materialist sense, but an individual's tendency towards revolutionary politics based on their lifestyle.


Your approach provides no real insight into capital and how its relations shape society while Marx's does.

Other than simply contradicting me, without providing a any actual reasoning behind your contradiction, do you actually have anything to add; you know, like an argument?

Unfortunately I am one of those purists who is under the impression that in order to have a discussion one must place forward ones views and support them with an argument; not just contradict your opponent without brining anything at all to the table. Call me old fashioned, what you are doing is just A. lazy, B. a sign of ignorance or C. contradiction for the sake of contradiction.

while Marx's does

What you mean apart from the fact it clearly doesn't, when massive wealth lies in the hands of this middle class group of so-called 'proletarians' - at least by Marx's defintion? Right...

[temp918273]

Any serious look at any economy on earth makes it abundantly clear that the division between those who do and do not own the means of production still exists.

When you define classes by income you're essentially saying that one's class is determined by the amount of commodities their wage allows them to consume and is in constant flux with the ups and downs of the labor market. This is not a framework suitable for any serious criticism of capitalism(let alone any kind of revolutionary theory), but rather the effects of it.

As Guy Debord so pleasantly put it in the 197th thesis of Society of the Spectacle:
The sociologists who have begun to raise questions about the living conditions created by modern social developments (first of all in the United States) have gathered a great deal of empirical data, but they have failed to grasp the true nature of their object of study because they fail to recognize the critique that is inherent in that object. As a result, those among them who sincerely wish to reform these conditions can only appeal to ethical standards, common sense, moderation, and other measures that are equally inadequate for dealing with the problems in question. Because this method of criticism is unaware of the negativity at the heart of its world, it focuses on describing and deploring an excessive sort of negativity that seems to blight the surface of that world like some irrational parasitic infestation. This outraged good will, which even within its own moralizing framework ends up blaming only the external consequences of the system, can see itself as critical only by ignoring the essentially apologetic character of its assumptions and methods.

[Invader Zim]

Any serious look at any economy on earth makes it abundantly clear that the division between those who do and do not own the means of production still exists.

No, it doesn't; which is why any serious sociologists who look at social stratification do not employ such obolite methodology. Owning the means of production no longer necessarily grants wealth, lifestyle, revolutionary politics, class politics, or to be quite honest; anything at all. While being restricted from ownership of the means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee anything either, something we can note by the innumeral employees who are on six if not seven figure salaries and lifestyles which are reflected by this prosperity. It also does not take into account the prosperity of the lower middle class (also selling their labour), who are enjoying such prosperity, the like of which has never been afforded to them before. This subsection of the middle class is undoubtedly one of, if not, the largest body of those employed in the West today; and by a Marxian standard they are proletarian; when in reality they are part of the middle class.



When you define classes by income you're essentially saying that one's class is determined by the amount of commodities their wage allows them to consume and is in constant flux with the ups and downs of the labor market. This is not a framework suitable for any serious criticism of capitalism(let alone any kind of revolutionary theory), but rather the effects of it.

But it is still a hell of a lot better than a standard which no longer reflects anything at all.

Oh and evaluating social stratification cannot be politically 'revolutionary', it is either accurate or it is not, and for the reasons outlined above, Marx no longer is accurate on this matter.

[temp918273]

No, it doesn't; which is why any serious sociologists who look at social stratification do not employ such obolite methodology.
Which is why sociology is secluded to the realm of academia and politically impotent.
This is pretty odd though, in the few colleges I've visited in Canada sociology departments were overwhelmingly Marxist, hell, my own professor of sociology in the US had a portrait of Marx on his door. Perhaps your definition of 'serious sociologists' differs from these people.


While being restricted from ownership of the means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee anything either, something we can note by the innumeral employees who are on six if not seven figure salaries and lifestyles which are reflected by this prosperity.
Over half of the US workforce earns less than 40,000 a year(much more if you count the massive undocumented workforce) whereas the top six percent earns 100,000 and above(the top one percent at about 400 or 500 thousand and up). The amount of people on six and seven figure salaries are hardly innumerable and if their relation to capital happens to make them "proletariat", then they are a section of the proletariat that us revolutionaries can largely ignore as a focus of organization. Most of the time, the people who are making that much money are not making it all by selling their labor.


It also does not take into account the prosperity of the lower middle class (also selling their labour), who are enjoying such prosperity, the like of which has never been afforded to them before. This subsection of the middle class is undoubtedly one of, if not, the largest body of those employed in the West today; and by a Marxian standard they are proletarian; when in reality they are part of the middle class.
Being a proletariat and being "lower-middle class" are not mutually exclusive so long as proletariat is defined as someone who makes their living by selling their labor. The middle-class phenomenon is very very young and current economic trends of globalization suggest that it's going to be short-lived as the labor market goes global and people elsewhere are willing to work for cheaper. Marxists take a very different approach to the middle-class than you do. Rather than just accepting it as a self-evident 'natural' feature of capitalism, we rightly see it as an effect of the division of labor and the product of state-intervention and subsidy. The images presented by spectacular society would have you think that everyone is prospering in 'middle class' when in fact people are more alienated than ever from their own productive labor and their entire existence atomized by capitalist society with no real control over their own lives.

Yes, we've eliminated the scarcity of commodities that existed in marx's day and people's standard of living is much better(at least those living in imperialist nations). That does not change the fact that there is an identifiable section of society that does control capital(and in turn controls society politically) and an equally identifiable, and much larger, section of those who are controlled by capital.


Oh and evaluating social stratification cannot be politically 'revolutionary', it is either accurate or it is not, and for the reasons outlined above, Marx no longer is accurate on this matter.
I didn't say that social stratification was 'revolutionary' I said that your definition of class offers absolutely no insight or criticism on how capitalism operates or the social relations it creates thus has no place in revolutionary theory(the forum we're posting in).
I was pretty much saying that you should be posting in Opposing Ideologies in a subtle way.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 04, 2007 03:55 am
That is a gross misunderstanding of not only what I was saying but what actually makes a company.
Probably...considering that I haven't seen the term "company" defined by you in this thread (which you possibly might have done and I might have overlooked), I simply used the traditional sense of the word.


The sharholders appoint a board of directors in order to deal with those factors and smoothly operate a company; the board of directors then appoints numerous individuals in various managerial roles and so on. These managers while not on the shop floor and not personally involved in the manual labour necessary to creating the product are still necessary. The term "company" is still left undefined...though it is operated by the board of directors, who are appointed by shareholders, we still don't know what it is.

This board of directors then assign, in some manner, a number of individuals in "manager" positions.

But the term "company" is left completely undefined and its use is ambiguous.


So yes there is no employer, that is not an idealistic way of seeing it, that is the way it is and has been in every job I have ever had. I've always been hired by humans, probably in the "managerial" positions you spoke of.

These humans in such positions were either my boss or my boss' boss. They told me what to do, either directly or indirectly.

The company didn't "hire" anyone, "its operatives" did...or their employees.

Speaking of the company "hiring" people, and this action only being "mediated" through its "operatives" is a rather idealistic way of looking at things.

Just as the idealistic interpretation of history turned history into a "person", so too does this treatment turn the company into a "person"...which is patently absurd from the materialist point of view.


Obviously I had a boss who managed what I was doing along with numerous other individuals but he; like me was an employee. All bosses are "employees"...it's just that they have a different relation to labor and the means of production compared to the "real" employees.

The CEOs, despite being bourgeois, "are" also "employees"...but the difference between them and us is that they can live the rest of their lives without ever having to work again, whereas we don't have that luxury; in addition to the obviously different relations to the means of production and to labor.

But I assume the latter two go without saying ;)

I think that you are using the term "boss" to indicate "someone with no one higher up to tell him/her what to do" and I don't think that's a valid use of the term in our modern times.