Home loan bankers

[JRR883]

I'm contemplating my father's occupation, a home loan officer at a local bank, and I'm having a bit of difficulty determining whether or not his occupation is proletarian or bourgeois. His job is obviously in the service sector. He has nobody working under him. His job basically entails of taking applications from people, mostly proles, doing paperwork and advising them about what to do to be eligible for a home loan and to sell their house. He gets outside companies to appraise the houses for value, and once he gets all the paperwork and information done he sends it to underwriting, where they determine if it would be in the bank's best interests to give the loan.

On a personal level, I've notice he genuinely cares whether or not the applicants can get the loan, and shows contempt to the people above him that disapprove the loan, not because he gets more money if they do but for empathetic reasons. Stereotyping him as the average loan officer, I'd say they'd probably side with the workers rather than the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation. But, on the flip side, banks are an entirely capitalist construct, so as a post-revolutionary society would have no bankers, I'm not quite sure if they would resist revolution for their own survival.

So, would the bankers that interact directly with customers with no workers under them be proletarian, regardless of the fact they work for banks? There's no hope for my dad, though. He owns stock and rent houses he got from his mother's inheritance =P

[which doctor]

I would say he is a proletarian. No one would say he is outright bourgeoisie, but some may argue he is petty-bourgeoisie.

[Janus]

So, would the bankers that interact directly with customers with no workers under them be proletarian, regardless of the fact they work for banks?
Working for a specific institution does not change one's class, it's the nature of the work that does. As far as I can tell, loan officers would still be classified as proletarian since they rely primarily on their technical knowledge and guidance, which they must sell, in order to make a living.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:50 am

So, would the bankers that interact directly with customers with no workers under them be proletarian, regardless of the fact they work for banks?
Working for a specific institution does not change one's class, it's the nature of the work that does. As far as I can tell, loan officers would still be classified as proletarian since they rely primarily on their technical knowledge and guidance, which they must sell, in order to make a living.
By that logic, wouldn't cops be proles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but being proletarian implies revolutionary potential, not simply class.

[Janus]

By that logic, wouldn't cops be proles?
The Marxist classification system is based on one's relationship to the means of production and that is what I was pointing out. Those who do engage in technical work are still considered proletarian because they help to produce and generate value for a certain commodity or product. As such another prerequisite is that they create and increase capital for the capitalists rather than servicing the administrative needs of the capitalist or state system which is the domain of the police and political bureaucracy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but being proletarian implies revolutionary potential, not simply class.
The latter determines the former.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:13 pm

By that logic, wouldn't cops be proles?
The Marxist classification system is based on one's relationship to the means of production and that is what I was pointing out. Those who do engage in technical work are still considered proletarian because they help to produce and generate value for a certain commodity or product. As such another prerequisite is that they create and increase capital for the capitalists rather than servicing the administrative needs of the capitalist or state system which is the domain of the police and political bureaucracy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but being proletarian implies revolutionary potential, not simply class.
The latter determines the former.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.