Are any of you actually proletarians?

[Apollodorus]

You will probably get angry at me for asking this, because no doubt many have asked about it before, or because I have posted it in the wrong forum, or merely because of the offensive content of the topic. But I had to ask.

I mean, this forum is predominantly English-speaking, and the English-speaking countries are regarded as being the richest area of the world, with a majority of the urban population working in the tertiary sector. I mean, you talk about how the proletariats are being oppressed by the bourgeoisie, and so forth, yet what would you call yourself?

I assure you, I am a revolutionary as well. I just think that perhaps the ideology needs refining.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The scope of "proletariat" isn't limited to factory workers.

There are three distinct types: manual, clerical, and professional.

"Manual" includes factory workers, rural farm workers (actual workers on business farms, NOT peasants or small-family farmers), forestry and mining workers, etc.

"Clerical" includes people like myself (office workers), typical retail workers (though the support guys doing the heavy-lifting at the back are "manual" workers), bank tellers, etc.

"Professional" includes engineers, designated accountants who don't own businesses or who aren't executives, teachers, etc.

[VukBZ2005]

What you have to understand is this; the industrialized regions of the world, as a whole, not just the industrialized regions of the world that are primarily English-speaking, are in a different stage of Capitalist development; a stage that is defined by the dismantling of both heavy and light industry and their replacement by various service industries. Thus, just because of the fact that the industrialized regions of the world, as a whole, are in a different stage of Capitalist development, that does not mean that the working class has ceased to exist in these regions; it just means that we, the people that currently reside in the industrialized regions of the world, have moved away from having our energy extracted through the use of labor-intensive and Capital-intensive technology, or, absolute means, to having our energy extracted through relative, or, non-absolute means.

[Apollodorus]

The scope of "proletariat" isn't limited to factory workers.

There are three distinct types: manual, clerical, and professional.

"Manual" includes factory workers, rural farm workers (actual workers on business farms, NOT peasants or small-family farmers), forestry and mining workers, etc.

"Clerical" includes people like myself (office workers), typical retail workers (though the support guys doing the heavy-lifting at the back are "manual" workers), bank tellers, etc.

"Professional" includes engineers, designated accountants who don't own businesses or who aren't executives, teachers, etc.

But, I mean, the clerical and the professional sectors of the proletariat class are not really being oppressed, are they? They can still afford food, housing, and other basic needs, in addition to non-essential possessions like computers. I mean, if you own a computer that puts you in a minority. Not only that, you are in a sense indirectly supporting the oppression of the computer-makers, by funding their oppression. Who oppresses the clerks and the professionals?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Typical clerical and professional workers work more than 40 hours a week in one job, too (not just those manual or clerical workers with two jobs).

Here's how relative "oppression" works: Since compensation is based on an annual basis, working "extra time" doesn't result in extra pay. Some companies allow "banked" time (work extra now, take extra vacation later), and others don't.

Regardless, the "extra time" has a time-value-of-money concept attached. $2,000 in two weeks is worth less than $2,000 now.

[mikelepore]

Proletariat means you don't earn enough from the dividends on your stocks and bonds to live on -- when people in your situation need money they have to get it by getting a job. It has nothing to do with how oppressed you think you are.

[INDK]

A proletarian is simply one who is not in control of the means of production and thus must sell pure labour to survive. Personally, I qualify.


I mean, this forum is predominantly English-speaking, and the English-speaking countries are regarded as being the richest area of the world, with a majority of the urban population working in the tertiary sector. I mean, you talk about how the proletariats are being oppressed by the bourgeoisie, and so forth, yet what would you call yourself?

They're known as the richest parts of the world because they have the largest proletariat classes and the richest bourgeoisies because of this immense labour force.



I assure you, I am a revolutionary as well. I just think that perhaps the ideology needs refining.

And how does this refine revolutionary theory?

[Niccolò Rossi]

But, I mean, the clerical and the professional sectors of the proletariat class are not really being oppressed, are they? They can still afford food, housing, and other basic needs, in addition to non-essential possessions like computers.

You don't' measure whether one is a proletarian or not by the quantity of consumer goods they owns nor their income. All proletarians are defined by their relations to the means of production.


Who oppresses the clerks and the professionals?

Whether we labour in an office, mine or factory we are still the slaves of capital and of the bourgeoisie. Our very existence depends on them within the capitalist stage of society


I mean, if you own a computer that puts you in a minority. Not only that, you are in a sense indirectly supporting the oppression of the computer-makers, by funding their oppression.

I've had this argument raised a number of times in other forums and in conversations. Our very existence within the capitalist system makes us all gears in the great machine of oppression. You can not possibly live in a modern first world nation without "exploiting" your fellow proletarians whether they live within your boarders or in the third world. The only way to stop the exploitation is running off to live in some rural hippie commune which does nothing for the class struggle and is plain counter productive.

To answer the OP's original question. I myself am a proletarian. I am currently both student and a part-timer at a fast-food restaurant.

[Apollodorus]

And how does this refine revolutionary theory?

It hasn't. It has merely refined my definition of the term 'proletariat'. My mentioning of my opinion about revolutionary ideology needing refinement was so that people knew where I stand politically. I did not want to be branded as a counter-revolutionary or anything, you see, which would be an understandable reaction to the questions I asked.


To answer the OP's original question. I myself am a proletarian. I am currently both student and a part-timer at a fast-food restaurant.

So what are students? What about lecturers, teachers, and professors? Or department store managers? Stockbrokers? Financial planners? Insurance advisers? Scientists, public servants or anyone employed by the government?

[BIG BROTHER]

I'm a student and sometimes I clean houses or offices so I'm a proleriat.

Teachers they're proleriat they sell labor(mental not fisical) and I consider them underpaid when their job is actually very important.

and by the way, i was thinking of asking this same question, lol

[Bilan]

I, too, am a student, and also, just recently got another job at a cinema complex - cleaner, etc.

[Demogorgon]

Even in the United States, perhaps only 1% of the population can be properly called bourgoisie with perhaps a fair few more petit-bourgoisie.

Simply having a liveable income does not make someone bourgoisie.

[Cencus]

I was a prole buyt now that I'm on permanent sick I'm a lumpen

[RNK]

I'm a die-hard prole and I hope to be one my whole life. I find a pleasant satisfaction in being one.

[Awful Reality]

As a teenager, I'm still living off my parents.

Techinically we should be petit-bourgeoise, as my dad's a 9-5 cubicle accountant and my mom's a teacher, but we essentially amass the income of proletarians.

We're not too well off- at all -and I consider myself to have faced a quite large bit of the darker side of capitalism.

EDIT: Being Proletarian is much more coplicated than that, but the parts that don't deal with specific income I don't really want to talk about publicly on the internet.

[Demogorgon]

:(
As a teenager, I'm still living off my parents.

Techinically we should be petit-bourgeoise, as my dad's a 9-5 cubicle accountant and my mom's a teacher, but we essentially amass the income of proletarians.

We're not too well off- at all -and I consider myself to have faced a quite large bit of the darker side of capitalism.

What is petit-bourgoisie about your parents jobs? Neither involve profiting off ownership, do they?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think his definition of "class" is too related to the mainstream definition. :(

[black magick hustla]

proletariats is a funny word

[BIG BROTHER]

By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?

[bezdomni]

I am not a proletarian. You don't have to be a proletarian to be a communist.

[Yazman]

I was a prole but am lumpen atm also.

[RadioRaheem84]

Considering that the United States and most of the West is in a different state of capitalism than it was during Marx's original intent of the word proletarian, we can still define ourselves as the proletariat. The west has exported all of the manufacturing jobs outside of their borders to the third world where labor is cheap. Instead we've been given a whole slew of petty service sector jobs. From the minimum wage slave to the cubicle serf, we're all in the same state that we were before the jobs went oversees; captive to the leaders of industry. Only this time the leaders are ammassing huge record profits from exploiting BOTH the service sector in their own nations AND the manufacturing sector abroad. The average salary of a CEO of a major 500 company is over 500 times greater than the average worker in the same company. That is staggering. And that is just counting the service sector. Imagine how much more he is making than the sweatshop kid making his shoes for .15 an hour.
The myth that the working and middle class are somehow living in luxury is spurious. People who propose this shoddy outlook never account for the fact that the reason we are living in relative riches is because we've lowered the living standard for the third world. So we get cheap goods and the means to survive in order to continue to work for a corrupt elite that constantly lowers our own standards (and the worlds) in order to raise his.

In other words: yes we are proles. Nothing has changed.

[Niccolò Rossi]

By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?If we use the mainstream definition class, celebrities/actors/musicians would definitely be members of the upper class.

However a celebrity/actor under the Marxist definition of class would have a considerably different standing. If they sell their labour (their acting or whatever) and do not own any of the means of production then they are a proletarian (a very rich and very well off one however).

However the problem with defining an actor as such is that they unlike other proletarians it is hard to see how they could drive a revolution. I think actors share the same position as the managerial "class" if you will. They are both by definition proletarians, but they do very well under capitalism and would most likely not be to eager to revolt.

Thinking on this topic I'm sure Jacob Richter will pipe up shortly and answer this with a link to the thread "Has Capitalism really simplified class relations".

[Die Neue Zeit]

If we use the mainstream definition class, celebrities/actors/musicians would definitely be members of the upper class.

However a celebrity/actor under the Marxist definition of class would have a considerably different standing. If they sell their labour (their acting or whatever) and do not own any of the means of production then they are a proletarian (a very rich and very well off one however).

Thinking on this topic I'm sure Jacob Richter will pipe up shortly and answer this with a link to the thread "Has Capitalism really simplified class relations".

You Internet stalker, you! :lol:

Nah. I only do that when there are threads concerning lumpenproles, mid-level managers and other "coordinators" still being perceived as "petit-bourgeois," cops, security guards, lawyers, judges, etc. [Trying to demolish the "miscellaneous" perceptions surrounding the petit-bourgeoisie] ;)

In that thread of mine, manual, clerical, and professional workers are all part of the working class.

[RNK]

The average salary of a CEO of a major 500 company is over 500 times greater than the average worker in the same company.

Actually it's just shy of 400 times, like it makes any fucking difference. What's more ridiculous is that in 1980 it was only 40 times more. An increase in the ballpark of %1000 percent in 25 years is immense.

[RadioRaheem84]

And in the 80s? The corporate raider, Regeanomics, Gordon Gekko 80s, it was at 40%? And now after the Liberal Clinton Years and compassionate conservative Bush years its at 400%? That is more than staggering. That is just plain criminal.

And this is just counting the average worker's salary here in the US, right? That figure doesn't take into account the sweatshop laborer who makes their products.

[Black Cross]

By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?

I believe the technical term is douche bag... That's just blatant spam, I apologize. But I don't take it back. They don't necessarily exploit, but they feed off the profits of exploitation.


Actually it's just shy of 400 times, like it makes any fucking difference. What's more ridiculous is that in 1980 it was only 40 times more. An increase in the ballpark of %1000 percent in 25 years is immense.

Haha, right you are. But that's pretty fucked up that it's grown so much.

[RadioRaheem84]

By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?

Most lead actors take home a portion of the production costs and merchandise made through the film. They do sell their labor but most of all they sell is their face; i.e. a product. High payed actors take away much of the money intended for crew members and other up and coming actors. The majority of them sell themselves to the producers at the expense of other actors.
Then they vote liberal because they feel guilty for taking those high paychecks and want to give some back to the community either through advocating for high taxes or donations. A lot of actors then use that money to go invest into their own businesses or others. Some of them even set up their own production companies which purposely avoid certain towns because of union laws.

I mean the list goes on with how hypocritical a lot of Hollywood actors are.

Ironically, the LEAST hypocritical actor in Hollywood is raving right-winger Vincent Gallo.

[Apollodorus]

(not "proletariats" which would mean more than one working classes)

Oh, right. So the proletariat is the class, and proletarians are members of that class. I stand corrected.


^^^ I think his definition of "class" is too related to the mainstream definition. :(

Quite, I went and looked 'petit-bourgeoisie' on Wikipedia, and it said that the petit-bourgeoisie do not own the means of production, despite their name.

So the problem with the bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat is not that they are making the poor (at least, in the West), but because they are getting so much more money than the proletariat. Am I right?

Oh, and another thing (I thought this was relevant but I can't find exactly where I was going to link the question to the topic), what about the labour movement and trade unions and so forth? What are your thoughts on that subject?

[Dr Mindbender]

I am not a proletarian. You don't have to be a proletarian to be a communist.

Yes you do. Thats like saying you didnt have to be non-jewish to be a member of the German nazi party.

I think theres a lot of confusion here over what proletarian actually means. If you read the communist manifesto, Marx states that the population have been broken into 2 opposing camps, Beourgiose and proletariat.

Puts simply, the beourgiose are the ones who control the means of production and the proletarian are the ones who have to work within them. That is to say, that 'proletarian' in the marxist sense means everyone from pretty much the upper enchelons of middle class society to the absolute grassroots of the working class or 'lumpenproletariat'.

If you consider yourself to be non-prole, then you and your fellow class members are few and far between.

[Winter]

Yes you do. Thats like saying you didnt have to be non-jewish to be a member of the German nazi party.

I think theres a lot of confusion here over what proletarian actually means. If you read the communist manifesto, Marx states that the population have been broken into 2 opposing camps, Beourgiose and proletariat.

Puts simply, the beourgiose are the ones who control the means of production and the proletarian are the ones who have to work within them. That is to say, that 'proletarian' in the marxist sense means everyone from pretty much the upper enchelons of middle class society to the absolute grassroots of the working class or 'lumpenproletariat'.

If you consider yourself to be non-prole, then you and your fellow class members are few and far between.


One can be part of the petty bourgeois and support Marxist thought.

[dksu]

Yes you do. Thats like saying you didnt have to be non-jewish to be a member of the German nazi party.

I think theres a lot of confusion here over what proletarian actually means. If you read the communist manifesto, Marx states that the population have been broken into 2 opposing camps, Beourgiose and proletariat.

Right, but he never says that you have to be a proletarian to be a communist. You need to be a communist to be a communist, your class has about as much to do with it has your race (alright, maybe more in that it has a greater effect on determining if you're a communist or not ;p). Engels was a member of the bourgeoisie (he partially owned a commercial firm, and, evidently, he wasn't too keen on it) and, clearly, no one could accuse him of not being a communist =|. Your analogy of Nazi Germany is flawed in that it rests on an unchangeable ethnicity, whereas communism is an ideology (in the non-Marxist sense of the word ;o) that one can adapt regardless of one's class, race, gender, whatever.

[Niccolò Rossi]

You need to be a communist to be a communist, your class has about as much to do with it has your race (alright, maybe more in that it has a greater effect on determining if you're a communist or not ;p)

I would tend to disagree. Whilst a man can be a member of the bourgeoisie and a communist this is highly irregular. Remember the basics of Marxist though, Historical materialism. I quote Marx from the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

If we adhere to this view it is obvious that only under certain circumstances can a member of the bourgeoisie be a communist. This is because the bourgeois' consciousness is determined by their social existence, the exploitation of wage labour. How can a man who's very existence in society is to enslave the proletariat possible fight on their side in the class struggle?

Now of course there is the example of Engels and I'm sure many others like him who do to some degree engage in capitalist profiteering and are at the same time communists, but these men are exceptions. They unlike the majority of the bourgeois have had different social existences and experience. For example Engels' communist origins spring from his time in England, being witness to the poverty of the proletariat. Another person may be a member of the bourgeois but a communist as he grew up in a proletarian family for example.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?
An actor is a proletarian because he sells his labour for a living. A few actors become rich (it is useful to remember that the vast majority don't). When that happens, those rich actors might remain proletarians - albeit very rich ones; keep in mind that capitalism does not exploit every worker equally, and a rare few workers may even be given a share in the spoils of exploitation - or, more likely, the rich actors will start investing their money on the stock market or start their own companies and thus become part of the bourgeoisie.

It is in theory possible for someone to be a rich proletarian or a poor bourgeois - it's just very rare. How many rich actors are there in the world? A few hundred? Maybe a thousand or two? That's a tiny number compared to the mass of workers.

[Awful Reality]

:(

What is petit-bourgoisie about your parents jobs? Neither involve profiting off ownership, do they?

Hm...
No.

But in the mainstream, cultural definition, we're "middle class." But, reading some more of the thread, we're "professional" proletariat.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, if you're interested in the class breakdown of Revleft members, we have a poll for that here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-you-t48402/index.html?t=48402) (though I'm not sure what the "middle class" option is supposed to mean).

So it looks as though 60% of revlefters are working class (the percentage might actually be higher, since quite a few of the "middle class" people are probably proletarians in the Marxist sense).

[dksu]

I would tend to disagree. Whilst a man can be a member of the bourgeoisie and a communist this is highly irregular. Remember the basics of Marxist though, Historical materialism. I quote Marx from the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

I completely agree ;p, this is what I meant by;

"You need to be a communist to be a communist, your class has about as much to do with it has your race (alright, maybe more in that it has a greater effect on determining if you're a communist or not ;p)"

My point was that being a non-prole and being a communist is quite possible, whilst being non-'white' and a member of the Nazi party would have been impossible. I'm actually writing an essay on Marx and 'free will v. determinism' right now, and I'm pretty sure I've got that quote down on paper somewhere, lol.

[careyprice31]

The scope of "proletariat" isn't limited to factory workers.

There are three distinct types: manual, clerical, and professional.

"Manual" includes factory workers, rural farm workers (actual workers on business farms, NOT peasants or small-family farmers), forestry and mining workers, etc.

"Clerical" includes people like myself (office workers), typical retail workers (though the support guys doing the heavy-lifting at the back are "manual" workers), bank tellers, etc.

"Professional" includes engineers, designated accountants who don't own businesses or who aren't executives, teachers, etc.

going by that definition, my mom is a prole cause she is a teacher, and my dad was a government bureaucrat, so i guess he is bourgeoisie

im not a worker, im a university student. In 19th century russia they called people like me raznochintsy and intelligentsia, distinct from the lower classes by our education, and separated from the upper classes by our hatred for society and the fact that most univ students are poor as dirt (tuition fees and so on).

[Holden Caulfield]

teachers are usually fairly middle class my histo teacher (who has a history degree with a paper on marxism at its core) who thinks she is radical lives in a nice house in the country with 2 cars, 2 horses etc.

i am a prole, my dad is a union member at Royal Mail, and my mum works in specsavers as an assistant,

[Die Neue Zeit]

and my dad was a government bureaucrat, so i guess he is bourgeoisie

Depends on how high up your dad is, though. I "classify" mid-level government bureaucrats into the same class as mid-level managers.

As for you (a student), you haven't entered into any particular class. So far, your class can only be defined by the class of your parents.

[FireFry]

Maybe some of us are just kids?? Trying to learn something about the world before we are catapulted forth to our doom in the working world.

[MT5678]

I'm a student, a boring middle class minority youth in suburbia. Parents are mid-level engineers. But I'm fed up with petty-bourgeois culture and consumerism, and I'm totally leftist on foreign policy. So I found socialism.

I never was like the other petty-bourgeois youth. Was never as rich, either, though it never affected my self-esteem

[Dr Mindbender]

One can be part of the petty bourgeois and support Marxist thought.
Petty beourgeois and beourgeois are 2 different things.

Even Petty beourgeois are still technically proletarian, even though they serve an implicit role within capitalism.



Right, but he never says that you have to be a proletarian to be a communist. You need to be a communist to be a communist, your class has about as much to do with it has your race
Technically true, but why would a beourgiose want to destruct his role by supporting an ideaology that champions it's removal?

This is a completely self destructive outlook. Going back to my analogy, it would be similar to a german jew supporting the holocaust. Unless he has a crisis of conscience or somethng, then forfeits his ownership of his means of production as he wouldnt be a very effective communist if he owned a workplace. Though even then he'd surely revert back to being proletarian.

Perhaps that was the case with Engels? I didnt know he was beourgiose though. I'm not familiar with his biography.

[manic expression]

Petty beourgeois and beourgeois are 2 different things.

Even Petty beourgeois are still technically proletarian, even though they serve an implicit role within capitalism.

I would think a member of the petty-bourgeoisie would be bourgeois. Remember, the term literally means "small capitalist"; they own some means of production, but not very much of it.


Technically true, but why would a beourgiose want to destruct his role by supporting an ideaology that champions it's removal?

Read the Manifesto. Marx gives reasons for such an alignment.

I was bored so I did it for you:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Anyway, to answer the question, I'm not a proletarian at this point as I'm still a student. The fact that I work a campus job doesn't really matter, because I don't survive on that money.

[careyprice31]

"Depends on how high up your dad is, though. I "classify" mid-level government bureaucrats into the same class as mid-level managers.

As for you (a student), you haven't entered into any particular class. So far, your class is determined by the class of your parents"

So i'm a mutt then :lol:

a mixed breed (half mid level manager half prole)

:lol:

btw I wazs talking to my mom and I said "you do realize that if you went on strike and the boss leggislates you back to work, you go. and if the boss says no its no. U dont get what you want."

and she says she knows that but she doesnt see any changes happening in her lifetime. She says the only time she will ever be truely free is when she is dead.

[Dr Mindbender]

I would think a member of the petty-bourgeoisie would be bourgeois. Remember, the term literally means "small capitalist"; they own some means of production, but not very much of it.


Does this really apply to all petit beourgiose though? I've heard some members say that anyone who has the ability to hire and fire should be regarded as such. Although this is not a prerequisite to owning means of production.
It is possible to actually employ someone but not actually own the factory you work in. This is actually the case with a lot of modern workplaces including my own. So what class do they fall into? By the logic of some, they're not beourgiose per se, and in yours they're not proles either.

I'd be inclined to class them in the latter in the sense that they're not inherently or necessarilly beneficiaries of capitalism. Only in the order of 20% or so actually indulge in the vast proportion of society's spoils, so this is inherently going to alienate those who fall within your definition of petit beourgiose. My local corner shop owner is not up there with the Queen and Bill Gates.

[manic expression]

Does this really apply to all petit beourgiose though? I've heard some members say that anyone who has the ability to hire and fire should be regarded as such. Although this is not a prerequisite to owning means of production.
It is possible to actually employ someone but not actually own the factory you work in. This is actually the case with a lot of modern workplaces including my own. So what class do they fall into? By the logic of some, they're not beourgiose per se, and in yours they're not proles either.

Well in most cases, you have the ability to employ people by owning stuff. No one will work for you if you don't own a factory/store/etc. There ARE companies that serve simply as contracting companies, so they hire out their labor force to companies; is this what you're referring to? If so, I think this still qualifies as a capitalist position, simply because by hiring out labor to a company and taking part of the profit (or, more directly, being owned by the parent company), you have control over the means of production. Does that make sense?


I'd be inclined to class them in the latter in the sense that they're not inherently or necessarilly beneficiaries of capitalism. Only in the order of 20% or so actually indulge in the vast proportion of society's spoils, so this is inherently going to alienate those who fall within your definition of petit beourgiose. My local corner shop owner is not up there with the Queen and Bill Gates.

Your local corner shop owner is most definitely not a bourgeois, but at the same time, s/he owns property and (may or may not) employ workers. That makes them capitalist in and of itself.

Again, I hope that makes sense.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well in most cases, you have the ability to employ people by owning stuff. No one will work for you if you don't own a factory/store/etc. There ARE companies that serve simply as contracting companies, so they hire out their labor force to companies; is this what you're referring to? Not really. I'm not sure where you're from, I'm guessing america by your grammar but in this country we typically have 'middle managers' within a company so that the upper management or chief capitalist can devolve responsibility to them for recruitment and human resources. So they're in charge of workers but at the same time don't actually own the premises.



Your local corner shop owner is most definitely not a bourgeois, but at the same time, s/he owns property and (may or may not) employ workers. That makes them capitalist in and of itself.

Again, I hope that makes sense.
It hasnt really answered my question. Previously you effectively shrugged off all petty beourgiose capitalists as beourgiose but now our shop keeper is proletarian? Where are we going with this?

[manic expression]

Not really. I'm not sure where you're from, I'm guessing america by your grammar but in this country we typically have 'middle managers' within a company so that the upper management or chief capitalist can devolve responsibility to them for recruitment and human resources. So they're in charge of workers but at the same time don't actually own the premises.

OK I see what you're saying. The position of managers is a bit trickier, and if oftentimes depends on the specific case, but if you want my opinion, they are petty-bourgeois for a few reasons: their work is directly related to the exploitation of the workers, they effectively manage the property of the capitalist. Also, many managers do own property and/or stocks and bonds as a large part of their income (I think this is especially true with the "franchise" system). Many managers, however, are basically workers who get a title and a very small pay raise, so it all depends.


It hasnt really answered my question. Previously you effectively shrugged off all petty beourgiose capitalists as beourgiose but now our shop keeper is proletarian? Where are we going with this?

I never said they were proletarian. I just said that a shopkeeper is petty-borgeois and thus a small capitalist.

[Dr Mindbender]

I never said they were proletarian. I just said that a shopkeeper is petty-borgeois and thus a small capitalist.

If you are a student of marx, then they must be either beourgiose or proletarian. In the communist manifesto, Marx speaks of only Proletarian and beourgiose.

There is no third camp.

[bcbm]

If you are a student of marx, then they must be either beourgiose or proletarian. In the communist manifesto, Marx speaks of only Proletarian and beourgiose.

And the Communist Manifesto is the only work of Marx' that matters? Uhh... good look pursuing that line. Marx talked about the petit-bourgeois often, so if you're really a student of Marx then, yes, the petit-bourgeois exist.

[manic expression]

If you are a student of marx, then they must be either beourgiose or proletarian. In the communist manifesto, Marx speaks of only Proletarian and beourgiose.

There is no third camp.

Sure, but there are SMALL capitalists. Capitalists who own a small amount of property.

Small capitalists are usually depleted by the development of capitalism, rendering them the potential allies of the proletariat. So while there ARE two camps, the picture is a bit more nuanced.

Seriously, Marx talks about this in the Manifesto.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I was not born a prole, but I became one (out of choice) in my teens (choice of job, etc.).

[Holden Caulfield]

I was not born a prole, but I became one (out of choice) in my teens (choice of job, etc.).

do computer programs have class labels? lol,

[Dr Mindbender]

Sure, but there are SMALL capitalists. Capitalists who own a small amount of property.


does it really matter what size of capitalist they are? If they're beourgiose, they're beourgiose (or vice versa)- end of story.

In any case people generally become capitalists or agree with it so defend the system as a result of their upbringing and material and/or social conditions at time of their birth. That in itself does not alter their class status in the marxist perspective.

[Dr Mindbender]

And the Communist Manifesto is the only work of Marx' that matters? Uhh... good look pursuing that line. Marx talked about the petit-bourgeois often, so if you're really a student of Marx then, yes, the petit-bourgeois exist.
Did marx produce a work which contradicts the original theory? If he did I havent read it.

He may have mentioned the petit-beourgiose, but only in the context of a sub-class of the overall proletarian. In the overall context, their existance is arbitrary as they are merely a by product of beourgiose antagonism and material control.

[manic expression]

does it really matter what size of capitalist they are? If they're beourgiose, they're beourgiose (or vice versa)- end of story.

In any case people generally become capitalists or agree with it so defend the system as a result of their upbringing and material and/or social conditions at time of their birth. That in itself does not alter their class status in the marxist perspective.

Yes, it really does matter. You have different interests if you own a storefront than if you own 45% of all Halliburton stock. A small capitalist is oftentimes forced to work in order to keep his or her business afloat, many small business owners do exactly that; does a bourgeois work with his hands at all? No. Big difference in social relations, big difference in outlook.

Calling members of the petty-bourgeoisie "bourgeois - end of story" is very unproductive. The petty-bourgeoisie are natural allies of the working class in times of crisis and capitalist consolidation, because they will be run out of business and be forced to fight with the workers. If you insist on only concentrating on the fact that they own property, you're missing a big chunk of their social position IMO. We need to win over the petty-bourgeoisie, not alienate ourselves from them.

[lombas]

I don't really see the proletarian/petty this/petty that/capitalist/&c. thing.

I only see two classes: those who can and those who can (and mostly do) not (want to) use legal means to coerce other human beings.

As for myself, I belong to the second. I do not want to rise to power, take control, install real democracy or whatever great theory. I just want to get rid of the legality of the coercion by the other guys.

[Dr Mindbender]

Calling members of the petty-bourgeoisie "bourgeois - end of story" is very unproductive. .

I never said that, you did. I implied if they're not beourgeois then they must be proletarian.

In any case it's irrelevant. I'm only paraphrasing Karl Marx.

[manic expression]

I never said that, you did. I implied if they're not beourgeois then they must be proletarian.

In any case it's irrelevant. I'm only paraphrasing Karl Marx.

Ulster Socialist, I'm not trying to berate you, I was simply referring to this part of your argument:

does it really matter what size of capitalist they are? If they're beourgiose, they're beourgiose (or vice versa)- end of story.

[manic expression]

I don't really see the proletarian/petty this/petty that/capitalist/&c. thing.

I only see two classes: those who can and those who can (and mostly do) not (want to) use legal means to coerce other human beings.

As for myself, I belong to the second. I do not want to rise to power, take control, install real democracy or whatever great theory. I just want to get rid of the legality of the coercion by the other guys.

That's because you don't have a materialist view of society, you only have vague views of "power". Class is what drives society, it is the basis for power, not the other way around. The state didn't just appear out of nowhere, the modern state was the ultimate result of a new ruling class overthrowing the old ruling class. Let me reiterate: it all comes down to class, something you're wholly ignoring.

[lombas]

That's because you don't have a materialist view of society,

I most certainly haven't.



you only have vague views of "power". Class is what drives society, it is the basis for power, not the other way around.

You know Marx. What a surprise.

:D



The state didn't just appear out of nowhere, the modern state was the ultimate result of a new ruling class overthrowing the old ruling class. Let me reiterate: it all comes down to class, something you're wholly ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it at all. You can fill in the word 'class' right in my remark.

[bezdomni]

Yes you do. Thats like saying you didnt have to be non-jewish to be a member of the German nazi party.

I think theres a lot of confusion here over what proletarian actually means. If you read the communist manifesto, Marx states that the population have been broken into 2 opposing camps, Beourgiose and proletariat.

Puts simply, the beourgiose are the ones who control the means of production and the proletarian are the ones who have to work within them. That is to say, that 'proletarian' in the marxist sense means everyone from pretty much the upper enchelons of middle class society to the absolute grassroots of the working class or 'lumpenproletariat'.

If you consider yourself to be non-prole, then you and your fellow class members are few and far between.

That is the most narrow, deterministic and non-materialist reading of Marx I have ever heard.

The proletariat is the most deeply exploited strata of society that must sell their labor-power in order to survive, and is engaged directly in the production of commodities on an assembly line. There are other sections of society, like the lumpenproletariat or the petty-bourgeoisie who may, at times, side with the proletariat against capitalism and/or imperialism (because capitalism alienates us all, it just doesn't exploit us all).

Generally speaking, the proletariat in the marxist sense of the word exists almost exclusively in the third world, or in the oppressed nations in the first world. That's not to say that there aren't white proletarians in the first world, but generally speaking, most white people in the first world are not proletarians.

That doesn't mean they can't be revolutionary (SDS and WUO are examples of white first world youth siding with the revolutionary proletariat) , it just means that they aren't the main revolutionary class.

[chimx]

Yes. I am a construction worker.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Generally speaking, the proletariat in the marxist sense of the word exists almost exclusively in the third world, or in the oppressed nations in the first world. That's not to say that there aren't white proletarians in the first world, but generally speaking, most white people in the first world are not proletarians.

That doesn't mean they can't be revolutionary (SDS and WUO are examples of white first world youth siding with the revolutionary proletariat) , it just means that they aren't the main revolutionary class.

That, in turn, is the most un-Marxist post I've read from you so far ("Three Worlds" crap). :(

Most WHITE Americans, whether you like it or not, ARE proletarians. At most, 2 or 3% of the total American population are proper bourgeoisie (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Bush family, CHE-NEY, etc.).

[manic expression]

I most certainly haven't.

You know Marx. What a surprise.

I'm not ignoring it at all. You can fill in the word 'class' right in my remark.

Care to address the issue?


Most WHITE Americans, whether you like it or not, ARE proletarians. At most, 2 or 3% of the total American population are proper bourgeoisie (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Bush family, CHE-NEY, etc.).

Yes, and additionally, American workers are facing increasing losses. A few generations ago, you could afford a house with one high-school educated income; today, you can barely do that with two college-educated incomes (if you're lucky). The American middle class, the demographic which has stood so consistently against revolutionary politics, is more and more a thing of the past. Capitalism in America has fired its protectors and, in so doing, hired them as its new grave diggers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoCracksWeakJokes:


do computer programs have class labels? lol,

I can't decide; your label has fallen off.

[Gold Against The Soul]

The proletariat is the most deeply exploited strata of society that must sell their labor-power in order to survive, and is engaged directly in the production of commodities on an assembly line

I used to work in a coca-cola factory but then I changed jobs and worked as a cashier in a bookmakers. So with the former I was on assembly line producing a commodity, as you described, in the other I was doing a service type job. Is this to say I went from being proletariat to not being proletariat? Surely the relationship to the work is key? After all, I was selling my labour power in both jobs and both jobs I needed in order to survive.

[bezdomni]

I used to work in a coca-cola factory but then I changed jobs and worked as a cashier in a bookmakers. So with the former I was on assembly line producing a commodity, as you described, in the other I was doing a service type job. Is this to say I went from being proletariat to not being proletariat? Surely the relationship to the work is key? After all, I was selling my labour power in both jobs and both jobs I needed in order to survive.

The labour power being used for the production of commodoities for less than the value of the commodities is the key idea to the theory of surplus value and plays the premise of the marxist theory of alienation.

Cashiers, janitors, maids...etc, although working class are not proletarians.


That, in turn, is the most un-Marxist post I've read from you so far ("Three Worlds" crap). :(
You, like Trotsky and all of his ideological heirs, seem to equate Lenin's theory of imperialism (most notably, the law of uneven development) with being an "un-marxist" position.

[Gold Against The Soul]

The labour power being used for the production of commodoities for less than the value of the commodities is the key idea to the theory of surplus value and plays the premise of the marxist theory of alienation

Cashiers, janitors, maids...etc, although working class are not proletarians.



But arguably is a cashier not producing a commodity, even if it is not a physical one? That is only the difference I can see as the rest certainly applies: selling for less than value, alienation and I was certainly still being exploited as much as when I was working in a factory. I don't really see the importance in the distinction in terms of the type of work being done.

[bezdomni]

But arguably is a cashier not producing a commodity, even if it is not a physical one? That is only the difference I can see as the rest certainly applies: selling for less than value, alienation and I was certainly still being exploited as much as when I was working in a factory. I don't really see the importance in the distinction in terms of the type of work being done.

Correct. Cashiers do not produce commodities, and are therefore not proletarians by definition. People in the service industry are still oppressed and exploited, they are just not the most deeply exploited strata of society, which is the proletariat.

The reason commodity production is important is because commodity production (and the exploitation that lies at its heart) is the lifeblood of capitalism. If there weren't commodities like clothes and food and electronics, then the cashiers would have no registers to work at, waiters would have no tables, and janitors would have no messes.

What we'd consider the "service industry" grows out of bourgeois commodity production. The latter requires the former, and is thus exploited in a qualitatively different way.

[INDK]

It hasn't. It has merely refined my definition of the term 'proletariat'. My mentioning of my opinion about revolutionary ideology needing refinement was so that people knew where I stand politically. I did not want to be branded as a counter-revolutionary or anything, you see, which would be an understandable reaction to the questions I asked.

Ah, I see.


By the way what would a person like a rich actor be consider? he doesn't own any means of production and you could say he sells his labor which is acting, so what is he?

Excellent question. By the books they'd be proletarian, and it makes perfect sense - they are exploited in both the classical, labour-power sense, and by the mainstream media, but this is generally besides the point. If you've ever reviewed the ideas of Adam Smith you might recall the idea of supply and demand. Acting, Actors, Actresses, and deriativies and related concepts thereof, are at high demand and the fruits of their production are high cost so they would indeed function on a high income. Moreover, the mainstream American class definition is based on income. By our definitions, that make more economic sense, especially in relation to exploitation itself, an actor, as a labourer, would be considered a proletarian.


Yes you do. Thats like saying you didnt have to be non-jewish to be a member of the German nazi party.

Terrible comparison. Communists seek the liberation of all classes. Yes, a proletarian is far more prone to advocate Socialism - but there's nothing written in stone about from where Socialism can infiltrate society. From the slums to Beverly Hills, I'm sure we will gain allies from all sides.


If you read the communist manifesto, Marx states that the population have been broken into 2 opposing camps, Beourgiose and proletariat.

True, very true -- but this is of functioning bourgeoisie and proletariat. In a word, as Marx uses it, exploiters and exploited. Yes, the bourgeoisie inherently exploits the working class -- I see the oxymoron at hand, but as said, one's position in society is unchosen, and therefore their advocacy's are free to waver. I see nothing wrong with someone who is economically classified as bourgeoisie but their advocation is of Communism. I mean, take Engels! Not many turn out like him, but it proves the mind is free of the class when it wants to be. It happens. Perhaps not often. Now, function bourgeoisie - or the puppets of them (cops, etc.) - are completely uncompatible to the Communist line and wouldn't try to join up anyway.


I would think a member of the petty-bourgeoisie would be bourgeois. Remember, the term literally means "small capitalist"; they own some means of production, but not very much of it.

Actually, by definition a petit-bourgeoisie does not own the means of production, but manages it for the bourgeoisie. They're the middle man. They technically labour to earn a living, but their labour is taking part in the exploitation of proletarians, for those who own the means of production themselves. Even they, as puppets, are exploited.


If you are a student of marx, then they must be either beourgiose or proletarian. In the communist manifesto, Marx speaks of only Proletarian and beourgiose.

There is no third camp.

More crap. First of all, the Manifesto is not the Communist Bible. Second, Marx speaks a fucking lot about the petit-bourgeois, the lumpenproletariat, and all kinds of derivatives that further increase class division in society as capitalism grows.


I was not born a prole, but I became one (out of choice) in my teens (choice of job, etc.).

My situation exactly, for all interested.


does it really matter what size of capitalist they are? If they're beourgiose, they're beourgiose (or vice versa)- end of story.

You've heavily misinterpreted Marx's definitions of class, I think. There are several relations to the means of production you're missing. The petit-bourgeois is called this because they are, well "Small Capitalists". Advocates of the workers' exploitations, though they have ignorantly put themselves in the roll of puppet. It's so much more complex then you think.

[Piratninja]

What if you are a graphic designer and you start your own company? You would own a company, and you could hire other graphic designers to work for you but you would still depend on selling your labour to other capitalists. Which class do you belong to then?

I mean, you are still exploited by the capitalists. It's like instead of having one boss you have many. But still you own a company, maybe a office and you can hire/fire other graphic designers.

I'm just curious because this is most likely my future career.

[RNK]

Bourgeoisie. You are making a profit from the labour of those other graphics designers regardless of what work you yourself do. You do not work for a wage as determined by whoever employs your company. You trade your commodity, which was produced by your workers, for profit with other capitalists.

[Piratninja]

Okay, so if you work alone you are a proletarian and if you hire other people to work for you, you are a Bourgeoisie?

[bezdomni]

Let's go back to the basics for a moment, shall we?

Engels says in The Principles of Communism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm):


The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor 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 labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.[1] (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#nb)



This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:
(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.
(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.



The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.
The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.



The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession – his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian has none of these things.
The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a more or less patriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to his employer is purely a cash relation.
The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big industry, loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes a proletarian.


and so on....

I also would recommend you read Chapter I of the Communist Manifesto. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)


Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

[bezdomni]

Okay, so if you work alone you are a proletarian and if you hire other people to work for you, you are a Bourgeoisie?

That is a kind of mechanistic way of looking at it.

It is fundamentally a question of ownership. The proletarian owns no property or capital, and must sell his or her labor-time to a capitalist in order to survive. The bourgeois, however, lives entirely off of owning the means of production and through buying up labor-power for commodity production.

Marx and Engels answer all of these questions in numerous books and pamphlets. Most notably, the ones I linked to above, as well as "Wage, Labour and Capital" and obviously "Das Kapital".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

interestingly, Marx substitutes the term 'working class' for 'proletariat' in capital, only using it occasionally.

Marx also endeavours to show that it is the production of 'surplus value' that counts, which is in the abstract.


On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune.

chpt 16, vol 1. capital.

essentially productive labour and unproductive labour are both in the same social relationship as each other to capital.

[Raisa]

Aspiring proliteriat!

I wish I was a proliteriat.
Inshallah.
INstead I am just a lumpen proliteriat. Dont laugh, its a real word..look it up.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Soviet Pants I think you contradict yourself:

Correct. Cashiers do not produce commodities, and are therefore not proletarians by definition. People in the service industry are still oppressed and exploited, they are just not the most deeply exploited strata of society, which is the proletariat.
You then go on to quote Engels in the Principles of Communism:

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital;

So which is it. Is the proletariat defined by its relations to the means of production or their production of commodities? I think the answer under a Marxist definition is most certainly the former. If this is the case service workers are still proles, of a different character, yes, but certainly not quantitatively different

[Raisa]

Correct. Cashiers do not produce commodities, and are therefore not proletarians by definition. People in the service industry are still oppressed and exploited, they are just not the most deeply exploited strata of society, which is the proletariat.

The reason commodity production is important is because commodity production (and the exploitation that lies at its heart) is the lifeblood of capitalism. If there weren't commodities like clothes and food and electronics, then the cashiers would have no registers to work at, waiters would have no tables, and janitors would have no messes.

What we'd consider the "service industry" grows out of bourgeois commodity production. The latter requires the former, and is thus exploited in a qualitatively different way.

The service industry is proliteriat....when you work in the service industry you are not even selling a fucking education, you are literally selling your labor by the hour.

The proliteriat has nothing but his labor, thats the definition of a proliteriat.
THe bourgeoisie has goods he can sell. There are people in between the two GROUPS , but in the last days before the revolution there will be a big gap..on one side disenfranchised motherfuckers who cant pay all their bills while they bust their ass to keep their job, because there wont even be enough jobs....these millions of people have nothing to sell to make money to eat with except their labor...they are saying "i will do what you say if you pay me each hour"
And since theres so many of us proliteriats that the opressive bourgeoisie can get away with not paying alot, or else the proliteriat would be able to save money and buy things to make a buisness so he can sell things that make more money for him...with less work. Thats the thing here . The system feeds off of there being a proliteriat, so capitalism and a capitalist state will never fight or advocate the advancement of all people from poverty.

The world is set up like this. There are proliteriat everywhere. There is proliteriat that harvest crops or produce raw materials or even merchandise usually in third world countries.
THe richer western nations capitalist's(like england or america or canada or france) make deals where they collectively exploit the proliteriat of the third world, their government leaders will make a deal with the president of mexico gving him an incentive to sign a treaty for example, saying that they are going to have the right to put 5 NIKE factories in Mexico and that 6 coffee bean feilds will belong to Starbucks Coffee co, then the capitalists dont have to pay alot of money in production costs, and can take mostly a profit from the money they will make selling their things all over the world, and whe they sell them in America or Japan for example, then the american or Japanese leaders who wrote the treaty to begin with, tax the Nike company's profits like 30% and get millions of dollars, originating from third world labor, and those leader's government can enrich their militaries or whatever.... Then they exploit their own people in a different way ! The products get to the rich countries and someone has to work in the ware house and someone has to stand all day putting them in bags or stocking them or folding them in a retail store, they are a proliteriat too. If that cashier took his relationship to his money (the fact that all he can do to entice his boss to pay him is say "i will work, here is my labor, boss!") if he took that relationship to a third world country guess what....he would be processing cotton in a cotton factory or harvesting grains or fruit...because those industries are what the people in that country who ahve nothing to sell but their labor have no choice but to sell their labor to, being that those industries are the only ones hiring.

Thats all the definition is, " I have nothing to sell but my labor"
"" i dont even have any property, I cant charge a person for rent to make money, I can sell some jewlery but after thats gone its gone, I dont have any valuables worth enough to establish myself with to be in a really different position, so the only thing I can really do is work for someone for hte pay they offer me"

IF YOU SCROLLED THROUGH MY POST FUCK YERSELF CAUSE IT EXPLAINS WHAT A PROLITERIAT IS VERY CLEARLY,
and if youre gonna be a communist you need to really understand whats a proliteriat.
iT MIGHT JUST FIX ALL THE CONFUSION, Y'KNOW!

[Die Neue Zeit]

The labour power being used for the production of commodoities for less than the value of the commodities is the key idea to the theory of surplus value and plays the premise of the marxist theory of alienation.

Cashiers, janitors, maids...etc, although working class are not proletarians.


You, like Trotsky and all of his ideological heirs, seem to equate Lenin's theory of imperialism (most notably, the law of uneven development) with being an "un-marxist" position.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

The law of uneven development can be used to justify MANY things, unfortunately. I have noted various examples, most notably the one in my Stamocap thread, since uneven development doesn't occur between just geographical regions (but also between whole industries).




The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor 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 labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

SovietPants, so what about profit-sharing and share purchase plans? :rolleyes:

That last bolded text is VERY important - "of the 19th century." :glare:

[RNK]

Raisa, you're annoying.

Would you classify sifters as proletarians? Y'know, those poor blokes whose job is to sift through mass-produced objects on production lines to remove faulty items. They don't actually take part in producing the items, they do not operate the machinery which is responsible for stamping metal parts or molding plastic forms or whathaveyou, they simply sift through already-produced materials. Workers in the services industry (cashiers, etc, as mentioned above) are an extension of productive forces. Just as capitalists employ and exploit workers to man machines producing commodities they hire and exploit workers to man stores to sell those commodities and like industrial workers, surplus profit is extracted from their labour (however unphysical it may be). Warehouse workers likewise do not produce commodities and their role is nothing more than facilitating the transportation and storage of commodities from producers to retailers. Are they not proletarians either?

[Raisa]

Raisa, you're annoying.

Aint nobody fucking asked YOU.:scared: Degrading bastard! coming out of the woodwork trying to call me some shit on the internet!....plus you misinterpreted my post. Anyone who has nothing to sell but their labor is a proliteriat...thats why my post was about....sifters are proliterians, warehouse workers are proliterians, unless you own the means of production, you are a proliteriat.

You however, are someone who needs to stop reading shit so hard.
Cause you misinterpreted my post and disrespected me, and made a fool of your fucking self.

[RNK]

The only part of my previous post that was directed at you was "Raisa, you're annoying."

[Raisa]

The only part of my previous post that was directed at you was "Raisa, you're annoying."

Still......aint nobody fucking ask you!
I think youre an asshole for calling me annoying for making things clearer in the learning forum.
Thats not very constructive.
But I didnt say that to you, cause it was completely irrelevant, and disrespectful.

Im sorry, im just over motherfuckers who think their opinion on others really matters.
When I came on the internet I wasnt thinking about you, sorry! eat ass.:drool:

[RNK]

Nobody asked me to give my opinion on your pompous, overbearing personality. And nobody asked you to come here and give your opinion on proletarians. Nobody asked either of us to join this website, or be a leftist, or have thoughts at all, so I fail to see what relevence being asked or not has in me expressing my opinion.

It was irrelevent and disrespectful. And it was only a single, short sentance. You shouldn't let it bother you so much.

[Raisa]

Nobody asked me to give my opinion on your pompous, overbearing personality. And nobody asked you to come here and give your opinion on proletarians. Nobody asked either of us to join this website, or be a leftist, or have thoughts at all, so I fail to see what relevence being asked or not has in me expressing my opinion.

It was irrelevent and disrespectful. And it was only a single, short sentance. You shouldn't let it bother you so much.

I suppose if someone was insecure with themselve they would think I was over bearing.....still, like I said no one asked you, but someone did insinuate that they were confused on what a proliteriat was by making a false statement in a learning forum, common sense asked me to be a leftist having grown up in the genocide of the proliteriat all around me, I was created to have thoughts or I wouldnt think, and these things are far beyond contributing opinions. I contributed facts in a learning forum and you contributed an insult....

It is the priniciple of the thing that bothers me, because it is ignorant to contribute to a conversation that way in a forum where people come to learn about communist thought and it is disheartening to me because the 99 percent majority of maoists I respect alot, so to see you resort to some shit of that nature lets me down. It is beneath both of us. So if you have any other words go ahead however if I am part of more then half a page going on about this......ima be ashamed of myself.
SOLIDARITY,
ONE

[RNK]

For one, while I admire your motivation to be informative, you did it in annoying way. You're looking too deeply into this.

For another, my insult towards you was a single line, followed by 6 lines of contribution to the discussion.

And it's not my fault if you have problems discriminating all members of an ideology on the basis of your opinions on one member.

[bezdomni]

Raisa - I think what is necessary though is to define what labor is. Yeah, the proletariat is defined as the class with nothing to sell but its labor, but it is also important to note that the proletariat is the class with "nothing to lose but their chains".

A waiter in a bourgeois restaurant can make hundreds if not well over a thousand dollars in a night. He's selling his labor, but he definitely is not in the same strata as the proletarians pulling levers for 14 hours a day at a slave wage in south america.

Lenin clearly explained how imperialism creates a fundamental division within the working classes, there are those who benefit from the table-scraps of the imperialist bourgeoisie and those who are exploited even more.


The service industry is proliteriat....when you work in the service industry you are not even selling a fucking education, you are literally selling your labor by the hour.

Yeah, but there isn't surplus value coming out of your labor. A worker on an assembly line builds stuff that gets sold for $200 per unit, but she's only getting maybe 10 cents from every piece she solders on or whatever.

A waiter or person at the McDonald's drive in, while still exploited and oppressed in important ways, is not exploited and oppressed in the same manner as the proletariat.

Or the person who works at starbucks to pay their way through grad school. That person isn't a proletariat. When's the last time you heard of someone being a migrant farm worker to pay their way through grad school?

[bezdomni]

So which is it. Is the proletariat defined by its relations to the means of production or their production of commodities?

Being involved in the production of commodities is clearly a relation to production. There is no contradiction there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Raisa - I think what is necessary though is to define what labor is. Yeah, the proletariat is defined as the class with nothing to sell but its labor, but it is also important to note that the proletariat is the class with "nothing to lose but their chains".

A waiter in a bourgeois restaurant can make hundreds if not well over a thousand dollars in a night. He's selling his labor, but he definitely is not in the same strata as the proletarians pulling levers for 14 hours a day at a slave wage in south america.

Lenin clearly explained how imperialism creates a fundamental division within the working classes, there are those who benefit from the table-scraps of the imperialist bourgeoisie and those who are exploited even more.

And you yourself, a student, are feeding the theoretical "justification" for further division. :glare: :crying:

Did you read the very Engels remark you quoted? "Of the 19th century," he concluded. :rolleyes:

A proletarian / worker is simply one who exists inside a wage-labour system (unlike lumpenproles), who contributes to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (unlike cops), but who does not have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of production (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)!

[Niccolò Rossi]

Being involved in the production of commodities is clearly a relation to production. There is no contradiction there.

Of course not, what I am asking is, is a proletarian defined solely as one who does not own the means of production and is thus a wage slave to the power of capital or defined further as a wage slave who is directly involved in the production of commodities?

Even if we accept the latter definition (which you seen to be proposing), is not the cashier or salesperson or any person for that matter involved in the service industry, necessary for the distribution of the commodities which without, would make commodity production pointless? Are they not part of the production process in their own specially way?

[ComradeOm]

Lenin clearly explained how imperialism creates a fundamental division within the working classes, there are those who benefit from the table-scraps of the imperialist bourgeoisie and those who are exploited even more.Which is completely unrelated to the question of the classification of workers within the "service sector". Unless you're somehow suggesting that the latter is entirely the result of imperialism...