Am I proletariat or lumpen?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fairly simple question really. For the benefit of those who don't know me, my mother worked in light manufacturing and as a lab technician for a school while she was raising me, and I have been in and out of work since about 2004 and am currently unemployed.

Why do I ask? Pure curiosity I guess.

[Holden Caulfield]

get a job you tax dodger, :tt2:

i say this from my moral high point as a student:mellow:

[tirade]

Depends on what you do in the community, if you act on your convictions, irrelevant whether or not your paid.

[apathy maybe]

Fairly simple question really. For the benefit of those who don't know me, my mother worked in light manufacturing and as a lab technician for a school while she was raising me, and I have been in and out of work since about 2004 and am currently unemployed.

Why do I ask? Pure curiosity I guess.

That is a learning question! Seriously, once you are beyond learning you realise that Marxist distinctions are a lot of bollocks :tt2: :laugh:.


Besides, we all know that lumpen-prols have more fun :cool:.

You should know that your parents class doesn't decide your class. Your mother was obviously a "prol", and you, not having any relation to the means of production while you were being raised, well I'm not sure what the Marxist class definition of students is.

As for now, I say your probably an unemployed prol. Though I think that some Marxists say the chronically unemployed are lumpen.

Really though, does it actually matter?

You are one of the oppressed, and that's what really matters from an anarchist perspective.

[chicanorojo]

Fairly simple question really. For the benefit of those who don't know me, my mother worked in light manufacturing and as a lab technician for a school while she was raising me, and I have been in and out of work since about 2004 and am currently unemployed.

Why do I ask? Pure curiosity I guess.

Well. Your class position is not a matrilineal inheritance. :D

I think wiki's take on lumpenproletarian is not that far off:


Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern society, who exist outside the wage-labor system, such as beggars, or people who make their living through disreputable means: police informants, prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and operators of illegal gambling enterprises), but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.Unemployment is part of the reality of being a worker/proletariat. W/o knowing more about you, you are a member of the proletariat class.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's inconclusive, but my guess is neither - you sound pretty middle-class to me. That's not to say your family is rich, but that lab technician thing sort of caught my eye. If you still live with your parents, your class position is defined by their relation to production much more than yours.

[black magick hustla]

dude lab technicians are paid like shit. i doubt a lab technician makes much more than a janitor.

[Valeofruin]

Well. Your class position is not a matrilineal inheritance. :D

I beg to differ, often are people born into class slavery.

I would say if you don't survive by exploiting the Labour of others, then odds are, you are a proletariat.


It's inconclusive, but my guess is neither - you sound pretty middle-class to me. That's not to say your family is rich, but that lab technician thing sort of caught my eye. If you still live with your parents, your class position is defined by their relation to production much more than yours.

Who is to say that Lab technitions too aren't exploited? Class is related to your place in society not your income.

[chegitz guevara]

I beg to differ, often are people born into class slavery.

I would say if you don't survive by exploiting the Labour of others, then odds are, you are a proletariat.

All people are born into the class of their parents. Class in capitalism, however, is a fluid category, not a fixed one.

As for those who don't exploit the labor of others, the petit bourgeoisie and peasantry frequently don't exploit the labor of others. Neither do criminals and other lumpens.



What is the proletariat?

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://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#nb)

[Valeofruin]

All people are born into the class of their parents. Class in capitalism, however, is a fluid category, not a fixed one.

As for those who don't exploit the labor of others, the petit bourgeoisie and peasantry frequently don't exploit the labor of others. Neither do criminals and other lumpens.

I will admit you make a good point, especially reguarding peasentry, however as Marx says in the opening pages of the Communist Manifesto:

"In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

I believe this holds true, especially in our society today, we are seeing the emergence of 2 great camps, Proletariat, and Bourgeoise. While I'll concede your point is for the most part true, I also wish to make clear that as I see it our society, or at least society as we know it in the developed imperialist nations, is being broken into the Exploiters and Exploited, and often make assessments based on this fact, without considering the existence of say a peasentry. This crime is perhaps rather grave considering the Marxist-Leninist movement historically has criticized the Trotskyite movement for this exact same line of thought in Tsarist Russia. However the fact is in most parts of the world the remnants of feudal classes such as peasenty, are dissolving into the proletariat or bourgeoise.

As for the petty bourgeoise you may have an interesting debate on your hands there. As i see it a bourgeoise that exists without exploiting the labour of the proletariat, in one way or another, ceases to be a bourgeoise. Before i take time to elaborate on concepts such as owning means of production, i would like to hear your logic first. How can we have a petty bourgeoise that does not exploit the labour of others?

And finally as for Lumpens you make a good point, however the original poster is just unemployed, not earning a living begging on the streets or selling cocaine. Weaving in and out of the work force in my opinion means your still working class, especially if he has any sort of interest in finding a job, and is actively looking around.

[chegitz guevara]

The working class does not necessarily mean proletariat. Slaves were/are a working class, but they are not proletarians.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

As for the petit bourgeoisie, there's confusion because the same word, bourgeoisie is used both to refer to more than one class. Literally, the word means "middle class" but with the abolition of the feudal nobility, the capitalists were no longer the middle class, but the ruling class.

Petit bourgeoisie refers not merely to small capitalists, but to any of the middle classes that don't fit the category of working class or capitalist. For example, doctors and lawyers, who sell specialized services, should be considered petit bourgeoisie. Also, small shop owners, like your mom and pop corner stores are petit bourgeois. Peasants and individual small farmers are considered petit bourgeois. There is an argument that people who serve capitalism in a supervisory category, but who do not own the means of production, are also petit bourgeois. We can't talk about one middle class. We have to recognize there are multiple middle classes.

The fact that Marx wrote that the world is more and more dividing into two great camps, and that he wrote that the old middle classes are disappearing (a translation error in the Moore edition of the Manifesto left out the world "old" for us English readers) does not mean that new middle classes are not arising and that older classes don't continue to exist along side. What Marx was getting at was not that everyone was either being turned into a bourgeois or a proletarian, but rather that the two major social forces in modern society were the two aforementioned classes. It is around these two classes that society revolves and so for understanding capitalism, we must look at the struggle between these two classes.

A division of the world into exploited and exploiter is a bit too simplistic for understanding capitalism, I think. After all, capitalists exploit each other, and some workers exploit each other. I attended a meeting of the AFL-CIO here in Florida and discovered that several of the leaders of these unions also had side businesses with employees. I had known many unionists for decades before this, so I wasn't merely being naive. Furthermore, the Soviet bureaucracy exploited the Soviet proletariat, and while I believe that the workers should have taken power from their bosses, I wouldn't put them in the same category as capitalists, and would have stood by the USSR against imperialist attack.

What's important to note is that class is not a mechanical definition, but a dialectical one. These categories only exist in relationship to others. They are not hard and fast categories, but distinctions created by humans.

[Valeofruin]

The working class does not necessarily mean proletariat. Slaves were/are a working class, but they are not proletarians.


As for the petit bourgeoisie, there's confusion because the same word, bourgeoisie is used both to refer to more than one class. Literally, the word means "middle class" but with the abolition of the feudal nobility, the capitalists were no longer the middle class, but the ruling class.

Petit bourgeoisie refers not merely to small capitalists, but to any of the middle classes that don't fit the category or working class or capitalist. For example, doctors and lawyers, who sell specialized services, should be considered petit bourgesoisie. Also, small shop owners, like your mom and pop corner stores are petit bourgeois. Peasants and individual small farmers are considered petit bourgeois. There is an argument that people who serve capitalism in a supervisory catagory, but who do not own the means of production, are also petit bourgeois. We can't talk about one middle class. We have to recognize there are multiple middle classes.

The fact that Marx wrote that the world is more and more dividing into two great camps, and that he wrote that the old middle classes are disappearing (a translation error in the Moore edition of the Manifesto left out the world "old" for us English readers) does not mean that new middle classes are not arising and that older clasess don't continue to exist along side. What Marx was getting at was not that everyone was either being turned into a bourgois or a proletarian, but rather that the two major social forces in modern society were the two aforementioned classes. It is around these two classes that society revolves and so for understanding capitalism, we must look at the struggle between these two classes.

A division of the world into exploited and exploiter is a bit too simplistic for understanding capitalism, I think. After all, capitalists exploit each other, and some workers exploit each other. I attended a meeting of the AFL-CIO here in Florida and discovered that several of the leaders of these unions also had side businesses with employees. I had known many unionists for decades before this, so I wasn't merely being naive. Furthermore, the Soviet bureacracy exploited the Soviet proletariat, and while I believe that the workers should have taken power from their bosses, I wouldn't put them in the same catagory as capitalists, and would have stood by the USSR against imperialist attack.

Id like to begin by pointing out that it's alot easier to stick to excerpts, and as an introductory book I prefered Emile Burns- What is Marxism?

That being said, and given the fact that you and I are both American, and you have undoubtably read works of Gus Hall and William Z Foster, and can understand the political atmosphere of my area in particular, which has given birth to corporations such as the Bethlehem steel company. perhaps this fact will help in future discussions explain why a certain point may elude me. We don't have many Peasents in Scranton Pennsylvania, so when i make errors i encourage you to point them out like you have in this thread, its healthy for me.

you are correct that working class does not nessecarily mean Urban proletariat, however i often use them, interchangably, perhaps innappropriately so, as the Proletariat is still part of the Working class, and as such shares the same struggle, and the same oppressors.

Continuing, as I said earlier, I do not believe Classes are defined by incomes. When it comes to "mom and pop shops" i was actually counting on someone making that point. As it can be argued that all such shops exploit the labour of others, even if its indirectly so. By selling a good in a small shop i still profiteer off the fruits of anothers labour, even if i don't own the factory directly, In a sense its still the same exploitation that defines the bourgeois class, besides, most of such shops employ aides anyway. As for Lawyers and Doctors this is a shaky point is it not? If im a Lawyer in a law firm, and I get paid a wage to work on a case, reguardless of what my wage is, if the owner of the firm is making a profit of my services I am still exploited am i not?

Even if im a lawyer working for myself, am i not still pawning my labour, my service, off to someone else to survive? Whether theres a bourgeoise making money off my back is irrelevant, Im still Working class, as opposed to Petite Bourgeoise. Doctors follow the same principal. Small farmers are a different story altogether, it is undeniable, in my opinion, that they are working class, yet at the same time they are petite bourgeois in some respects, which is an interesting point.

Furthermore i believe that your notion that the division of 2 great camps, is too simple a description, vulgarises Marxism in a way. Is not the bourgeoise SIMPLIFICATION of class antagonisms one of the facts, and perhaps for some a motivator, that lies deep in the core of Marxist theory.

Did not Marx say in those historic first pages:
"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms"

I believe this simplification you reject is in fact what helps define capitalism as a system. The bourgeois have, and still are, consolidating our classes into 2 basic categories exploiter and expoilted.

That all being said the notion that the Soviet government exploited the Soviet people in any way prior to Stalins death is just silly.

[chegitz guevara]

Id like to begin by pointing out that it's alot easier to stick to excerpts, and as an introductory book I prefered Emile Burns- What is Marxism?

Fair enough, but Engel's little piece is very short, almost an FAQ of Marxism. Marx used it when he wrote The Manifesto.


That being said, and given the fact that you and I are both American, and you have undoubtably read works of Gus Hall and William Z Foster,Hall, yes, Foster, no. I'm abivalent about Hall, because on the one hand, he had some useful facts (about the productivity, and thus level of exploitation, of American labor) for bludgeoning the head of MIM types. He was also a successful union organizer, which is more than I've ever done. On the other hand, he was a political hack who supported the Democratic Party since Stalin ordered the CPUSA to do so in 1935.


and can understand the political atmosphere of my area in particular, which has given birth to corporations such as the Bethlehem steel company. perhaps this fact will help in future discussions explain why a certain point may elude me. We don't have many Peasents in Scranton Pennsylvania, so when i make errors i encourage you to point them out like you have in this thread, its healthy for me.That is a very revolutionary attitude. One I wish more comrades took.


you are correct that working class does not nessecarily mean Urban proletariat, however i often use them, interchangably, perhaps innappropriately so, as the Proletariat is still part of the Working class, and as such shares the same struggle, and the same oppressors.Class is not an easy or settled distinction. In fact, as all categories are created by humans, the definitions are somewhat arbitrary. For example, what constitutes a planet as opposed to a plutoid or a moon? They're objects in space pulled into a spherical shape by their own gravity? Some moons are bigger than some planets. These are not hard and fast categories, but distincitions made by humans for various purposes.


Continuing, as I said earlier, I do not believe Classes are defined by incomes.

Marxists do not define class this way, but it's not incorrect to do so. Thus, we need to be clear when discussing with others what we mean by class.


When it comes to "mom and pop shops" i was actually counting on someone making that point. As it can be argued that all such shops exploit the labour of others, even if its indirectly so. By selling a good in a small shop i still profiteer off the fruits of anothers labour, even if i don't own the factory directly, In a sense its still the same exploitation that defines the bourgeois class, besides, most of such shops employ aides anyway.

I would argue that's a rather crude distinction. In any event, how much value does a product have for you if you cannot buy it? If you can't go to the store, find the items you want or need, and get some information about the product, what good is it to you? Small shops thus provide a valuable service, both to consumers of goods, as well as producers, since they cannot realize the exchange value of a good without a physical place of exchange, although the internet is making that less and less necessary. If I may make an analogy, the role they play is similar to traders before the rise of capitalism. They realized a profit not from extracting surplus value from the laborer, but by moving goods from an area of abundance to an area of scarcity.


As for Lawyers and Doctors this is a shaky point is it not? If im a Lawyer in a law firm, and I get paid a wage to work on a case, reguardless of what my wage is, if the owner of the firm is making a profit of my services I am still exploited am i not?

That's more akin to guild master/journeyman relationship. The lawyer in that case is gaining experience and knowledge. Eventually he or she may become a partner or set up his or her own law practice, much the way an apprentice might eventually become a blacksmith, etc.


Even if im a lawyer working for myself, am i not still pawning my labour, my service, off to someone else to survive? Whether theres a bourgeoise making money off my back is irrelevant, Im still Working class, as opposed to Petite Bourgeoise. Doctors follow the same principal.

By the same token, CEOs work for shareholders. Do you really want to put Bill Gates in that same as exploited? In the case of professionals, what they sell isn't so much their ability to do labor, as specialized knowledge.


Small farmers are a different story altogether, it is undeniable, in my opinion, that they are working class, yet at the same time they are petite bourgeois in some respects, which is an interesting point.

Marxism is rather clear on the issue of peasantry not being of the working class. They own their own land. They sell the products of that land and their labor, not their ability to do labor. However, in one of those weird ways reality works. many small farmers also have jobs to help make ends meet, either working for other, capitalist farmers or in town at a factory, etc. They are both working class and middle class at the same time.


Furthermore i believe that your notion that the division of 2 great camps, is too simple a description, vulgarises Marxism in a way. Is not the bourgeoise SIMPLIFICATION of class antagonisms one of the facts, and perhaps for some a motivator, that lies deep in the core of Marxist theory.

Actually, it's the opposite of simplification, although my explanation may have been simplified. Rather, it's highly complex, as instead of being merely two static classes, there are many classes in dynamic relations to one another, with people moving from one class to another or being in more than one class at the same time. Whether a class is in orbit around the proletariat or the capitalists depends on the strength of those main classes. Under particular circumstances, those middle classes can even exert independence. Under the right conditions, they can even take power. Fascism is one such form of middle class political power, Stalinism another.


Did not Marx say in those historic first pages:
"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms"

Keep in mind The Manifesto was not a scientific document, but a propaganda peice, outlining the views of the Communist League in a simple form. Marx hims self wrote 25 years later that if he could, he'd have changed it, but that it was an historical document, he no longer had the right to do so.


I believe this simplification you reject is in fact what helps define capitalism as a system. The bourgeois have, and still are, consolidating our classes into 2 basic categories exploiter and expoilted.

That's subject to debate. I would argue you have to really twist those categories in order to make reality fit. It seems clear to me that capitalism has created new middle classes at the same time that is has destroyed the old ones.


That all being said the notion that the Soviet government exploited the Soviet people in any way prior to Stalins death is just silly.

Let's agree to disagree. I don't think it's sufficiently important enough for us today, in 2008, to divide on that line, when capitalism is crumbling around us.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Notwithstanding the most excellent conversation above, I would like to say that the original poster is probably in the "class of flux":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

[Hit The North]

Notwithstanding the most excellent conversation above, I would like to say that the original poster is probably in the "class of flux":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

How can being in a state of flux represent a class position? That seems contradictory to me.

[Valeofruin]

Fair enough, but Engel's little piece is very short, almost an FAQ of Marxism. Marx used it when he wrote The Manifesto.

Hall, yes, Foster, no. I'm abivalent about Hall, because on the one hand, he had some useful facts (about the productivity, and thus level of exploitation, of American labor) for bludgeoning the head of MIM types. He was also a successful union organizer, which is more than I've ever done. On the other hand, he was a political hack who supported the Democratic Party since Stalin ordered the CPUSA to do so in 1935.

That is a very revolutionary attitude. One I wish more comrades took.

Class is not an easy or settled distinction. In fact, as all categories are created by humans, the definitions are somewhat arbitrary. For example, what constitutes a planet as opposed to a plutoid or a moon? They're objects in space pulled into a spherical shape by their own gravity? Some moons are bigger than some planets. These are not hard and fast categories, but distincitions made by humans for various purposes.



Marxists do not define class this way, but it's not incorrect to do so. Thus, we need to be clear when discussing with others what we mean by class.



I would argue that's a rather crude distinction. In any event, how much value does a product have for you if you cannot buy it? If you can't go to the store, find the items you want or need, and get some information about the product, what good is it to you? Small shops thus provide a valuable service, both to consumers of goods, as well as producers, since they cannot realize the exchange value of a good without a physical place of exchange, although the internet is making that less and less necessary. If I may make an analogy, the role they play is similar to traders before the rise of capitalism. They realized a profit not from extracting surplus value from the laborer, but by moving goods from an area of abundance to an area of scarcity.



That's more akin to guild master/journeyman relationship. The lawyer in that case is gaining experience and knowledge. Eventually he or she may become a partner or set up his or her own law practice, much the way an apprentice might eventually become a blacksmith, etc.



By the same token, CEOs work for shareholders. Do you really want to put Bill Gates in that same as exploited? In the case of professionals, what they sell isn't so much their ability to do labor, as specialized knowledge.



Marxism is rather clear on the issue of peasantry not being of the working class. They own their own land. They sell the products of that land and their labor, not their ability to do labor. However, in one of those weird ways reality works. many small farmers also have jobs to help make ends meet, either working for other, capitalist farmers or in town at a factory, etc. They are both working class and middle class at the same time.



Actually, it's the opposite of simplification, although my explanation may have been simplified. Rather, it's highly complex, as instead of being merely two static classes, there are many classes in dynamic relations to one another, with people moving from one class to another or being in more than one class at the same time. Whether a class is in orbit around the proletariat or the capitalists depends on the strength of those main classes. Under particular circumstances, those middle classes can even exert independence. Under the right conditions, they can even take power. Fascism is one such form of middle class political power, Stalinism another.



Keep in mind The Manifesto was not a scientific document, but a propaganda peice, outlining the views of the Communist League in a simple form. Marx hims self wrote 25 years later that if he could, he'd have changed it, but that it was an historical document, he no longer had the right to do so.



That's subject to debate. I would argue you have to really twist those categories in order to make reality fit. It seems clear to me that capitalism has created new middle classes at the same time that is has destroyed the old ones.



Let's agree to disagree. I don't think it's sufficiently important enough for us today, in 2008, to divide on that line, when capitalism is crumbling around us.

I would like to begin on correcting you on the front of how Marxists define class. Never once did Marx say "the proletariat is a working individual who makes under $35,000 a year."

In fact as Engels put it in his notes and the 1888 edition of the communist manifesto: Generally speaking, "By bourgeois is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of production and employers of wage labour.
By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live." [Engels, 1888 English edition]

Notice the simplicity of this assessment.

Nowhere does Marx dismit the universal truth that even the Petite Bourgeoise in Barbarian nations can make far less then some proletariat in the imperialist nations. At the same time here at home, i can make less actual income then the people I higher, and still be petite bourgeoise. It is just however a convenient circumstance of course that 99.999% of the time the exploited make FAR less then their bourgeoise masters, as well as it also being true that the bourgeoise in order to survive must ever expand their reach, and as it has been hypothesised thus increase profits, to remain in existence.

However with all this in mind we would see it would be sheer lunacy to attempt to place an income bracket on a class.

Moving on to your statement reguarding petit bourgeoise establishments, I warmly point out that it is not our (Leninists) goal to destroy such establishments, nor is it our goal to drive out the Petite Bourgeoise, our goal is rather to re-educate these people, and reorganize such establishments to better suit our own needs. As you have pointed out attempting to smash these paticular Petit bourgeoise establishments would cause many problems, and would be, well, impossible. As Lenin says, and Stalin reiterates in "The Foundations of Leninism", one of my favorite Marxist books:

'Thirdly, "in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale"... for "the abolition of classes means only not only driving out the landlords and capitalists-that we accomplished with comparative ease-it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them, they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work (V. I. Lenin -see Vol. XXV, pp.173 and 189).'

Moving along, if you re-read my arguement you'll find it is in fact your LACK of simplification, that I believe in a sense goes against Marxist theory. Marx established that it is a universal truth that the complexity of our classes is ever eroding away, and simplifying itsself into 2 basic categories. Exploiter and Exploited, Proletariat and Bourgeoise. There is evidence to confirm this truth, because we see daily petite bourgeoise establishments being driven into the ground by the elite Bourgeoise, and daily all classes of "Peasentry" are being driven into the ranks of the proletariat or bourgeoise. I do not believe new classes have risen up to take their place, nor do i believe that the complex array of classes that once did in fact exist, is any where near as prominant in our society today, the modern bourgeois have slashed these classes of old. Now with all this in mind i see nothing wrong with the occasional black and white distinction, the view that in most circumstances, you are either exploiter or exploitee.

Yet as I've established such classes have been for some time now withering away, and if you are to look at it from that black and white viewpoint you would see that the lawyer in many cases does in fact get paid a wage, albeit a high one, and therefore pawns his labour off to survive, and while I won't go as far as to specifically say he's an urban proletariat, in the sense we tend to think of it, and lump him alongside your common factory worker, I will say he along with many other, similar white collar workers are in fact WORKING class individuals, and are in many cases (as in working for the firm) exploited.

This being established, owning an establishment or office, or private practice, I warmly point out may or may not be the same as owning a means of production per say. Though it can be argued quite easily to the contrary, and petite bourgeoise values can be assigned to these individuals. Though i believe for that debate it would be more interesting to use say, a handy man as an example. He pawns off his labour to survive, and often finds himself under the employment of the Petite bourgeoise, yet at the same time he owns a deffinate means of production, say his tools. Is he Working Class? Is he Proletariat?

Another bit of food for thought I'd like to put out is this: Does it not take specialised knowledge to do many proletarian jobs? Does a machinist not require certain specialised skills just as the doctor requires such skill?

I also would like to point out that the traders you mentioned existed in a time before Global mass production, and the organized mass transportation of goods. We can hardly compare their craft with a position in the era of the bourgeoise, and era of mass communication, trains, planes, factories and highways. What we see in the case of the traders, in the era of bartering, not to be confused specifically with merchants, is a prime example of how bourgeoise production has destroyed, perhaps a class of individuals and in fact simplified class antagonisms. In our era "moving goods" would in fact entail the extraction of value not only from the factory workers to create the goods, directly or indirectly, but also extracting value from the truck drivers, or train conductors.

When you purchase a good for resale your in a sense buying the labour and raw materials that goes into producing AND in many cases moving this product, and paying a fee of sorts to the larger bourgeoise producers, to be used to expand their grip of exploitation. Upon reselling the good your essentially pawning off the labour of the factory workers and truck drivers, to create a profit for yourself. This makes you an exploiter, albeit in a very indirect way, you are a key link in our system of exploitation.

I would next like to contend that CEO's do not in fact 'Work' for share holders. Stocks are merely a loan of sorts, a type of credit, and an actualy physical SHARE of the company as its often suggested. A ceo is under no obligation to follow the advice or meet the demands of the shareholders, it just so happens that it's usually in the best interest of the company to do so. That beign said Bill Gate's for example would not be exploited, since when does he make a wage, since when did he stop having control of a means of production, notice how i do not say "Own" as you dont nessecarily have to own the means of production in its entirety, to have a direct role in the exploitation of the working class, and since when has he been in a position where he is forced to pawn off his labour to surive? Perhaps a more interesting question, would be, is the Manager of say, your local Mcdonalds exploited? Is he an exploiter? Is he Both? Is he bourgeoise? is he proletariat? Is he simultaniously an exploited proletariat, and a bourgeoise pawn? Does he make a wage, or is he paid via a commission of sorts? Would make for yet another interesting investigation.

Where does Marx say specifically that the working class cannot own land at the same time? Where does he say that bourgeois land owners, or more appropriately land lords, are the only ones to own land?

Does a full time factory worker cease to be a proletariat, does he cease to be working class, simply because he takes a loan from the bank, and purchases a small plot of land and a cabin in a rural area? If this were the case then I am afraid the ranks of the proletariat in most industrialised nations would deplete, so much so that a revolution in such nations is perhaps impossible, and at that rate we may as well all accept capitalism, and the bourgeoise as our masters. Owning land while it can play a role in helping us distinguish bourgeoise from proletariat, simply cannot be one of the sole defining factors that devides the class, especially in our era where credit can allow just about anyone to purchase land of some sort.

To suggest that small farmers cease to be working class simply because they own land would be ludacris.

A more appropriate arguement however, that I may agree with on many aspects is that small farmers cease to be proletariat, because the land they own doubles as a means of production. It's EXTREMELY important to make this distinction, for reasons listed above.

I continue by reiterating that it was the lack of simplicity, of black and white analysis that I criticised in my earlier post.


All this being on the table "Stalinism" (pure Marxism-Leninism) is NOT a middle class idealology, quite the contrary in fact.

What it is NOT is a LIBERAL idealology. It embraces, revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and accepts it for what it is, the forcefull overthrow of one class by another, a very authoritarian concept, that requires a tempered and authoritarian party and state to be used as a tool for the oppression of the bourgeoise, and their way of life. It adapts revolutionary tactics, and stamps hard on the reactionary elements that seek to liquidate the party, and destroy the revolution we would have worked to hard to build up.

This is a theme, reiterated by Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, and in some cases Mao and Kim Il Sung, and it serves the proletariat, and the proletariat alone.

To suggest such an idealology serves the middle class serves only reaction, and opportunism.

[chicanorojo]

I beg to differ, often are people born into class slavery.

I would say if you don't survive by exploiting the Labour of others, then odds are, you are a proletariat.


But telling us your mother is a lab tech doesn't say much. It's like saying Ross Perot is a working class vato just because his mother was a waitress. You class status fluid in Capitalism. Yes. If you are 10 yr old and your mother is a waitress, then, yes, you belong to the working class in Marxian sociology. *BUT*, if you are 18 and up, well, we need to know more in order to understand your current class status.

[chegitz guevara]

Note: I'm editing out irrelevant parts.


I would like to begin on correcting you on the front of how Marxists define class. Never once did Marx say "the proletariat is a working individual who makes under $35,000 a year."

You misunderstand me. I am not writing that Marxism makes that claim at all. I would be a great idiot to post a link to Engels work contradicting me if I was doing that. If you'd bothered to follow the link or even read what I'd quoted from Engels, that should have been obvious.


Nowhere does Marx dismit the universal truth that even the Petite Bourgeoise in Barbarian nations can make far less then some proletariat in the imperialist nations.What is interesting here is not the point which you thought you were trying to make, but that you drag up the concept of universal truth. There is no such thing. All truth is conditional. Marxism is not a vulgar mechanistic philosophy, despite the torture it underwent at the hands of Stalin and his followers. Marxism sees the world as dynamic and changing. What is true today may not be true tomorrow. What was true yesterday may not be true today. What was not true yesterday may be true today. Even the physical laws upon which our reality are founded are conditional. They do not apply near the event horizon of a black hole for example, or in the early universe. Only our limited perspective as mayflies makes these long term conditions seem constant. That's why we have to continually test and retest our understanding of reality. Our materialism is dialectical, not mechanistic.


However with all this in mind we would see it would be sheer lunacy to attempt to place an income bracket on a class.Again, you misunderstand. Class is simply a way to divide things into understandable parts. We divide animals into various classes, such as birds and reptiles and mammals. These divisions are not made by nature, but by humans deciding that a bird is a critter with feathers or a mammal is a critter that feeds milk to its young. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to divide class along lines of income.

Marxist definitions of class are no more valid than any other, in and of themselves. They are of key importance, however, if you wish to understand about distribution of power, how societies create and distribute their products, how to overthrow this society, etc. An income level based class system is important if you want to understand how people see themselves or understand income distribution patterns, etc. The key is knowing what question you are trying to answer. That is why, outside of a group of Marxists, I preface discussions of Marxist classes with an explanation of what Marxists mean by class.


Moving along, if you re-read my arguement you'll find it is in fact your LACK of simplification, that I believe in a sense goes against Marxist theory.Go ahead and read Capital and then tell me how simple Marxism is. What you are doing is mistaking propaganda, by which I mean the popularization and exposition of complex ideas, and making them understandable for everyone, for a full Marxist explanation. If simplification was Marx's goal, why write Capital after having done A Critique of Political Economy?

The truth is, Marx never got to his detailed discussion of class. We know he planned one after he finished Capital (all four volumes), but he died. So much the worse for us. As far as I'm aware, not even notes exist. Engels never did one either. Neither did Lenin, nor Luxembourg, nor Trotsky, nor Mao, nor Kautstky, nor Plekhanov, nor any of the great thinkers of Marxism. It is one of Marxism's great failings. If it were so simple, why has no one ever tackled the problem? The reason is because the complexity of class is overwhelming.


I do not believe new classes have risen up to take their place, nor do i believe that the complex array of classes that once did in fact exist, is any where near as prominant in our society today, the modern bourgeois have slashed these classes of old. Now with all this in mind i see nothing wrong with the occasional black and white distinction, the view that in most circumstances, you are either exploiter or exploitee.Marxism doesn't deal in such crude categories, except once, in the Manifesto. The Manifesto was not a scientific document, but a propaganda one. The purpose was to rally the workers on the eve of the expected revolution in France, not set out a full explanation of Marxism. It was one of the first things he wrote, and so his later works ought to be given higher consideration.

Marx definitely considered the peasantry and slaves exploited. Yet Marxism doesn't look to them to organize for revolution. There are clear distinctions that Marxism draws between the different classes of exploited. While we will abolish all categories of exploitation, it is only the proletariat that has the capacity to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, according to Marx.


Yet as I've established such classes have been for some time now withering away, and if you are to look at it from that black and white viewpointLooking at things in a black and white viewpoint is un-Marxist. Marx never did. It is only in the hands of Stalinism that such crude caricatures of Marxism came to dominate.


you would see that the lawyer in many cases does in fact get paid a wage, albeit a high one, and therefore pawns his labour off to survive, and while I won't go as far as to specifically say he's an urban proletariat, in the sense we tend to think of it, and lump him alongside your common factory worker, I will say he along with many other, similar white collar workers are in fact WORKING class individuals, and are in many cases (as in working for the firm) exploited.And this shows the limitation of your understanding of class in Marxism. What differentiates the exploitation of the apprentice and the proletariat? The apprentice is only exploited for a set period of time, before he becomes his own master, and in turn exploits others. He gains from his period of indenture knowledge and experience. The proletarian has nothing to sell but his labor-power. The proletarian gains nothing from his exploitation but a wage. The proletarian doesn't get to become the master later, but must be exploited his whole life, sold day by day until he is no longer of any use to capital.

The non-partner lawyer in a law firm may be exploited by the partners, but she won't remain in that situation. As she develops knowledge, experience, and a client base, she gains what she needs to emancipate herself and either become an exploiter as a partner or setting up her own law practice, and neither being exploited nor exploiting.


This being established, owning an establishment or office, or private practice, I warmly point out may or may not be the same as owning a means of production per say.Those are means of production. It is possible to own small scall means of production and do all the work yourself. Many computer programers do so.


Though i believe for that debate it would be more interesting to use say, a handy man as an example. He pawns off his labour to survive, and often finds himself under the employment of the Petite bourgeoise, yet at the same time he owns a deffinate means of production, say his tools. Is he Working Class? Is he Proletariat?He's petit bourgeois.


Another bit of food for thought I'd like to put out is this: Does it not take specialised knowledge to do many proletarian jobs? Does a machinist not require certain specialised skills just as the doctor requires such skill?Yes and no.


I also would like to point out that the traders you mentioned existed in a time before Global mass production, and the organized mass transportation of goods.You utterly miss the point.


In our era "moving goods" would in fact entail the extraction of value not only from the factory workers to create the goods, directly or indirectly, but also extracting value from the truck drivers, or train conductors.In fact, different levels of value are added all along the process. Teamsters add value by moving it from one place to another, and the capitalists for who the teamsters work, extract the surplus value the teamsters create. The value the factory workers add is extracted by the factory owner. The value that Mom and Dad add, putting the material on their shelves, providing a place to purchase them, etc., is extracted by Mom and Dad. The capitalist has no interest in sharing surplus value, but rather extracts all from it he can. There is a reason why you can purchase goods from the factory cheaper than in a store. Doing so does not mean you are exploiting the workers at the factory.


I would next like to contend that CEO's do not in fact 'Work' for share holders.Get some experience in the business world and get back to me.


Stocks are merely a loan of sorts, a type of credit, and an actualy physical SHARE of the company as its often suggested.No, shareholders are owners.


A ceo is under no obligation to follow the advice or meet the demands of the shareholders, it just so happens that it's usually in the best interest of the company to do so.CEOs are legally obligated to follow the dictates of the shareholders. They can fire him if he falis to do so, and he may even be prosecuted by the government if he fails his his fiduciary duty.


That beign said Bill Gate's for example would not be exploited, since when does he make a wage, since when did he stop having control of a means of production, notice how i do not say "Own" as you dont nessecarily have to own the means of production in its entirety, to have a direct role in the exploitation of the working class, and since when has he been in a position where he is forced to pawn off his labour to surive?Gates stopped making a wage a few years ago, when he stepped down as CEO. Before that, however, he earned a salary, and he worked for that salary. His wealth comes not from what he was paid, but from the fact that he owns a huge chunk of Microsoft. And yet, he was not the only owner of Microsoft. As CEO he worked for the other shareholders. He was paid for managing their capital. Because of the work he did, they were able to extract a profit. This is why a simplistic explanation of exploiter and exploited falls down.


Perhaps a more interesting question, would be, is the Manager of say, your local Mcdonalds exploited? Is he an exploiter? Is he Both? Is he bourgeoise? is he proletariat? Is he simultaniously an exploited proletariat, and a bourgeoise pawn? Does he make a wage, or is he paid via a commission of sorts? Would make for yet another interesting investigation.He's petit bourgeois. His role in supervising labor and managing the interests of the capitalist puts him in the middle class.


Where does Marx say specifically that the working class cannot own land at the same time? Where does he say that bourgeois land owners, or more appropriately land lords, are the only ones to own land?He didn't, but your simplistic explanation does. That's why no simple explanation of class, such as the one you put forward, works.


Does a full time factory worker cease to be a proletariat, does he cease to be working class, simply because he takes a loan from the bank, and purchases a small plot of land and a cabin in a rural area? If this were the case then I am afraid the ranks of the proletariat in most industrialised nations would deplete, so much so that a revolution in such nations is perhaps impossible, and at that rate we may as well all accept capitalism, and the bourgeoise as our masters.That is the argument of Third Worldists, except that they argue that our nation needs to be conquered and socialism forced upon us. In any event, owning a cabin in the woods wouldn't change your class unless you rented it out. In Marxism, your class is determined by your relationship to the means of production.


To suggest that small farmers cease to be working class simply because they own land would be ludacris.To suggest that they are working class is a complete repudiation of Marxism. Small farmers are peasants, not workers.


A more appropriate arguement however, that I may agree with on many aspects is that small farmers cease to be proletariat, because the land they own doubles as a means of production. It's EXTREMELY important to make this distinction, for reasons listed above.Small farmers were not proletarian to being with because they own the means of production! They sell the products of their labor, not their ability to do labor.


I continue by reiterating that it was the lack of simplicity, of black and white analysis that I criticised in my earlier post.And your simplicity shows that you lack anything more than a remedial understanding of class in Marxist terms.


To suggest such an idealology serves the middle class serves only reaction, and opportunism.There is not a monolithic middle class. Bureaucrats are a middle class, and Stalinism is the ideology of the bureaucracy.

[Yehuda Stern]

dude lab technicians are paid like shit. i doubt a lab technician makes much more than a janitor.

There no necessary correlation between class and pay. There is to some extent, but it's hardly a good way to judge which class a person belongs to.

[Valeofruin]

1. despite the torture it underwent at the hands of Stalin and his followers. Marxism sees the world as dynamic and changing. Our materialism is dialectical, not mechanistic.

2. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to divide class along lines of income.

3. Go ahead and read Capital and then tell me how simple Marxism is. What you are doing is mistaking propaganda, by which I mean the popularization and exposition of complex ideas, and making them understandable for everyone, for a full Marxist explanation. If simplification was Marx's goal, why write Capital after having done A Critique of Political Economy?

The truth is, Marx never got to his detailed discussion of class. We know he planned one after he finished Capital (all four volumes), but he died. So much the worse for us. As far as I'm aware, not even notes exist. Engels never did one either. Neither did Lenin, nor Luxembourg, nor Trotsky, nor Mao, nor Kautstky, nor Plekhanov, nor any of the great thinkers of Marxism. It is one of Marxism's great failings. If it were so simple, why has no one ever tackled the problem? The reason is because the complexity of class is overwhelming.

4. Marx definitely considered the peasantry and slaves exploited. Yet Marxism doesn't look to them to organize for revolution.

5. The non-partner lawyer in a law firm may be exploited by the partners, but she won't remain in that situation. As she develops knowledge, experience, and a client base, she gains what she needs to emancipate herself and either become an exploiter as a partner or setting up her own law practice, and neither being exploited nor exploiting.

6.Those are means of production. It is possible to own small scall means of production and do all the work yourself. Many computer programers do so.

7. In fact, different levels of value are added all along the process. Teamsters add value by moving it from one place to another, and the capitalists for who the teamsters work, extract the surplus value the teamsters create. The value the factory workers add is extracted by the factory owner. The value that Mom and Dad add, putting the material on their shelves, providing a place to purchase them, etc., is extracted by Mom and Dad. The capitalist has no interest in sharing surplus value, but rather extracts all from it he can. There is a reason why you can purchase goods from the factory cheaper than in a store. Doing so does not mean you are exploiting the workers at the factory.

8. In Marxism, your class is determined by your relationship to the means of production.

9. because they own the means of production! They sell the products of their labor, not their ability to do labor.

10. There is not a monolithic middle class. Bureaucrats are a middle class, and Stalinism is the ideology of the bureaucracy.

First ill begin by conceding the first point you make, however I'll point out that your slash on "Stalinism" clearly shows no understanding of our idealology. Perhaps universal truth WAS a poor choice of words, as your right, the world is always changing.

Stalin points this out in his book (another one i would recommend you read before your next stalin bashing orgy) "Dialectical and Historical Materialism"

"Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.
Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.
When describing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectics of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectics of Hegel. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian dialectics only its "rational kernel," casting aside its Hegelian idealistic shell, and developed dialectics further so as to lend it a modern scientific form.
"My dialectic method," says Marx, "is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, ... the process of thinking which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought." (Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of Capital.)"

he then goes on to write:
"Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and Change
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.
The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing."

To suggest that Stalinists have no grasp on the concepts of Dialectical Materialism, would be an arguement you would undoubtably lose.

2/ 8. I would like you to note this embolded statements, as the latter is along the lines of what i was attempting to pursue.

Class is determined by your relationship to the means of production, very much so, perhaps I am still missing the point but i do not see how taking into account income, makes any sense whatsoever.

I also point out I like your answers to some of my questions reguarding who would be petite bourgeoise, as I believe they help to communicate where you're coming from on some of these issues.

3. The bourgeois simplification of class antagonisms and the simplicity of Marxism are 2 seperate things. Noone ever said Marxism was simple, or the political economy is simple, the arguement is that society is breaking down more and more into "2 great camps", that this is fact, and that this statement at least CAN be considered a "universal truth". It is in the very nature of bourgeois capitalism to simplify class antagonisms.

4. I underlined this very distrubing, Opportunist nonsense, just to ensure its out in the open for everyone to see.

The Peasentry should serve as a Reserve for the proletariat in their revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoise.

To ensure victory it is paramount that any peasentry be won over as an ally to the proletariat, lest they serve as a primary political reserve for the bourgeoise.

"Consequently, Lenin fought the adherents of "permanent" revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they underestimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat, because they failed to understand the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat." J. V. Stalin

5. yet still my arguement holds water, whatever name you wish to assign to it, so long as the lawyer maintains his status as an apprentice, he is an exploited individual, reguardless of his income. And therefore in my opinion reguardlss of his income, is fighting a struggle similar to that of the proletariat.

6. This can be argued easily in your favour, so ill concede it. To a lawyer a Pen can be considered a means of production, just as easily as the hammer in my basement. I believe in freedom of criticism, yet unity in action. This particular avenue of struggle would clearly be one I would lose, so I see no reason why i shouldn't just agree with you? (Patriotic way of saying I'll admit I'm wrong)

7. on this, front im afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, I argue even the smallest mom and pop shops make a living by exploiting the working class, you argue otherwise, It would be liberal of me to just agree for the sake of unity on this front.

8. see 2.

9. agreed and understood.

10. By all means Elaborate, how is Stalinism an idealology of Bureaucracy? As you can probably guess i would argue quite to the contrary.

[chegitz guevara]

First ill begin by conceding the first point you make, however I'll point out that your slash on "Stalinism" clearly shows no understanding of our idealology.

[snip]

To suggest that Stalinists have no grasp on the concepts of Dialectical Materialism, would be an arguement you would undoubtably lose.

That's a little different than what I wrote. I would not say that no Stalinists understand Marxism or dialectics. Dirk Struik, a CPer, put together a Reader in Marxist Philosophy that simply ought to be read by any comrade hoping to get a handle on the stuff. Lukács was a brilliant dialectician, and a Stalinist.

As the expression of the Soviet bureaucracy, however, Stalinism displayed a dogmatic, mechanistic understanding of Marxism. Marxism in its hands became an ideology justifying whatever current policy turns or hierarchical system they wanted. It got so ridiculous at one point that in the early 1960s, a Czech bureaucrat blamed the failure of a subway on counter-revolutionary subsoil. :huh:



2/ 8. I would like you to note this embolded statements, as the latter is along the lines of what i was attempting to pursue.

Class is determined by your relationship to the means of production, very much so, perhaps I am still missing the point but i do not see how taking into account income, makes any sense whatsoever.What you are missing is that you are attempting to reconcile differing concepts of class, instead of simply accepting that alternative explanations to the one you use exist. By which I don't mean you are attempting to actually do so positively, but that you are trying to understand how both could be correct at the same time, and because one adds nothing to the other, you reject the alternative without seeing the point.

What I am trying to point out to you is that the definition of class is not objective but subjective. Marxists have one definition. Non-Marxists have other definitions. Neither is right nor wrong. They are different. Because they are different, we must be clear as to which definition we are using. It's important to understand this because outside the Marxist movement and a handful of sociologists, no one uses Marxist definitions. If you enter a group and begin speaking using terms which have different meanings to different people, you will sow confusion, not clarity.


3. The bourgeois simplification of class antagonisms and the simplicity of Marxism are 2 seperate things. Noone ever said Marxism was simple, or the political economy is simple, the arguement is that society is breaking down more and more into "2 great camps", that this is fact, and that this statement at least CAN be considered a "universal truth". It is in the very nature of bourgeois capitalism to simplify class antagonisms.Remember how we discussed the fluid nature of reality, and that what was true yesterday might not be true today. That's one of those things. Class antagonisms have by no means simplified since the time when Marx wrote the Manifesto. Marx was writing at a time when the old middle classes were being ruined by capitalism (that world "old" is important--it was left out of the 1888 translation to English, but the word is there in the German language), but before capitalism saw a need for new middle classes. With the rise of corporations, capitalism saw the need for a whole new supervisory class. At the same time, professionals never really disappeared. In fact, as capitalism grew, so too did the need for professional classes. On the other hand, guildsman and apprentices, peasants, and such type middle classes, they have disappeared largely from history. Farmers in the U.S. at one time made up the vast majority of the population. Today they are less than five percent. Interestingly, five percent of the population of the U.S. is fifteen million people, which is five times more more farmers in absolute terms than founded the American republic. So, we can say that the peasants both disappeared and grew. That's hard to grasp with regular logic (though I expect Rosa L to tell me I'm wrong). That's what a dialectical understanding of reality will allow you.


4. I underlined this very distrubing, Opportunist nonsense, just to ensure its out in the open for everyone to see.

The Peasentry should serve as a Reserve for the proletariat in their revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoise.

To ensure victory it is paramount that any peasentry be won over as an ally to the proletariat, lest they serve as a primary political reserve for the bourgeoise.Actually, pandering to peasants would be opportunism. Opportunism is when you abandon your politics in order to try and attract a larger following. That said, Lenin (and Marx) were clear that the peasantry, while organized as an ally of the proletariat, must be subordinate to the proletariat, and by no means were they capable of realizing socialism on their own. The Russian Social Democratic Workers Party did not organize the peasants. They left that to the Socialist Revolutionaries. Lenin organized among the workers and the workers alone. Marx wrote that the peasantry were only capable of building socialism on the basis of their communes if the workers had already made the revolution. On this basis it was possible for the Chinese peasants to overthrow capitalism in China, but only because the Soviet workers already had a workers state to serve as a pole of attraction. Were the peasants rejected that pole, such as in Cambodia, not socialism was built, but a monstrous regime of peasant tyranny which ate itself and burned out spectacularly.


5. yet still my arguement holds water, whatever name you wish to assign to it, so long as the lawyer maintains his status as an apprentice, he is an exploited individual, reguardless of his income. And therefore in my opinion reguardlss of his income, is fighting a struggle similar to that of the proletariat.But Marxism isn't concerned with the struggle of the exploited per se. We are concerned with the struggle of the proletariat. From a moral standpoint, we oppose exploitation, but we recognize that alone, only the proletariat has a material interest in overthrowing the whole system of exploitation completely. The middle class doesn't want to overthrow exploitation, even if they are exploited, because they hope to some day be the exploiters. Thus, without the leadership of a mass movement of workers, the middle classes will fight to maintain the current system. The lawyer in a law firm has a stake in the current order, because after he gets his "emancipation" he will either be able to appropriate his own surplus value from his own labor or be able to exploit the labor of others.


10. By all means Elaborate, how is Stalinism an idealology of Bureaucracy? As you can probably guess i would argue quite to the contrary.This is a long, separate discussion. I'm sure the many Trots here will be happy to answer it for you. I'm honestly not interested in that type of discussion with you, mainly because I don't see it as terribly relevant to the struggle to overthrow capitalism. The Soviet bureaucracy no longer exists. Trotsky and Stalin are dead. I don't want to continue the vendetta of dead men. I think you and I have more of an interest in finding the common work we can do together to overthrow the American empire and capitalism.

[JimmyJazz]

@ the op: check out Michael Zweig-

The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Class-Majority-Americas-Secret/dp/0801487277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222406152&sr=8-1)


Dirk Struik, a CPer, put together a Reader in Marxist Philosophy that simply ought to be read by any comrade hoping to get a handle on the stuff.

Wow, thanks for this. Struik's edition of the Manifesto, Birth of the Communist Manifesto, is one of the best Marxist books I've ever read.

[Valeofruin]

Actually, pandering to peasants would be opportunism. Opportunism is when you abandon your politics in order to try and attract a larger following. That said, Lenin (and Marx) were clear that the peasantry, while organized as an ally of the proletariat, must be subordinate to the proletariat, and by no means were they capable of realizing socialism on their own. The Russian Social Democratic Workers Party did not organize the peasants. They left that to the Socialist Revolutionaries. Lenin organized among the workers and the workers alone. Marx wrote that the peasantry were only capable of building socialism on the basis of their communes if the workers had already made the revolution. On this basis it was possible for the Chinese peasants to overthrow capitalism in China, but only because the Soviet workers already had a workers state to serve as a pole of attraction. Were the peasants rejected that pole, such as in Cambodia, not socialism was built, but a monstrous regime of peasant tyranny which ate itself and burned out spectacularly.

Then perhaps i misinterpret you, You would not reject the vital role of peasentry as a reserve for the proletariat, and the building of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Such an ideal would serve to strengthen the bourgeoise.

You make a good point, on the front of opportunism, however in my opinion an opportunist is no longer an opportunist, and a reformist, is no longer a reformist, if their idealology does not ultimately strengthen the bourgeoise. Reformism, designed to strengthen the proletariat movement, becomes a revolutionary concept. This as opposed to the idealology of people who have traditionally underestimated the role of peasentry, who i perhaps incorrectly grouped you with, that have always seeked the kinds of reforms that would damage the proletariat revolution, by serving the interests of the bourgeoise.

[chegitz guevara]

Wow, thanks for this. Struik's edition of the Manifesto, Birth of the Communist Manifesto, is one of the best Marxist books I've ever read.

My bad. Not Dirk Struik, but Howard Selsam and Harrry Martel. For some reason, I always want to give Struik credit.:unsure:

Reader in Marxist Philosophy (http://books.google.com/books?id=CsoSQ6vD8fUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=reader+in+marxist+philosophy&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0#PPA3,M1)

[Jazzratt]

There no necessary correlation between class and pay. There is to some extent, but it's hardly a good way to judge which class a person belongs to.

Yet you were the one who declared the OP "middle class", which is a term based entirely on wage rather than being part of any coherent Marxist analysis. The closest parallel I can possibly think of is petit-bourgeois but that doesn't really fit because the near-permanently unemployed do not enjoy a petit-bourgeois relation to the means of production and unless you believe that people who work at the bottom end of the service sector (janitors, dustmen, lab technicians and so on) don't qualify as working class your position just m,akes no sense.

NoXion: You're unemployed porle. I think, although there is also a case for your lumpenhood.

[Vargha Poralli]

Jazzratt is corect on one thing .

Unemployed are a part of working class. This was the very deep division of labour which we have to overcome.

Lumpen proletariat is a class which preys on the other classes especially the working class.The Capitalist society creates it but it cannot play any positive role in the struggle to overthrow it.

[PRC-UTE]

Jazzratt is corect on one thing .

Unemployed are a part of working class. This was the very deep division of labour which we have to overcome.

Lumpen proletariat is a class which preys on the other classes especially the working class.The Capitalist society creates it but it cannot play any positive role in the struggle to overthrow it.

Correct.

In regard to Noxion's original question, he's definitely proletarian, unless he's living off of organised crime. Many proletarians drift in and out of work, or spend long periods unemployed (Marx labelled these 'reserve army of the unemployed').

[apathy maybe]

Lumpen proletariat is a class which preys on the other classes especially the working class.The Capitalist society creates it but it cannot play any positive role in the struggle to overthrow it.
Really? here I was thinking that the lumpen-proletariat were the class of people who had no relation to the means of production, not those who "prey" on other classes. That is to say, that yes, beggars and thieves are lumpen, but so are people who survive by squatting, dumpster-diving and otherwise live on the scraps of capitalism (and don't use money).

Not to mention, to say that they cannot play and positive role in "the struggle to overthrow [capitalism]" is to be down right insulting (not to mention narrow-minded).

What will the revolution consist of do you think? Will it be merely, the workers taking over the factories and life continuing as normal? Or will there be violence in the streets? If the second, then who knows the streets better then those who live on them?

Who has the most to gain materially from a revolution then those who have the least now?

Why wouldn't the lumpen proletariat support a revolution against capitalism when capitalism passes laws to prevent them from sleeping under bridges?

:rolleyes:

Here's an idea for you, go and talk with these "scum of society" for a bit, live with the long-term homeless, try living their life, and then come back and say that they cannot play any positive role in a anti-capitalist revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is a learning question! Seriously, once you are beyond learning you realise that Marxist distinctions are a lot of bollocks :tt2: :laugh:.


Besides, we all know that lumpen-prols have more fun :cool:.

You should know that your parents class doesn't decide your class. Your mother was obviously a "prol", and you, not having any relation to the means of production while you were being raised, well I'm not sure what the Marxist class definition of students is.

As for now, I say your probably an unemployed prol. Though I think that some Marxists say the chronically unemployed are lumpen.

Really though, does it actually matter?

You are one of the oppressed, and that's what really matters from an anarchist perspective.

You're so full of shit.

Making statements like "Marxist distinctions are a lot of bollocks" without even attempting to substantiate it with an argument makes me highly sceptical of whether you even know what these distinctions are. Marxist definitions of class are based on objective fact and whether you can disprove those facts you really have no basis to make any such puerile assertion.

And what is "one of the oppressed"?...What does that even mean!.

[apathy maybe]

You're so full of shit.
Why thank you.

Making statements like "Marxist distinctions are a lot of bollocks" without even attempting to substantiate it with an argument makes me highly sceptical of whether you even know what these distinctions are.
I'm not interested in the discussion, I've had it enough times before (including with you). Marxian class analysis is based on relation to the means of production. Hence we get those four major classes that we all should know about. However, I feel that using the relation to the means of production leaves too many overlaps. That's one reason they are a lot of bollocks.

Marxist definitions of class are based on objective fact and whether you can disprove those facts you really have no basis to make any such puerile assertion.
Sure, objective fact. Some people are bourgeois, some are proletariat. That is a "fact". It doesn't mean that the distinction is useful, or that you can lump all petit-bourgeois into one category and say that they will all (or even a majority will) do one thing or another. Basically, these categories do not provide enough information! (Not to mention you get all sorts of different answers depending on who you ask, when you start asking questions like: "What class are teachers?", "what class are doctors"? "what about small share holders who still have to work 90% of the time?" "... 50% of the time?", "what class are generals in the army?", "what class are prostitutes?", "what class are students?", "what class are university students who don't rely on their parents, and don't work?", "what class are managers that don't actually own any of the means of production?", "what class are foreman?" etc.)

So, my saying "lot of bollocks" is not based on a whim, but based on years of thought about the matter (I've been learning and thinking about these things since at least 2001).


And what is "one of the oppressed"?...What does that even mean!.
Well, I would suggest it means the people who don't have very much power in society today. The lower classes, the people who are forced to work everyday, the people who cannot afford a luxury home, three new cars and to send their kids to a private school. It means lots of different things, but basically, it means the people who have the biggest incentive to fucking well overthrow this shit system we live in.

Anarchism is about freedom from hierarchy and oppression, surely you can agree that this is the core of anarchist ideals (if not, what do you consider the core of anarchist ideals?).

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure, objective fact. Some people are bourgeois, some are proletariat. That is a "fact".

Yes, but why is it a fact? Understanding the fact is the reason for its usefullness.


It doesn't mean that the distinction is usefulPerhaps not for you, but for those who are fighting class struggle it's incredibly useful both in terms of understanding why we are fighting a class struggle and also in how we fight that struggle.

The "distinction" as you primitively call it is the whole basis - the fundamental premise of why [most] people are [class struggle] anarchists. Without this "distinction" we'd be like you: Vacillating and pointless.


Well, I would suggest it means the people who don't have very much power in society today. The lower classes, the people who are forced to work everyday, the people who cannot afford a luxury home, three new cars and to send their kids to a private school. It means lots of different things, but basically, it means the people who have the biggest incentive to fucking well overthrow this shit system we live in.But that's just vague, wanky bollocks! What does any of that actually mean in any practical sense? How am I to understand the nature, purpose and function of struggle based on such an abstract and intangible view?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The reason I mention my mother's occupation (and by extension her relation to the means of production) is because of the potential effect on my class outlook - I could have sworn I wrote a post in this thread explaining this, but it seems not.

I didn't expect that what I thought would be a fairly simple question (but of which I was not sure of myself) would generate so much controversy.

As for the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat, I will have to disagree with Vargha Poralli. Many of them have life experiences that brutally slam home the ugly realities of capitalism - one neighbour has told me of how he was brought into Bracknell police station (which apparently has no cameras) where he had his arm broken. When his solicitor (I would say public defender but that's an American term) pointed this out, the police dropped the charges (assault on a police officer) and no further action was taken. I reckon had it gone to court the police would have been in danger of losing their ability to commit torture and sadism against the "rabble".

Fuck the pigs. They're all filth, and corruption goes high up the ranks. The lumpen have no reason to cooperate with such scum.

[apathy maybe]

Edit: Too slow, this posting is addressing TAT's post, not NoXion's.

Yeah, I'm not interested in this discussion. In my time at RevLeft, I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why I should use Marxian class analysis as opposed to classifying people by other things (such as risk, power, income or any of the myriad of sociological concepts).

Indeed, as it happens, I could suggest that income could be a better indication of who is more likely to support a revolution then their Marxian class. That football player who just "earned" half a million but doesn't have any investments is surely a proletariat by any sensible examination of their relation to the means of production, yet they would not want to lose their wealth, and position of power in society.

So yeah, actually, maybe I am interested in that discussion. Could you split this diversion, possibly starting with where you insult me, into a new thread?

[The Feral Underclass]

In my time at RevLeft, I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why I should use Marxian class analysis as opposed to classifying people by other things (such as risk, power, income or any of the myriad of sociological concepts).

Marxian class analysis defines the nature of society, exposes the reality of capitalism and gives us the understanding of how we change society. No sociological definition of class has the ability to do that. Primarily because those concepts stem from liberalism and do not have, at its core, the total and fundamental destruction of capitalist society.


Indeed, as it happens, I could suggest that income could be a better indication of who is more likely to support a revolution then their Marxian class.

It's not a question of "who will support a revolution", it's about how society functions and ultimately how it can change.

[apathy maybe]

Marxian class analysis defines the nature of society, exposes the reality of capitalism and gives us the understanding of how we change society. No sociological definition of class has the ability to do that. Primarily because those concepts stem from liberalism and do not have, at its core, the total and fundamental destruction of capitalist society.
Marxian class analysis is a "sociological definition of class". Anyway, it defines a nature of society, but has too many border cases (from my understanding of it at any rate, too many different answers are provided for those questions I asked above).

Besides which, I don't see how a description of classes can have at its core "the total and fundamental destruction of capitalist society". Marxist ideology maybe, but then again, so does my ideology (and it isn't Marxist if you hadn't already guessed).

Using "risk" as a separating concept can also provide a nature of society.


It's not a question of "who will support a revolution", it's about how society functions and ultimately how it can change.
I disagree that only the proletariat can have any influence on society, or that they are the only ones who can bring about a revolution. Yes, they are the only ones who can "stop work", can run the factories etc. But, the fact is, it isn't who is in the factories that brings down governments, but who is on the streets. (Not to mention, if we are talking about a civil war situation, the military (or at least those with military training) will be more useful in many cases to the cause).

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxian class analysis is a "sociological definition of class".

Primarily it's an economic analysis.


Anyway, it defines a nature of societyYes, there are other "definitions" of society, none of which are founded in objective fact.


but has too many border cases (from my understanding of it at any rate, too many different answers are provided for those questions I asked above).The kinds of people you refer to are clearly defined within a Marxian definition of class.


Besides which, I don't see how a description of classes can have at its core "the total and fundamental destruction of capitalist society".Marxism has, at its core, the fundamental destruction of capitalist society. This core value is arrived at from objective analysis of society and how it functions. The notion of class - in the real sense - concludes with the understanding that the capitalist class must be removed if the working class are to create a society that functions based on their needs.


Using "risk" as a separating concept can also provide a nature of society.Yeah, sure, but a "concept" that's total and absolute bullshit that bares no relevance to class struggle. Just wanky liberal tossers like you.


I disagree that only the proletariat can have any influence on societyDisagree all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that the only people who can bring down the means of production are those that work in it.


or that they are the only ones who can bring about a revolution.Then how else does a revolution come about?


Yes, they are the only ones who can "stop work", can run the factories etc. But, the fact is, it isn't who is in the factories that brings down governments, but who is on the streets.:rolleyes:

How exactly do you think that people being on some streets is going to bring down a government? What does that even mean?

Society is based on production. The whole premise of human activity is that of producing our means of survival. That is a fact.

From one stage of history to another humans have developed the processes by which they produce their means of survival. Fact.

In the course of those stages people have sought to control those processes and the gradual development and various consolidations of political power have created antagonisms. Fact.

These antagonisms have resulted in change. Fact.

Capitalism represents the current processes of production. A system designed to allow individuals to generate wealth from those processes; by giving them property rights and creating a state to defend them. Fact.

In order for this system to function, it requires individuals who do not have property rights to sell their labour to those who do, so that they can maintain their own survival. Fact.

Those who control property i.e. the means of production are called the ruling class. Those who have to sell their labour power are called working class. Logical!

This system of economics requires the working class to have a limitation of power. The state's function is to maintain that limitation of power by removing choice. The state ensures the working class person does not have the means to sustain survival nor the ability to attain property rights. Also, the nominal state hand outs are designed to maintain poverty and therefore in order to live, we must sell the only thing we have: Our labour. Fact.

Capitalist society is based on this premise. Fact. This is how society functions. Fact. Everything that exists within society is geared towards this system in one way or another. Fact. As a result working class people are exploited, alienated and oppressed. Fact.

Now a question: Taking those facts, how do you deduce that this system of economics will cease functioning. How ultimately does a governments no longer have the means to limit power?

People go on the streets all the time yet fail consistently in achieving anything. People can go out onto the streets but in reality that means nothing. Since society is based purely on our processes of survival, simply going "onto the streets" is not going to change anything - Ultimately, we will still need to produce our means of survival, won't we? And that's the point.


(Not to mention, if we are talking about a civil war situation, the military (or at least those with military training) will be more useful in many cases to the cause).More useful than what? The working class...?

[Invader Zim]

Marxian class distinctions are indeed worthless for those living in the west, largely Do marxian class definitions still ring true in the modern world at all though? Does one's relationship to the means of production dictate the factors which define class consciousness as they did a century ago?

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxian class distinctions are indeed worthless for those living in the west

Of course they aren't. The means of production have changed but the essential relationship remains the same.


Do marxian class definitions still ring true in the modern world at all though?

Yes.


Does one's relationship to the means of production dictate the factors which define class consciousness as they did a century ago?

People remain exploited, alienated and oppressed and the consequences of that shall ultimately be the same.

[Invader Zim]

The means of production have changed but the essential relationship remains the same.


How, if the very fabric of class has changed, can the relationships remain unaltered?


People remain exploited, alienated and oppressed and the consequences of that shall ultimately be the same.

You didn't answer the question, try again.

[The Feral Underclass]

How, if the very fabric of class has changed, can the relationships remain unaltered?

The means of production refers to the processes in which we produce our survival. These remain in the control of a ruling class, those whose property rights are defended and whom generate wealth from those people who continue to sell their labour and have no property rights. While the industries in the west are not how they traditionally were during the onset of capitalism, especially in the UK, the relationship to the processes in which we produce our survival i.e. the means of production, remain the same.


You didn't answer the question, try again.Perhaps I don't fully understand your question?

[chegitz guevara]

Marxian class distinctions are indeed worthless for those living in the west, largely Do marxian class definitions still ring true in the modern world at all though? Does one's relationship to the means of production dictate the factors which define class consciousness as they did a century ago?

I disagree. The basic relationships remain the same, capitalist v proletarian. However, a larger new middle class has arisen: professionals, managers, white collar workers, etc. In addition, capitalist states artificially prop up small businesses, etc. At root, however, the basic driving force in society is the exploitation of labor-power, of both proletarians at home and those abroad.

Class consciousness is also suppressed, via ideology. Partly it's by defining class along lifestyle (not so much income) so that workers who can enjoy the lifestyle of the middle class come to identify that way (and why not?), as well as various other methods of obscuring class relations and even getting the workers to agree that they should be exploited.

[Invader Zim]

The means of production refers to the processes in which we produce our survival. These remain in the control of a ruling class, those whose property rights are defended and whom generate wealth from those people who continue to sell their labour and have no property rights. While the industries in the west are not how they traditionally were during the onset of capitalism, especially in the UK, the relationship to the processes in which we produce our survival i.e. the means of production, remain the same.

Perhaps I don't fully understand your question?


These remain in the control of a ruling class, those whose property rights are defended and whom generate wealth from those people who continue to sell their labour and have no property rights.

In this day and age a person who would be classified, in Marxian terms, as a proletarian can actually purchase a portion of a buisness and many do; some even recieve shares of a the buisness as a form of payment (often as a bonus). Thus at the same time that one individual can not only be an employee of a company selling his/her labour, but also at the same time own shares of that same company. That view of society also ignores the fact that lifestyle and affluence have massively altered and to dismiss that as a factor which dictates how a person, or class of people, view society and the wider world leads to an incomplete picture.


Perhaps I don't fully understand your question?

As the nature of the working, and in turn home, enviroment has changed over the last century, do people see the world as they did 100 years ago?

[chegitz guevara]

In this day and age a person who would be classified, in Marxian terms, as a proletarian can actually purchase a portion of a buisness and many do; some even recieve shares of a the buisness as a form of payment (often as a bonus).

No one said the situation wasn't confused. On the other hand, more than 50% of the population owns 1% of the stock, and most of the stock they own is common stock, held by their retirement funds. Not exactly joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie.