Aren't cops just workers? [Archive]

cop an Attitude

24th October 2008, 14:54

I thought i would put in some questions on this topic. I myself have been leaning towards communism for some time and only resently have I found that anrcho-communism is what i beleive. With this I became more and more resentful of the state and now find myself at the police question. I know the many injustices that the police carry out such as carring armed weapons, supressing free spreech and holding the people in line to protect private porperty and buissness. I know many disagree with the idea of police in gerneral, which i dont understand. Even though the police harm they can also do right. What about preventing rape or stopping murderers. halting street gang and such. Now i know you may say that they are working for a gang themselves but if the world was to run without such a force then real crime would skyrocket. Now I dont agree with the current situation of the police but in a postcapitalist nation we need people (not armed to the teeth like today) to keep the order and make sure that others dont get hurt. If somebody could explain how this could be reached without a police force then I would be glad to hear. All in all I have a problem with the police only becuase they they keep capitalist order, work for a currupt goverment and (i would say about 1/2-2/3) are power fiends.

Comrada J

24th October 2008, 15:16

Even though the police harm they can also do right. What about preventing rape or stopping murderers. halting street gang and such. Now i know you may say that they are working for a gang themselves but if the world was to run without such a force then real crime would skyrocket.

Not quite, the police very rarely 'prevent' anything (assuming you aren't talking about the entire law system, but even that's arguable). They usually come long after the crimes been done - the other day I saw a burglar break into a small business building, the police arrived 45 minutes after the robber already escaped. One of the more experienced anarchist types will probably answer the question of police in a post-revolution but in general a socialist society seeks to prevent crime - not encourage it with more crime.

Die Neue Zeit

24th October 2008, 15:22

Yehuda Stern

24th October 2008, 16:38

I honestly don't understand why cops shouldn't be considered part of the petty-bourgeois, other than some "theorists'" desire of throwing up new definitions that really mean nothing at all.

cop an Attitude

24th October 2008, 17:01

I simply mean a system installed to diturre a person from harming another is needed. A friend of mine made a good point that a the police in a postcapitalist society should be elected and hold their poststion for a limited time. This way the abuse of the badge and the hotheadedness of the current day police would be avioded. The police dont serve the greater good to often but they are a needed to some extent. I just cant grasp the agrument of their being no from of local protection (or a community run, relaxed police) after capitalistism.

JimmyJazz

24th October 2008, 18:38

I've heard the "cops are just workers" argument before, and it seems to stem from some idea that in the historical antagonism between labor/progressives and the police, it was the laborers/progressives who started it. This is not true. If the police union had been revolutionary then the revolutionary left would have embraced them. But instead, they've usually chosen to shoot tear gas bombs at strikers and protesters, or turn dogs and firehoses on civil rights marchers.

You're trying to be too theoretical in your approach, it's just a plain fact that cops are as a group reactionary, you don't need to be too aware of history or current events to notice this. I'm wary of hating on individual cops though, because there are obviously some of them like the one plagueround mentions.

At the recent general strike (Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/02/2008525132442249847.html) calls it a general strike, not just the IMT) in Greece:
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/greece/greece-another-important-general-strike-2008-2.jpg

JimmyJazz

24th October 2008, 19:08

Again, people come to strange conclusions because they look at the surface form of things and not their content. A class is defined by its relationship to the means of production. The role of the cop is not strictly to sell his labor power, much less to create or help creating surplus value. His role is to protect the means of production and the ruling class from the exploited and oppressed. In this sense he is, as said before, part of the capitalist state and specifically part of the petty-bourgeois. (This also shows the failure of trying to use wages as a way of determining a class)

This thread, along with bulk sheep's other one on the Middle Class, has made me aware of how superficial my knowledge of Marxist class analysis is. What are the petty-bourgeoisie and how to they differ from the middle class? Where to small capitalists fall? What about people like middle managers who are both exploiting agents for capital and exploited by capital? What about service workers (I'm thinking they don't fundamentally differ from production workers, as a Denny's waitress increases the capital of Denny's shareholders just as much as a welder increases Chevrolet's)? What about "workers" paid a wage out of public funds?--they don't increase capital, so I would say they're not proletarians, yet some people on here seem to think that teachers qualify as workers (whereas cops, who are paid out of the same public funds but often play a reactionary role, are not).

Anyone know of a thread/website that answers all these questions?

apathy maybe

24th October 2008, 19:46

If the police are workers then what do they produce? Besides parking fines and court levy fees that is.

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?

Edit: From my understanding of Marxian theory, to say that cops and soldiers aren't workers is the same as saying that hairdressers aren't workers. CDL's claim about being part of the state isn't a traditional Marxian idea, and comes from strange readings.
Personally, I don't agree that Marxian class analysis is useful. From my perspective, cops are part of the state, and are enemies. Of course, they often come from a working class background (the same as soldiers).

Whether they are "workers" or not is irrelevant, because unless they stop being a cop, when the revolution comes they'll be on the other side of the barricades.

Comrada J

24th October 2008, 19:56

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?Self esteem. And the police are suppose to produce stability but I wanted to hear what other people thought. Oh yeah they actually do produce a lot of revenue for the state, if you want to call that production.

apathy maybe

24th October 2008, 20:04

This thread, along with bulk sheep's other one on the Middle Class, has made me aware of how superficial my knowledge of Marxist class analysis is. What are the petty-bourgeoisie and how to they differ from the middle class? Where to small capitalists fall?
In Marxian analysis there is no such thing as "the middle class", petit-bourgeoisie are small capitalists. Petit = small, petty= stupid incorrect misuse.

What about people like middle managers who are both exploiting agents for capital and exploited by capital?
Depends on your perspective. From a classic relation to the means of production, they are prols, because they don't own the means of production. Some people use an (incorrect) analysis and say they are petit-bourgeois. Of course,

What about service workers (I'm thinking they don't fundamentally differ from production workers, as a Denny's waitress increases the capital of Denny's shareholders just as much as a welder increases Chevrolet's)? What about "workers" paid a wage out of public funds?--they don't increase capital, so I would say they're not proletarians, yet some people on here seem to think that teachers qualify as workers (whereas cops, who are paid out of the same public funds but often play a reactionary role, are not).

Most people say that even if you don't produce anything you can still be a prol.

However, these questions (and others) will get you different answers depending on who you ask. I've asked them before as well. And basically, the various answers are one of the reasons I reject Marxian analysis as being useful. What class are soldiers? What class are generals? They don't produce anything. What class are managers who don't own anything? Managers are just modern day foremen, i.e. prols.

But, seeing as if you ask three different Marxists from three different orgs. you will get three different answers...

Anyone know of a thread/website that answers all these questions?
RevLeft.

Killuminati

24th October 2008, 20:18

cops have been used to protect the state, nothing wrong with cops but if there going to defend the brutal state like they have in the pass - then theres a lot of things wrong with them

JimmyJazz

24th October 2008, 20:41

apathy maybe,

I'm interested in what Marx had to say about it, not what Marxists have to say (except insofar as they can back it up with Marx).

Black Sheep

24th October 2008, 20:55

Ok let's put it this way.

Would you accept a cop in your party/revolutionary group?If you were certain that he is honest and he sincerely wants to fight for the proletarian revolution.

mikelepore

24th October 2008, 21:24

The police are of the working class, but they are in a particular situation. Their training and handbook instruct them to assault and kidnap other workers. If you confront them about laws being unjust, each and every one of them gives only the Nuremberg defense: I just follow orders. And they knew all this before they chose that job, which reflects on the personality types that are attracted to it.

Yehuda Stern

24th October 2008, 21:57

JimmyJazz: The professions you have mentioned all fall in the category of petty-bourgeois or unproductive workers. As for your question, I'll quote something I once wrote to a comrade:

"There's a problem with our approach in both cases, and it's the approach that is the basis for many mistaken criticisms of Marxism - they stay on the level of individuals and not of classes. That is anathema to Marx's method - for him, the core of capitalism was that capitalists as a class exploit workers as a class. In this sense it does not matter that finance capitalists don't produce anything - they are part of the bourgeoisie because of the integral part they play in enabling the exploitation of the working class, by their service to the capitalist system. (It also explains why they are tolerated and allowed to have such an influence, despite being to a great extent parasites)

In the same way, it's true that janitors do not produce value - however, having to sell their labor power to the capitalists, this power is in turn used to facilitate the creation of value by other workers. In other words, janitors don't create value directly, but their labor is used for the same purpose in the end. In this sense it's ridiculous to say that janitors get a 'cut' from the exploitation of the working class. This is also the function of teachers and educators - to, on the one hand, transmit ruling class ideology, and on the other, to create workers more skilled and better at delivering this value.

I think the iron rule of Marxism is to never analyze through individuals, but through class relations. "

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?

Edit: From my understanding of Marxian theory, to say that cops and soldiers aren't workers is the same as saying that hairdressers aren't workers.

Not quite. First of all, hairdressers are very often petty-bourgeois, as when they own their own business. Otherwise, they are what Marx called 'unproductive workers' - they sell their labor power to their employer, but do not produce new value.

(one could probably philosophize about whether or not a haircut is a 'commodity,' but let's leave that one for another time)

FreeFocus

24th October 2008, 22:05

Some police do so because they are genuinely interested in helping the community. Be very careful; some are indeed good people, albeit extremely misguided. Nonetheless, decent people can be won over to see the error of their actions. If given a chance and its rejected, they choose the side of oppression. The entire psychological disposition of cops is skewed. They are the "law," which is why the so arrogantly break written laws with impunity when they can get away with it.

No one who is a physical arm of the state counts as a worker. I could see you considering postal employees workers, but cops? Come on.

apathy maybe

24th October 2008, 23:08

apathy maybe,

I'm interested in what Marx had to say about it, not what Marxists have to say (except insofar as they can back it up with Marx).

If your interested in what Marx said, them read Marx. If your interested in understanding it, you'll probably also have to read Marxists. And they all say something different.

Die Neue Zeit

25th October 2008, 01:20

I honestly don't understand why cops shouldn't be considered part of the petty-bourgeois, other than some "theorists'" desire of throwing up new definitions that really mean nothing at all.

You should consider that Marx held a somewhat different view of class when writing Das Kapital:

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=56&view=findpost&p=715724

Classes can be defined in a number of ways:

1.Property (this is the definition in the Communist Manifesto and is most common among left theories).

2.Wealth and Poverty (e.g., rich vs. poor or haves vs. have nots)

3.Power (theories of elites, the “power structure,” Foucault, Nietzsche, and most conspiracy theories, Lenin's theory of imperialism analyzes power relations)

4.Status (sociologists like Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu. White collar vs blue collar is a status distinction.)

5.Income (upper, middle, lower class)

6.Consciousness (how people identify, consciousness is used to define class in Lukacs’ book History and Class Consciousness and also in Lenin’s What is to be done?)

7.occupation (manger, professional, laborer)

8.Surplus production, appropriation, and distribution (this is how Marx defines class in Capital)

Our purpose is not to say that one of these ways is the only valid way of talking about class. As you can see from the above there is room for overlap and Marx himself held contradictory views at different times during his intellectual development and in different texts. However, clarity is crucial, In Marx’s Kapital he is working with a definition of class based on surplus production. He defines classes an analyzes them based on their relationship to the production of surplus value. Does the class produce surplus value? Appropriate it form the produces? Does the class receive a share of the social surplus and how is that share determined? Most "Marxists" don't think about it like this, but that is how Marx thought about it. Many people go around calling themselves Marxists and they have never read Kapital.

Die Neue Zeit

25th October 2008, 01:51

In the same way, it's true that janitors do not produce value - however, having to sell their labor power to the capitalists, this power is in turn used to facilitate the creation of value by other workers. In other words, janitors don't create value directly, but their labor is used for the same purpose in the end. In this sense it's ridiculous to say that janitors get a 'cut' from the exploitation of the working class. This is also the function of teachers and educators - to, on the one hand, transmit ruling class ideology, and on the other, to create workers more skilled and better at delivering this value.

Comrade chimx will probably disagree with you on this (as I do already). I bolded part of what you said there (since you hinted at specialization) because that does indicate that janitors produce surplus value - by freeing the capitalist from relying on not-so-specialized workers to do the cleaning. The same goes with many teachers, especially given the commodification of higher education (essentially glorified HR training personnel).

Cops, lawyers, and judges, on the other hand, are in the business of preserving the capitalist STATE. They don't produce surplus value even INDIRECTLY (since when did frivolous lawsuits become "productive" for ANY capitalist?).

Junius

25th October 2008, 02:00

Comrade chimx will probably disagree with you on this (as I do already). I bolded part of what you said there (since you hinted at specialization) because that does indicate that janitors produce surplus value - by freeing the capitalist from relying on not-so-specialized workers to do the cleaning.

No, Yehuda is completely correct in stating that janitors do not produce surplus value - they create no value, so how they create surplus value is beyond me.

You seem to be under the delusion that by 'saving' surplus value, janitors are actually creating it. They are not.

If we carried that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, anyone would create surplus value - since we could always hire someone cheaper and hence 'produce surplus value.'

But that is clearly wrong.

JimmyJazz

25th October 2008, 02:30

See: Are cops and security guards workers? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../cops-and-security-t63126/index.html?t=63126)

Link is dead, but no matter, I already looked at it when you linked it before. I couldn't really make it through because of how obnoxious the MIM guy was being. (Also, it only really answers a part of my question.)

Die Neue Zeit

25th October 2008, 02:47

No, Yehuda is completely correct in stating that janitors do not produce surplus value - they create no value, so how they create surplus value is beyond me.

You seem to be under the delusion that by 'saving' surplus value, janitors are actually creating it. They are not.

If we carried that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, anyone would create surplus value - since we could always hire someone cheaper and hence 'produce surplus value.'

But that is clearly wrong.

I hope I don't get expelled for divulging non-security and non-administrative CC discussions, but:

Where I come from, unless you're a big-time professional athlete, big-time celebrity, or whatever, there's no chance in hell that First-World workers will get even close to the full value of their labour. Businesses are divided into branches, subsidiaries, and what not, and profit maximization in as many branches as possible is the objective. The objective of cost reduction in the cost centers and corporate head offices already implies labour exploitation there!

I generally agree with Luis from what I've read of this thread. I think it's important to remember that capitalist division of labor has significantly complicated production relations, making it difficult to maintain a black and white view of labor: productive vs. unproductive, exploited vs. unexploited, etc.

Karl Marx addressed this fact in his second volume of Capital, a quotation I suggest you all read carefully:

To the capitalist who has others working for him, buying and selling becomes a primary function. Since he appropriates the product of many on a large social scale, he must sell it on the same scale and then reconvert it from money into elements of production. Now as before neither the time of purchase nor of sale creates any value. The function of merchant’s capital give rise to an illusion. But without going into this at length here this much is plain from the start: If by a division of labour a function, unproductive in itself although a necessary element of reproduction, is transformed from an incidental occupation many into an exclusive occupation of a few, into their special business, the nature of this function itself is not changed. One merchant (here considered a mere agent attending to the change of form of commodities, a mere buyer and seller) may by his operations shorten the time of purchase and sale for many producers. In such case he should be regarded as a machine which reduces useless expenditure of energy or helps to set production time free.

Unproductive labor in this sense is unproductive, but it plays an important role in the overall reproduction of capital due to labor division.

To use another example that I've mentioned before on these forums, imagine a janitor working in a factory. The janitor does not produce any commodity. The janitor's sole job is to clean and organize the factory floor so as to free up the time of the productive laborers in the factory so that they can produce more efficiently for the capitalist and thus create a greater surplus value (since they won't be bothered by unproductive tasks now).

The janitor is assisting in the reproduction of capital and the creation of surplus value despite not being a productive laborer. This is due to the division of labor and is equally applicable to service sector workers, or other jobs that "western workers" commonly have. Despite being unproductive, they increase the overall surplus value extracted by the capitalist.

^^^ Correct (regarding the complication and your janitor example). Also, on the other hand, I have classified lawyers as being OUTSIDE the proletariat, even if they work as employees for a law firm, because all they do is engage in unproductive legal cases (not to mention their being in the same league as cops and judges).

I agree with that, because while unproductive laborers such as janitors and service sector employees contribute to the overall creation of surplus value and the reproduction of capital, state bureaucrats -- from politicians, aides, lawyers, down to police I suppose -- do not contribute to the overall production of surplus value, but rather come at the expense there of (I'm sure there are exceptions to this though). Their relationship to production is distinct from those other groups, both productive and unproductive, that we've mentioned.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

25th October 2008, 02:53

Bastard of a thing! I wrote a reply but was logged out and lost it! Here is it re-typed, largely.

Yehuda, I'm very surprised by this post and have some questions to ask and points to make

A class is defined by its relationship to the means of production.

Despite the fact that I believe this definition of a class to be extremely simplistic and shallow, let us assume it for the purpose of this debate.

The role of the cop is not strictly to sell his labor power, much less to create or help creating surplus value.

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean when you say that “The role of the cop is not strictly to sell his labor power”.

Secondly, your point that the fact that police officers do not create surplus value has no bearing on this debate what so ever. You yourself said the same thing in the dialogue exchanged between yourself and I quoted in post 26 of this thread:

How do you define "worker"? Is it as any wage-labourer or specifically as those who engage in "productive labour".

Marx defined workers as those who have no means of producing value for themselves, and therefore have to sell their labor power to the capitalist or some other employer in exchange for a wage. He also described how this labor is used to create surplus value, and how workers are exploited because their wages reflect only a portion of the value that they produce.

In science in general its often useful to not remain on the level of theory but to consult our intuition and our knowledge from personal experience of the subject matter to help steer us in the right direction. We wouldn't want to try writing up a theory regarding gravity without dropping some stuff off the roof, for example. So when I think about it, it seems very strange to say that a janitor is not a worker, that a teacher is not a worker (even if at certain times and places, it could be argued that teachers are aristocratic workers), and so on. So what's the solution here?

It's true that the janitor and the teacher don't produce exchange values. [...]

So what's the solution? There's a problem with our approach in both cases, and it's the approach that is the basis for many mistaken criticisms of Marxism - they stay on the level of individuals and not of classes. That is anathema to Marx's method - for him, the core of capitalism was that capitalists as a class exploit workers as a class. In this sense it does not matter that finance capitalists don't produce anything - they are part of the bourgeoisie because of the integral part they play in enabling the exploitation of the working class, by their service to the capitalist system. (It also explains why they are tolerated and allowed to have such an influence, despite being to a great extent parasites)

In the same way, it's true that janitors do not produce value - however, having to sell their labor power to the capitalists, this power is in turn used to facilitate the creation of value by other workers. In other words, janitors don't create value directly, but their labor is used for the same purpose in the end. [...]

When you mention the productivity of the individual police officer you are committing the sin of analysing from the perspective of the individual and not that of classes as a whole.

When the perspective of classes is taken we see that police are members of the working class as janitors and other unproductive workers are members of the working class. Whilst their labour does not directly produce for the state/individual capitalist surplus value it facilitates it's production.

His role is to protect the means of production and the ruling class from the exploited and oppressed.

This is an interesting point.

Police, in their labour of protecting private property rights and perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie, relate to the means of production as protectors and guardians. Despite this it is incorrect to conclude that police belong to a separate class because of this. Police officers are for the most part not owners of property in the means of production and are forced to sell their labour power for a wage. It is this relationship, their non-ownership of the means of production which is fundamental and allows them to be included as members of the working class.

To put it in other words, in the work police are set to perform they relate the the means of production as protectors, however the fact that they are set to work in the first place shows that they are fundamentally part of the working class.

In this sense he is, as said before, part of the capitalist state and specifically part of the petty-bourgeois.

Again, I do not understand how this follows from your original definition of a class. Whilst professionals, management and police officers share the Janus outlook of the petit-bourgeoisie, defining them as such on this basis makes little sense.

(NB. Despite my acknowledgement of the police as members of the working class on a purely sociological level, I do not believe police have or can play a role in the proletarian revolution or in any revolutionary organisation.)

Junius

25th October 2008, 03:12

Jacob,

To use another example that I've mentioned before on these forums, imagine a janitor working in a factory. The janitor does not produce any commodity. The janitor's sole job is to clean and organize the factory floor so as to free up the time of the productive laborers in the factory so that they can produce more efficiently for the capitalist and thus create a greater surplus value (since they won't be bothered by unproductive tasks now).

In other words, the janitor is performing a task which is socially necessary in the production process.

When you look at a production process, you do not look at individual workers and declare one that sweeps unproductive and one that cuts pipe productive. If both actions are necessary for the production of commodities, then they form part of that socially necessary labor time - and hence do play a role in the creation of value.

But as this individual already stated, all the janitor is doing, is work formerly done by others. No one denies that the division of labor reduces the necessary labor time, and hence is integral in the creation of value and surplus value. Hence, this individual is incorrect to cite the janitor as 'unproductive labor' - the labor forms a part in the production of commodities. If you have read Capital, Volume Two [Edit, chapter 6], Marx makes the same point regarding transport - that since transportation is essential in the production of commodities, that therefore it must form a sum of that socially necessary labor time embodied in a commodity.

But this is quite different from a janitor whom merely mops floors in a subway. One plays a role in the production of commodities, another provides what is a necessary service to society, but is paid from an already created surplus and does not expend labor in the production of commodities.

Yehuda Stern

25th October 2008, 16:18

It's not new. It's mentioned in the Communist Manifesto:

Are you arguing for my point or Richter's? I don't understand. Could you clarify?

Despite the fact that I believe this definition of a class to be extremely simplistic and shallow, let us assume it for the purpose of this debate.

You're more than welcome to offer your own. I believe that is the classic Marxist definition.

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean when you say that “The role of the cop is not strictly to sell his labor power”.

The cop doesn't create value for the capitalists - his role is to make sure that workers don't "get out of line" and try to use their power as a class against the rulers or their state. In this sense, trying to claim that cops are workers because they employ labor makes the whole definition of a working class sheer nonsense - anyone from a judge to a lawyer could be said to be a "worker" in this way.

When you mention the productivity of the individual police officer you are committing the sin of analysing from the perspective of the individual and not that of classes as a whole.

When the perspective of classes is taken we see that police are members of the working class as janitors and other unproductive workers are members of the working class. Whilst their labour does not directly produce for the state/individual capitalist surplus value it facilitates it's production.

That's not a bad point, except that the argument is even stronger taken from a complete perspective - the cop doesn't create value and doesn't facilitate the creation of value. He merely enforces the rule of the capitalists and make sure that the producers of value do not threaten the interests of the rulers. This is facilitation of value-creation only in the crudest sense.

Police, in their labour of protecting private property rights and perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie, relate to the means of production as protectors and guardians. Despite this it is incorrect to conclude that police belong to a separate class because of this. Police officers are for the most part not owners of property in the means of production and are forced to sell their labour power for a wage. It is this relationship, their non-ownership of the means of production which is fundamental and allows them to be included as members of the working class.

You are right, cops do not own property mostly. This is way it is not correct to say that they are bourgeois but petty-bourgeois, much like lawyers and professors, who also work for a wage.

Whilst professionals, management and police officers share the Janus outlook of the petit-bourgeoisie, defining them as such on this basis makes little sense.

I may be guilty of the sin of referring to all those classes whose position is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as "petit-bourgeoisie." It might be wiser to choose "middle class" as a word that encapsulates all these classes, including the PB, instead of the other way around. But that is a semantic question.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

25th October 2008, 22:40

You're more than welcome to offer your own. I believe that is the classic Marxist definition.

I would agree that is is the "classic" Marxist definition (see for example Ollman's Marx's Use of Class (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/class.php)), however only in a very crude and simplified form.

I believe a more accurate and detailed definition is given by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World:

Class [...] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others [...]

A class (a particular class) is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of degree of ownership or control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production) and to other classes.

[...]

It is the essence of a class society that one or more smaller classes, in virtue of their control over the means of production (most commonly exercised through ownership of the means of production), will be able to exploit – that is, to appropriate a surplus at the expense of – the larger classes, and thus constitute an economically and socially [...] superior class or classes.

the cop doesn't create value and doesn't facilitate the creation of value. He merely enforces the rule of the capitalists and make sure that the producers of value do not threaten the interests of the rulers. This is facilitation of value-creation only in the crudest sense.

I think this is the crux of the problem. What exactly defines an activity as facilitating to class exploitation? What of servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists as opposed to the expansion of capital (as given in the definition from the MIA quoted by NHiA in a former thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=965843&postcount=4))?

You are right, cops do not own property mostly. This is way it is not correct to say that they are bourgeois but petty-bourgeois, much like lawyers and professors, who also work for a wage.

How? If they don't own property and/or exploit the labour of others how can they be said to be Petit-bourgeois? Petit-bourgeois in outlook, yes; but in and of themselves, certainly not (as you acknowledge below)

Yehuda Stern

26th October 2008, 01:26

I believe a more accurate and detailed definition is given by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World:

As far as I can tell, all he's adding is that a class is also defined by how it relates to other classes. But relationships between classes are set by the way they relate to the means of production - they have no way of relating to each other otherwise.

What exactly defines an activity as facilitating to class exploitation? What of servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists as opposed to the expansion of capital (as given in the definition from the MIA quoted by NHiA in a former thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=965843&postcount=4))?

Well, look at it this way - a janitor in a factory helps the creation of value because a work environment that isn't clean isn't just demoralizing, it could also be dangerous to the health of the workers. Keeping the work environment clean thus helps the worker create value. However, a cop doesn't help workers produce value - he only comes in to repress workers when the challenge the rule of the capitalists. The role of the cop and the armed forces of the state in general is political. So even though for obvious reasons, the ruling class could never give up on the armed forces, they have absolutely no part in the process of production itself.

How? If they don't own property and/or exploit the labour of others how can they be said to be Petit-bourgeois? Petit-bourgeois in outlook, yes; but in and of themselves, certainly not (as you acknowledge below)

Like I said, this may be a semantic problem. However, it is not without its precedents - Marx himself says in the 18th of Brumaire that he uses "petit-bourgeois" to all those who share the outlook of the "shopkeeper," even if they're not shopkeepers themselves.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

26th October 2008, 02:10

As far as I can tell, all he's adding is that a class is also defined by how it relates to other classes. But relationships between classes are set by the way they relate to the means of production - they have no way of relating to each other otherwise.

I don't think he's adding anything to the Marxist definition of a class, he is clarifying it. The six word definition of class given above as a "relationship to the means of production" is hazy and open to differing interpretation (eg. what constitutes a relationship to the means of production? Police have a dual relationship, ie. as protects and as non-owners).

Well, look at it this way - a janitor in a factory helps the creation of value because a work environment that isn't clean isn't just demoralizing, it could also be dangerous to the health of the workers. Keeping the work environment clean thus helps the worker create value. However, a cop doesn't help workers produce value - he only comes in to repress workers when the challenge the rule of the capitalists. The role of the cop and the armed forces of the state in general is political. So even though for obvious reasons, the ruling class could never give up on the armed forces, they have absolutely no part in the process of production itself.

See, again I'm not sure what to make of this, the dividing line is very blurred. When police are used for the task of preventing property damage, theft or striking they may not be preventing demoralisation of the workforce or ensuring the health and safety of workers but they are producing results which are much the same, ensuring the continued, uninterrupted production of surplus value.

Revy

27th October 2008, 19:20

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?

Edit: From my understanding of Marxian theory, to say that cops and soldiers aren't workers is the same as saying that hairdressers aren't workers. CDL's claim about being part of the state isn't a traditional Marxian idea, and comes from strange readings.
Personally, I don't agree that Marxian class analysis is useful. From my perspective, cops are part of the state, and are enemies. Of course, they often come from a working class background (the same as soldiers).

Whether they are "workers" or not is irrelevant, because unless they stop being a cop, when the revolution comes they'll be on the other side of the barricades.

Hairdressers are workers because they are employed by a business to work for the surplus value (profit) of those above them.

I honestly can't see how police officers and hairdressers are comparable.

Fawkes

27th October 2008, 19:29

The anti-cop madness pisses me off.

Have you ever been arrested?

Black Sheep

27th October 2008, 20:33

No i havent. And recent events a friend has told me,surely does raise the level of my dislike (to the cops) pretty high.

But that is not an excuse to offer the cops a special throne, as the arch-enemies.
I think we know a little better than that, we have many years of experience.

Expropriation of capital is where we must strike, not the 'obvious' enemy, such as the oppressive mechanisms.Sure,all we can do to limit their power and counter their hostility is mandatory,but we have to always keep a clear head.

We are revolutionaries, not some hot-headed mindless molotov-wielding mob.Thus we have to act wisely,and our actions should be based on theory and experience of the movement.

spice756

27th October 2008, 21:58

In Marxian analysis there is no such thing as "the middle class", petit-bourgeoisie are small capitalists. Petit = small, petty= stupid incorrect misuse.

The middle class and small businesses owner are a petit-bourgeoisie. They are a petit-bourgeoisie because they look up to the upper class and rich. And many will exploit the working class or rally against the working class who will take the means of production by force or take their wealth to destitute it. Their asset is the money they have in their bank and house.

The poor and lower class have hardly no to little assets and are worker slaves because they do not own the means of production and do not work for them self but some one else for part of the wealth he or she makes. The capitalists will exploit them to try to maximize profit and control the market to maximize profit.

Toronto Parkdale has the highest poor and lower class and has the highest votes for left. Oakville west of Toronto has the highest upper middle class and upper class and has the lowest votes for the left.

In Marxian analysis there is no such thing as "the middle class", petit-bourgeoisie are small capitalists. Petit = small, petty= stupid incorrect misuse.

The Middle class was made after ww2 in the US and Canada to stop left movements.

They might be workers, but they've been co-opted by the state to oppress other workers.

Yes cops are workers they do not own the means of production they are part of the service sector .The US is changing now from a industrial sector to a service sector.

Working in store,bank,call center,fast food or restaurant is part of the service sector.If you provide a service not producing goods it is a a service sector.

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?

They produce nothing .Cops are workers and slaves to the law.The cops don't make law.Yes barbaric but cops where order to go areas where schools are and give teens tickets for jaywalking.

Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
No person may collect rags on Sunday.
Women may not wear a ‘lewd dress’ in public.
It is illegal to spit orange peels on the sidewalk

http://www.dumblaws.com/newest-laws (http://www.dumblaws.com/newest-laws)

It is illegal for a teen to walk down main street for Fort Qu'Appelle with their shoes untied.

Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of water.

You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 miles per hour.

Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

http://www.eldar.org/~ben/funny/html/180.html (http://www.eldar.org/~ben/funny/html/180.html)

In Norfolk, Virginia, a woman can't go out without wearing a corset. (There was a civil-service job- for men only- called a corset inspector.)

Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor in Denver

http://www.skrause.org/humor/stupidlaws.shtml (http://www.skrause.org/humor/stupidlaws.shtml)
http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Stupit%20US%20laws&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw (http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Stupit%20US%20laws&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw)

If hairdressers are workers than, what do they produce?

There was law driving barefoot is prohibited and oral-anal sex prohibited,skateboarding prohibited ,baggy pants prohibited .

Look cops do not make the law they get money to do want the law is telling them to be enforcing :(:( It does not matter if they like the law or hate the law . They get money to serve the law .The cops are servant to the justice system not the people.

There not you mom, dad, doctor ,social worker,friend if the law is saying if you barefoot or intox on the street you go to jail.The cops will serve the law it does not matter if the cop likes the law or hates the law.You can be 15 and cry it does not matter you go to jail.

Why do you think Toronto police have serve and protect on their car? It is part of the justice system and take orders from the justice system .
http://k43.pbase.com/g3/22/146422/2/52772195.IMG05279.jpg (http://k43.pbase.com/g3/22/146422/2/52772195.IMG05279.jpg)

spice756

27th October 2008, 22:19

The anti-cop madness pisses me off.
Yes,their job is one of the most direct and short-term enemies, however, they are just people trying to get by.They are selling their labor.
They may be an oppresive tool of the state,but so are the media, bureaucracy,the army,the justice system.

Part of the training is take down and stoping cars.Shooting and running after people.The training to police are very disapline and strict .

They are taught to have no emotion.The police are not allowed to have glasses or long haire.Clothing and look must look strong not casual.Look at the cops of the 70's and 80's and the cops look casual.The casual look makes you look relax and cops must look strong.

Does not look relax
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Good-Cop-Bad-Cop.jpg
http://www.wandco.com/wp-content/uploads/cop.jpg
http://esrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/fake-cop.jpg

Dam these cops look more relax
http://www.belleviewfl.org/images/SHOP%20WITH%20A%20COP%202003%20033.jpg

redarmyfaction38

27th October 2008, 22:26

The middle class and small businesses owner are a petit-bourgeoisie. They are a petit-bourgeoisie because they look up to the upper class and rich. And many will exploit the working class or rally against the working class who will take the means of production by force or take their wealth to destitute it. Their asset is the money they have in their bank and house.

The poor and lower class have hardly no to little assets and are worker slaves because they do not own the means of production and do not work for them self but some one else for part of the wealth he or she makes. The capitalists will exploit them to try to maximize profit and control the market to maximize profit.

Toronto Parkdale has the highest poor and lower class and has the highest votes for left. Oakville west of Toronto has the highest upper middle class and upper class and has the lowest votes for the left.

The Middle class was made after ww2 in the US and Canada to stop left movements.

Yes cops are workers they do not own the means of production they are part of the service sector .The US is changing now from a industrial sector to a service sector.

Working in store,bank,call center,fast food or restaurant is part of the service sector.If you provide a service not producing goods it is a a service sector.

They produce nothing .Cops are workers and slaves to the law.The cops don't make law.Yes barbaric but cops where order to go areas where schools are and give teens tickets for jaywalking.

Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
No person may collect rags on Sunday.
Women may not wear a ‘lewd dress’ in public.
It is illegal to spit orange peels on the sidewalk

http://www.dumblaws.com/newest-laws (http://www.dumblaws.com/newest-laws)

It is illegal for a teen to walk down main street for Fort Qu'Appelle with their shoes untied.

Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of water.

You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 miles per hour.

Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

http://www.eldar.org/~ben/funny/html/180.html (http://www.eldar.org/%7Eben/funny/html/180.html)

In Norfolk, Virginia, a woman can't go out without wearing a corset. (There was a civil-service job- for men only- called a corset inspector.)

Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor in Denver

http://www.skrause.org/humor/stupidlaws.shtml (http://www.skrause.org/humor/stupidlaws.shtml)
http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Stupit%20US%20laws&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw (http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=Stupit%20US%20laws&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw)

There was law driving barefoot is prohibited and oral-anal sex prohibited,skateboarding prohibited ,baggy pants prohibited .

Look cops do not make the law they get money to do want the law is telling them to be enforcing :(:( It does not matter if they like the law or hate the law . They get money to serve the law .The cops are servant to the justice system not the people.

There not you mom, dad, doctor ,social worker,friend if the law is saying if you barefoot or intox on the street you go to jail.The cops will serve the law it does not matter if the cop likes the law or hates the law.You can be 15 and cry it does not matter you go to jail.

Why do you think Toronto police have serve and protect on their car? It is part of the justice system and take orders from the justice system .
http://k43.pbase.com/g3/22/146422/2/52772195.IMG05279.jpg (http://k43.pbase.com/g3/22/146422/2/52772195.IMG05279.jpg)
lets simplify all this argument, the police force, the armed forces are instruments of state rule, those instruments of state rule, like instruments of capitalist production employ workers to carry out their tasks on behalf of the bourgeouisie.
the ideology of the individual worker is not dependant on whom he is employed by, if it was, all workers would be capitalists.
btw. i've been arrested more times than i care to remember; after the initial fist throwing and abuse, i've found the majority of coppers aren't fascist scum bags and if you get the chance to talk to them actually don't like the system they serve cos they see the consequences every day of their working lives.
but thats just my personal experience.

Fawkes

27th October 2008, 22:29

No i havent. And recent events a friend has told me,surely does raise the level of my dislike (to the cops) pretty high.

But that is not an excuse to offer the cops a special throne, as the arch-enemies.
I think we know a little better than that, we have many years of experience.

Yeah, many years of experience of being fucked over by those assholes, along with many others that we also hate who also work for the state. I hated them long before the first time I was arrested just from seeing the shit they do to people.

Fawkes

27th October 2008, 22:34

btw. i've been arrested more times than i care to remember; after the initial fist throwing and abuse, i've found the majority of coppers aren't fascist scum bags and if you get the chance to talk to them actually don't like the system they serve cos they see the consequences every day of their working lives.
but thats just my personal experience.

After the initial fist throwing and abuse they aren't that bad? Yeah, and after the initial firing of their workers most bosses aren't that bad and hate the system too.

What do you mean they don't like it because they see the consequences of what they do? The more arrests they make, the better it is for them. They don't want to fight crime, they want crime rates to go higher so that their budget also goes higher, and so do their paychecks.

Black Sheep

28th October 2008, 00:05

Yeah, many years of experience of being fucked over by those assholes, along with many others that we also hate who also work for the state. I hated them long before the first time I was arrested just from seeing the shit they do to people.
That is exactly the kind of behavior i think is immature.
You shouldn't hate the cops,but the system which utilizes the cop's role in society.
And as a mere consequence, the institution of the police.

It is not the people themselves that it is to blame,but the institution.
The individuals' mentality and character working in this institution are irrelevant.

It is like the point made by Chomsky in the corporation,something like 'the people managing the corporation may be the nicest guys in the world,but it is irrelevant.Their role is monstrous,because the institution (the corporation) is monstrous."

RadioRaheem84

28th October 2008, 00:10

What about detectives that solve murders?

Hiero

28th October 2008, 00:27

From my understanding of Marxian theory,

Seriously you have a half arsed understanding of Marxian theory. Everytime you say "from marx, or my understanding" whatever follows is a really crude generalisation.

Fawkes

28th October 2008, 02:25

That is exactly the kind of behavior i think is immature.
You shouldn't hate the cops,but the system which utilizes the cop's role in society.
And as a mere consequence, the institution of the police.

It is not the people themselves that it is to blame,but the institution.
The individuals' mentality and character working in this institution are irrelevant.

It is like the point made by Chomsky in the corporation,something like 'the people managing the corporation may be the nicest guys in the world,but it is irrelevant.Their role is monstrous,because the institution (the corporation) is monstrous."
I hate the system that utilizes cops just as much as I hate the cops themselves. Actually, probably even more. Is it bad, in your eyes, to hate congressmen in addition to hating the system they are a part of.

28th October 2008, 11:09

Are cops, judges and prisons needed in a communist society?
If yes how are they different in a communist society to what they are like now in a capitalist one?

Yehuda Stern

28th October 2008, 12:36

What about detectives that solve murders?

They very often twist facts around and only care about being able to indict someone for the crime, with no regard as to whether or not he really is guilty. The prisons, death rows and cemeteries are full of people who were somehow forced to sign an admission to a crime they did not commit.

Of course, there are probably honest detectives who do good work and catch people who are really a menace to common people. But then again, the capitalist state also has a fire department full of brave people who fight to save lives. It's not the job of revolutionaries to disrupt all the functions of the bourgeois state - that's just mindless vandalism. It's the job of revolutionaries to smash and replace that state by a state truly dedicated to protection of the oppressed, and run by the workers.

Are cops, judges and prisons needed in a communist society?
If yes how are they different in a communist society to what they are like now in a capitalist one?

The armed forces, judicial system and prisons are part of the state and serve the ruling class in its struggle with the other classes. Therefore, they are not necessary in a classless society. Humanity will find other, better ways of solving whatever dispute will arise in the future. Meanwhile, the workers' state and even socialist society will retain at least elements of these structures.

redarmyfaction38

28th October 2008, 23:36

After the initial fist throwing and abuse they aren't that bad? Yeah, and after the initial firing of their workers most bosses aren't that bad and hate the system too.

What do you mean they don't like it because they see the consequences of what they do? The more arrests they make, the better it is for them. They don't want to fight crime, they want crime rates to go higher so that their budget also goes higher, and so do their paychecks.
that's not what i said at all and you know it.
the police are workers, no two ways about it, you have to seperate the role they are forced to play in CAPITALIST society from their actual place in CAPITALIST society.
hating the police because they are police is the same as hating a person because of their "ethnic" background.
do you honestly think that the workers who join the police and armed forces are all fascists and mindless supporters of capitalism?
if you do, you need to get in touch with the reality of life for most workers.
you take a job cause it pays you money you need to feed yourself and your family.
you might hate the bosses and the political system but you NEED the money.
and you'll take the job that gives you the highest monetary reward, principles are for those that can afford them in this CAPITALIST society.

redarmyfaction38

28th October 2008, 23:52

Are cops, judges and prisons needed in a communist society?
If yes how are they different in a communist society to what they are like now in a capitalist one?
yes, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the implementation of the new "socialist order" will demand that those that seek to serve capital or undermine the revolution are brought before the courts and punished.
the difference is, in a "socialist" society, the cops, the judges and magistrates will be ordinary working people rather than the selected servants of the capitalist system.
the prisons will be full of rich capitalist thieves instead of poor working class thieves.
lets get something straight here, the proletarian revolution will be no different to any other revolution, it will demand a ruthless dictatorship by the proletarians in order to consolidate power and implement the new workers world order.
don't fool yourself, blood will be spilt.
there are no nice ways to overthrow a political and economic system.
blood and tears, that's what the revolution offers you, not up for it?, shouldn't have joined.
oops! cynical and honest beat utopian into second place.
the pain of split personality.

Comrada J

29th October 2008, 05:55

the police are workers, no two ways about it, you have to seperate the role they are forced to play in CAPITALIST society from their actual place in CAPITALIST society.
hating the police because they are police is the same as hating a person because of their "ethnic" background.
do you honestly think that the workers who join the police and armed forces are all fascists and mindless supporters of capitalism?
if you do, you need to get in touch with the reality of life for most workers.
you take a job cause it pays you money you need to feed yourself and your family.
you might hate the bosses and the political system but you NEED the money.
and you'll take the job that gives you the highest monetary reward, principles are for those that can afford them in this CAPITALIST society.
None of this properly applies to police officers. Fawkes' argument still stands.You describe them as if they are slaves, when there actually the ones holding the whip! Why I don't I become a hitman and murder people for money? Just another worker putting bread of the table according to you. 'highest monetary reward', that's certainly not the government sector. :confused:

redarmyfaction38

29th October 2008, 23:14

None of this properly applies to police officers. Fawkes' argument still stands.You describe them as if they are slaves, when there actually the ones holding the whip! Why I don't I become a hitman and murder people for money? Just another worker putting bread of the table according to you. 'highest monetary reward', that's certainly not the government sector. :confused:
i'm a public sector worker, the capitalist state decided i'm not as useful to them as a police officer so i get paid less.
that's how their system works.
and yes, a hitman, just like you and me, does it for the money, unless of course, you are naive enough, to accept capitalist morality, and, believe that your job is more important and worthy than those that accept employment on lower wages and with less influence in capitalist society.
policemen don't hold the whip, their political masters do, they accept the whip, just like you and me, as long as they can earn a decent standard of living and keep their children fed, clothed and educated in the hope of a better life under capitalist rule.
reality mate, like it or loath it.

Comrada J

30th October 2008, 05:33

Black Dagger

30th October 2008, 06:23

Workers /=/ good

If cops are workers, so what? People who actively oppose the liberation of our class are class enemies - whether they are workers or not is not really relevant IMO. If we say - 'yes, they are workers' - does it mean we'll regard them any differently? Will we take up the exploitation of cops as wage slaves? Support the police union through industrial action? No.

I think Jimmy is right, that if you're too theoretical on this question the obviousness of the answer might elude you. Whilst the role of the police is much more nuanced than is usually admitted on the left (or indeed what i will describe in my post) - the basic analysis put forward by most on the left (anti-cop) is still correct.

Forgive the elementary analysis, but i don't think the very basic question here is very complex. The capitalist state system needs workers to function, without our work there would be no 'wealth' - but in this system we must work in order to survive. This system and the interests that it serves also need to be protected from us or anyone that would like to take away the wealth, power or authority of the ruling class - this has involved the creation of a security state - of police and specialist groups whose 'job' it is to insure stability of the system, and to protect the interests that are at stake (that of the state, and of capital generally - of which most law concerns).

As opponents of this system these people are naturally cast as our 'enemies' - because they have accepted the responsibility of protecting the status quo and often with deadly force. How can someone choose to be in this position, and not be our adversary? Because they're 'workers too'? So are scabs, so are fascists - being a 'worker' doesn't negate the fact that their role is inherently reactionary, or that they represent some of the worst characteristics of this society, authority and domination. The fact that cops are 'workers' doesn't change the function of 'the police' - and thus our necessary opposition to them as a group.

30th October 2008, 07:33

No, cops aren't paid for their labor, they're paid to exclude people from the direct and indirect products of their labor through the threat and use of violence. While the capitalists rely on workers to produce capital, they rely on cops in order to have that captial constitute private property of monetary value.

Comrada J

30th October 2008, 09:28

It's very surprising there's any argument here at all. The word police itself means state.

redarmyfaction38

30th October 2008, 23:26

Thats what I said, the govt. doesn't pay well, if you want money in that sector then you've probably made a mistake. "Capitalist morality", sounds like another oxymoron to me.

You're right about one thing, the police don't hold the whip, at least not anymore, these days they hold handguns, batons, pepper spray and stunguns. You've still failed to put a decent argument together, simply repeating that there innocent workers and going further to say the same about murderers. That isn't the reality; we're not talking about mamlukes here, you have a choice if you join the police force or not. If joining the bourgeoisie in oppressing the proletariat is OK in your books then it must have been a long time since you studied marx, or anything remotely leftist for that matter.
capitalist morality is a contradictory term, but it is the accepted morality of the majority of workers be they policemen or other workers.
your wrong on not being able to make lots of money as a "public servant" as well. the civil service mandarins are very well rewarded, they have incomes the likes of you and me can only dream of.
as for the reading marx bit, i suggest you read the history of the russian revolution, read about the may days in france 1968 where soldiers and policemen were quickly won over to the revolutionary cause once the industrial workers had shown their strength.
where the fuck do you think policemen and soldiers come from?
they come from the working class, they might be willing to shoot you or oppress you when they think you are what the ruling class told them..."a bunch of middle class discontents and agents of international terrorism"..but when it's their friends and family they are confronted with, it's a different matter.
why the fuck do you think thatcher used police from the home counties to "police" the miners strike? the local police wanted no part of it even up to their commanders, they had to live in these communities, they had friends who were on strike.
these lines in the sand you draw are just the same kind of bullshit that the govt. use when they tell you muslims are terrrorists and immigrants are to blame for the lack of housing.
you fuck off and read marx, lenin and trotsky and then get your head out of your arse.

apathy maybe

31st October 2008, 00:12

The most fundamental question here is that of the state. This is something pretty basic, but also very important. If you don't understand what the state (an instrument of organized violence used by one class to maintain its rule over others) is, your politics will be muddled.

The cops are a part of the state, period.

They are not exploited. They do not produce, or assist in the realization, of surplus value. They are not proletarians.

If cops are workers then so are judges, district attorneys, prison wardens, etc. which are a part of the state.

So, can you point me to where Marx wrote that the "state" was separate from the economic classes that make up the rest of society? I don't recall reading it anywhere (I may have missed it, and if I did, I'm seriously interested in reading it).

Anyway, ignoring a Marxian perspective for a minute, yes most of those people you listed are "workers". Why? Because if they don't work, they "starve" just like any other worker (when I say starve, in some places I mean, "go on the dole", adjust for location).

Just because they are "workers", doesn't mean that they aren't an enemy of a revolution, it doesn't mean that they don't work for the state.

OK (everyone), draw me a line somewhere here:

Police officer, prison warden
Clerk in a court
Clerk in a parliament
Low level bureaucrat in police department
Other low level bureaucrat in another department (e.g. education or health)
Teacher employed at a state school, nurse employed at a state hospital
Teacher employed at a "not for profit" non-state school, nurse employed at a "not for profit" non-state hospital
Teacher employed at a private "for profit" non-state school, nurse employed at a "for profit" non-state hospital

Who is being exploited, who isn't? Who is part of the state, who isn't?

I don't care if you use Marxian or any other analysis, I'm interested in all answers. But, I do want justification for your answers.

spice756

31st October 2008, 03:26

lets simplify all this argument, the police force, the armed forces are instruments of state rule, those instruments of state rule, like instruments of capitalist production employ workers to carry out their tasks on behalf of the bourgeouisie.

the ideology of the individual worker is not dependant on whom he is employed by, if it was, all workers would be capitalists.
btw. i've been arrested more times than i care to remember; after the initial fist throwing and abuse, i've found the majority of coppers aren't fascist scum bags and if you get the chance to talk to them actually don't like the system they serve cos they see the consequences every day of their working lives.
but thats just my personal experience.

They are instruments of the court that is the instruments of the state.The court we have now is to make profit and there is no equality in court.If you are poor off to jail and if you are rich you get lawyer and look for loop holes in the law or play on words .

Laws are made so only lawyers and Judges can undersand.And laws are made so it is not clear and up for interpretation.This is where big shot lawyers come in :(that only the rich can pay.

spice756

31st October 2008, 03:51

capitalist morality is a contradictory term, but it is the accepted morality of the majority of workers be they policemen or other workers.

your wrong on not being able to make lots of money as a "public servant" as well. the civil service mandarins are very well rewarded, they have incomes the likes of you and me can only dream of.
as for the reading marx bit, i suggest you read the history of the russian revolution, read about the may days in france 1968 where soldiers and policemen were quickly won over to the revolutionary cause once the industrial workers had shown their strength.
where the fuck do you think policemen and soldiers come from?
they come from the working class, they might be willing to shoot you or oppress you when they think you are what the ruling class told them..."a bunch of middle class discontents and agents of international terrorism"..but when it's their friends and family they are confronted with, it's a different matter.

That is why police officers and prison officers take a oath.The difference is we have a choice brake law or do what the law is telling us to do.The police and prison officers do not have a choice .

They get paid to take people to jail who brake the law .They don't say this law is crazy I'm not taking you to jail or you are poor and starving and took food you had not paid for.:( I feel sorry for you I'm not taking you to jail.Dam he or she is out of work and cannot be cop ever again if he or she did that.

If there is law in the next year anyone with a red jacket goes to jail for 20 years .The cops will have no problem doing what law is telling them to be enforcing .Their job is on the line and took a oath.They cannot say this law is crazy I'm not enforcing it.

They cannot sympathize with people or show emotion with people that is weak and there job is on the line.They must do no metter what :mad: :mad:do what the law is telling them to do and cannot sympathize with people or show emotion .

Now sure there some police who think they are hot shots or above the law or on a power trip.But in the end they workers just different worker than the other people..

Comrada J

31st October 2008, 14:31

your wrong on not being able to make lots of money as a "public servant" as well. the civil service mandarins are very well rewarded, they have incomes the likes of you and me can only dream of.

What's your point? You're not from china, I'm not from china. Post something relevant for once.

where the fuck do you think policemen and soldiers come from? they come from the working class, they might be willing to shoot you or oppress you when they think you are what the ruling class told them..."a bunch of middle class discontents and agents of international terrorism"..but when it's their friends and family they are confronted with, it's a different matter.

It's meaninless where they come from. What matters is where they are now. 'They protect their famies'...err everybody does that mate, moot and irrelevant.

these lines in the sand you draw are just the same kind of bullshit that the govt. use when they tell you muslims are terrrorists and immigrants are to blame for the lack of housing.
you fuck off and read marx, lenin and trotsky and then get your head out of your arse.
Even more completly meanless crap that makes no sense, plus some petty insults from someone who obviously hasnt spent any time studying anything. May I suggest you begin with the english langauge, after that learn to debate; i.e. with logic, not emotional angst.

ernie

31st October 2008, 15:40

...they come from the working class, they might be willing to shoot you or oppress you when they think you are what the ruling class told them...
And you're OK with this? So when they break up demonstrations with tear gas and rubber bullets, it's OK because "they're workers"? What about when they beat black kids and immigrants on the streets? Or when they arrest some hungry 12-year-old for shop-lifting a piece of bread? Doesn't this bother you?

I don't think you're listening to what people have been telling you. It doesn't matter if they are are workers, by some definition of the word. What matters is what they do in real life. We're not OK with it.:thumbdown:

The Author

31st October 2008, 19:39

What matters is what they do in real life.

Exactly.

redarmyfaction38

31st October 2008, 23:03

What's your point? You're not from china, I'm not from china. Post something relevant for once.

It's meaninless where they come from. What matters is where they are now. 'They protect their famies'...err everybody does that mate, moot and irrelevant.

Even more completly meanless crap that makes no sense, plus some petty insults from someone who obviously hasnt spent any time studying anything. May I suggest you begin with the english langauge, after that learn to debate; i.e. with logic, not emotional angst.
you're deliberate misreading of my post regards the term "mandarins" does not further your argument, it just makes you look unwise.
of course it matters which class someone comes from, their whole world view is determined by that "accident of birth". ffs! this is BASIC marxism.

redarmyfaction38

31st October 2008, 23:22

And you're OK with this? So when they break up demonstrations with tear gas and rubber bullets, it's OK because "they're workers"? What about when they beat black kids and immigrants on the streets? Or when they arrest some hungry 12-year-old for shop-lifting a piece of bread? Doesn't this bother you?

I don't think you're listening to what people have been telling you. It doesn't matter if they are are workers, by some definition of the word. What matters is what they do in real life. We're not OK with it.:thumbdown:
yeh, i am actually, it is exactly what i expect from a capitalist state determined to protect its own existence, it is exactly what i expect from a police force fed on right wing propaganda and bourgouise democratic ideology, it is also what the general public accepts as "necessary" to protect their "freedoms".
what bothers me is your attitudes, we on the revolutionary left do not accept the values of the ruling class or their propaganda BUT are well aware of their effect on the "masses".
your attitude is to dismiss all those "masses" as willing servants of capitalism or mindless adherents to the capitalist system or in the case of the police, "fascists".
that my friend is wrong, circumstances define actions, political beliefs influence those actions, the minute circumstances provide the opportunity for us rev.lefts to challenge capitalist society from a MAJORITY standpoint the actions of those policemen will fall into line with the rest of the working class.
before that "moment in history" arrives however, there is a lot of work to be done, because, despite the economic collapse of the banking system and the general move to the left of the masses demanding nationalisation and protection of their jobs, the rev. left is NOT rooted in the working class.
and your attitudes are part of the reason why.

Coggeh

31st October 2008, 23:56

How are security guards not workers would anyone please mind telling me ?

Pogue

1st November 2008, 00:02

I was once in the police's youth group thingy, the cadets, I wanted to be a police officer cos I was a socialist and thought it was a job where i'd directly be helping ordinary people.

I quit in the end because I realised there'd be too much I'd have to do in the police which would go against my socialist beliefs (Policing demos, strike breaking). I went in idealistic, thinking I could help people, but I learnt more about anarchist ideals and shit, and experienced how militaristic and arseholish most of them are both directly and through videos. Yeh so I quit because I realised I was an Anarchist and a police officer was not a good job for me at all. But some of them will have good intentions. And some wont ever do any bad shit. But I don't like the police anymore.

redarmyfaction38

1st November 2008, 00:44

Comrada J

1st November 2008, 05:57

you're deliberate misreading of my post regards the term "mandarins" does not further your argument, it just makes you look unwise.
of course it matters which class someone comes from, their whole world view is determined by that "accident of birth". ffs! this is BASIC marxism.
Still driving this thread off-topic, I see. If you're going to bring up these senseless points then explain how it fits in here and then point us to some proof of your statement. Again, your insults only make you look unwise. Still repeating myself here; you judge someone by what they are now, what they are doing now and their current intentions. It's only your opinion that background is so important, and isn't how the left tend to analyze things.

I wanted to be a police officer cos I was a socialist and thought it was a job where i'd directly be helping ordinary people.

Same here, a long, long time ago. Although by year 10 I don't think anyone actually thought of the police as community workers anymore. My classmates who wanted to join the police force didn't want to 'help the people' but wanted an easy job that gave them authority and I can honestly say this has been my experience with nearly all young 'cadets'.

It's not just about the crazy laws or putting down strikes either. The police always arrest people of the working class, most of which had little choice in becoming 'criminals'; they come kick you when you're already down. Without poverty, the conditions that fuel crime would no longer exist.

ernie

1st November 2008, 06:11

your attitude is to dismiss all those "masses" as willing servants of capitalism or mindless adherents to the capitalist system or in the case of the police, "fascists".
Bullshit. I don't dismiss the masses. I am well aware that only they can make the revolution. I don't know what this has to do with this discussion.

And regular workers are most certainly not "willing servants" of capitalism, nor are they "mindless adherents" to this system either. Most workers hate their fucking job, because most jobs under capitalism suck. Comparing a regular worker who has to clean the fucking toilets to survive to a cop who will break his or my or your skull if he is ordered to do so is a fucking insult.

that my friend is wrong, circumstances define actions, political beliefs influence those actions, the minute circumstances provide the opportunity for us rev.lefts to challenge capitalist society from a MAJORITY standpoint the actions of those policemen will fall into line with the rest of the working class.
WTF are you talking about? What about May 1968 in France? Did the cops fall in line with their "proletarian brothers"? You know the answer.

Anyway, I hope you're right. I hope we don't have to fight the cops if and when the time comes. If that happens, then I will be as happy as the next guy. Until that happens, they are our class enemies, plain and simple.

the rev. left is NOT rooted in the working class. and your attitudes are part of the reason why.
LOL. Yeah, it's my fault that the working class isn't revolutionary. :lol:

ernie

1st November 2008, 06:16

that is the most realist post so far.
most people join the police to fight crime, they see policing strikes, demonstrations and hooliganism as distraction from what they joined up to do.
like most workers they end up doing the job for the money. end of.
i'm out.
Yeah, and after 10 years of being a cop, I'm sure their consciousness isn't altered. Didn't some dude with a big beard say something about being determining consciousness? I guess you don't agree with him on that one.

Black Sheep

12th December 2008, 14:22

In light of the tragic events in Greece, i take back any previous claims i made in this thread.:(:mad:
Limited experience leads to flawed views and beliefs.

Just felt the need to say that.

12th December 2008, 14:32

This thread is missing one premise that is fundamental to a Marxist analysis. Classes are not only defined by their relation to the means of production but to their relation with each other as well.

Yes, a police officer pulls a paycheck, but because of the fact that they are basically the front line for bourgeois reaction they are not proletarian.

Killfacer

12th December 2008, 14:48

Do people here think that policemen (not talking about what happened in Greece here) beleive that they are on the 'front line of bourgeois reaction", or that they are 'front line of bourgeois reaction" but they do not realise it?

communard resolution

12th December 2008, 15:02

This thread is missing one premise that is fundamental to a Marxist analysis. Classes are not only defined by their relation to the means of production but to their relation with each other as well.

Your input could be of great value to this thread as well, comrade:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/which-position-more-p1307327/index.html#post1307327

Junius

12th December 2008, 20:02

This thread is missing one premise that is fundamental to a Marxist analysis. Classes are not only defined by their relation to the means of production but to their relation with each other as well. Which is the same as saying that it is defined by their relation to the means of production...unless you think that classes' relation to the means of production is different to their relations with each other? A worker's position in the factory defines his relation with his boss; they are one and the same thing.

Originally posted by KC
Yes, a police officer pulls a paycheck, but because of the fact that they are basically the front line for bourgeois reaction they are not proletarian That's a poor and vague criteria. Workers are often the front-line for bourgeoisie reaction - serving as the pawns of the ruling classes' desires. This doesn't define a class, however. You can't define a class by its ideas, or whether it is drawn into the purposes of another class (which is quite common for the working class owing to its historical role) but by its economic relation.

Police officers simply aren't proletarian because...they don't sell their labor power and hence aren't in the surplus-value producing process. But you don't have to defy something merely on its class relation - we oppose the police because, as you say, the are the front line for bourgeoisie reaction (and have historically been so) whereas the working class, whilst it is also drawn into bourgeoisie reaction, has the power to break from it and end it completely.