Harvard professor = manual labourer?

[PRC-UTE]

I came across this at the deleonism forum:


A ditch-digger and a Harvard professor are in the same economic class.

I don't know how to link directly to the post, but it's the third one down on this page:

http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=331

What do others think about this view of class?

[black magick hustla]

Depends.

I certainly think some of the researchers and post-doc chaps are proletarian. Probably same thing with an Assistant Professor. This people do not manage anything and they get paid like shit. However a tenured professor is petit-bourgeois, simply because they manage other people. Furthermore, a lot of these researchers do very important things that are useful labor, like chemists, scientists etc. However, I do not know what to think about lit professors..........

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"A schoolmaster who educates others is not a productive worker. But a schoolmaster who is engaged as a wage labourer in an institution along with others, in order through his labour to valorise the money of the entrepreneur of the knowledge-mongering institution, is a productive worker." - Karl Marx

But, as Marmot has pointed out, tenured professors boss others around, and help manage the 'knowledge-mongering institution,' hence making them a part of the petit-bourgeois.

[Niccolò Rossi]

A ditch-digger and a Harvard professor are in the same economic class.

I don't believe this to be the only point of interest from the post in question. Another interesting statement was this *My emphasis added*:


The proletariat (a synonym for "the working class") means all people who don't own enough income-generating property (stocks, bonds, apartment buildings, etc.) to permit them to live entirely on profits, and therefore, in order to survive, they have to sell their labor-time on the labor market.

Is this really a legitimate definition of class given Marx and Engels writing on the subject? If we accept this definition as legitimate, what of the petit-bourgeoisie?

The post in question was actually made my an individual who posts on this board as well. I'd be eager to see Mike clarify this statement and partake in the discussion of this thread.


However a tenured professor is petit-bourgeois, simply because they manage other people.


But, as Marmot has pointed out, tenured professors boss others around, and help manage the 'knowledge-mongering institution,' hence making them a part of the petit-bourgeois.

Is it really correct to call tenured professors part of the petit-bourgeoisie. Surely they compose a stratum of the working class in themselves who for various reasons share an essentially petit-bourgeois outlook ie. for themselves, however is this really a legitmate basis to categorise them as petit-bourgeois as opposed to their relation to the means of (and subsequently) the process of social production?

[PRC-UTE]

"A schoolmaster who educates others is not a productive worker. But a schoolmaster who is engaged as a wage labourer in an institution along with others, in order through his labour to valorise the money of the entrepreneur of the knowledge-mongering institution, is a productive worker." - Karl Marx

But, as Marmot has pointed out, tenured professors boss others around, and help manage the 'knowledge-mongering institution,' hence making them a part of the petit-bourgeois.

thanks for that. I knew you'd have a pertinent quote like that :cool:

check your email tonite or tomorrow, NHIA, have good news for you about something I'm getting organised.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

however is this really a legitmate basis to categorise them as petit-bourgeois as opposed to their relation to the means of (and subsequently) the process of social production?

One's relation to the means of production is what determines their class. As managers of the 'knowledge-mongering institution' they are members of the petit-bourgeosie. Just because they do work doesn't mean they can't belong to the petit-bourgeoisie. Shop-keepers, self-employed craftsmen, managers, etc., often do work too.

[BobKKKindle$]

They are both members of the same class in the sense that they both sell their labour power as a commodity to survive, although a manual worker is obviously likely to work in a factory whereas professors are employed by universities. This does not mean, however, that each individual will enjoy the same standard of living or even that they are both subject to exploitation - the professor is not part of the productive workforce (and so does not produce surplus value for their employer) and many professors (as well as other education staff such as teachers) actually have a major role in supporting the continuation of the capitalist system by propagating ideology and giving future managers the skills they need to control the workforce. Therefore, although there is the same relationship to the means of production, a professor and a manual worker may not have the same class interests.

[deLarge]

a professor and a manual worker may not have the same class interests.

That is not necessarily true; I've met several socialist professors at my college, one of which, in particular, has lectured us on the bias towards the land-owning whites in the constitution, on the impact of class on the American Revolution, etc. Point being that I wouldn't lump them all together.

[BobKKKindle$]

That is not necessarily true; I've met several socialist professors at my college

I've had the same experiences and we shouldn't ignore ideological differences within academia - but in general professors do face pressure not to offer courses or put forward ideas which conflict with the ideology of the bourgeoisie, because departments are headed by professors who often have an interest in preserving the status-quo due to their social position and membership of oppressor social groups, and a course can only be taught if the professor who is suggesting the course has the agreement of their heads of department. For example, I attended a lecture last night from Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett society (largest and most successful feminist organisation in the UK) and she told us about how when she was a professor at Durham university, she tried to start a course on the experiences of women in different societies, but she was eventually forced to drop the word "women" from the title and was only allowed to get the course passed when it was called "gender" because the male professors who were responsible for evaluating course suggestions were so opposed to anything which could challenge sexist ideology and encourage female students to examine their own experiences as members of a patriarchal society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They are both members of the same class in the sense that they both sell their labour power as a commodity to survive, although a manual worker is obviously likely to work in a factory whereas professors are employed by universities. This does not mean, however, that each individual will enjoy the same standard of living or even that they are both subject to exploitation - the professor is not part of the productive workforce (and so does not produce surplus value for their employer) and many professors (as well as other education staff such as teachers) actually have a major role in supporting the continuation of the capitalist system by propagating ideology and giving future managers the skills they need to control the workforce. Therefore, although there is the same relationship to the means of production, a professor and a manual worker may not have the same class interests.

One's class (and class interests) is determined by their relation to the means of production. The ideology one subscribes to has no bearing on their class. The proletariat is not monolithic. It has its most advanced sections and its most backward sections.


That is not necessarily true; I've met several socialist professors at my college, one of which, in particular, has lectured us on the bias towards the land-owning whites in the constitution, on the impact of class on the American Revolution, etc. Point being that I wouldn't lump them all together.

And David North, leader of the Socialist Equality Party, owns a large business.

Following the line you're arguing here, we wouldn't be able to view the capitalists or petit-bourgeois as a class, because some of them are leftists.

Look, no one is saying a member of any class can't be a leftist. We're talking about class and class interests. You have to take a broad historical view involving the interaction of class forces and opposing material interests. Of course individuals can break (or be thrown) from one class into another, and others can remain exploiters while contradictively claiming to be fighting for the exploited.

[BobKKKindle$]

One's class (and class interests) is determined by their relation to the means of production. The ideology one subscribes to has no bearing on their class. The proletariat is not monolithic. It has its most advanced sections and its most backward sections.I disagree. Members of the labour aristocracy have the same relationship to the means of production as the most exploited sections of the working class - both groups sell their labour power as a commodity to a capitalist in exchange for a wage which they can use to purchase the things they need to survive and support their dependents. However, labour aristocrats are not exploited and are instead given a share of the superprofits generated from the exploitation of the developing world during the imperialist phase of capitalism, and so members of this economic stratum have an objective interest in fighting alongside the capitalist class and trying to defend the system from the radicalism of other workers who are exploited. The word objective is crucial here, because the actions of the labour aristocrats (for example, trying to obstruct strikes in their role as union officials, or voting for conservative parties) are not due to the influence of bourgeois ideology, but are an accurate reflection of the material conditions of this stratum, and their interests as a privileged group.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You misunderstand what the labor aristocracy is. It is a bureaucratic caste that sits atop the labor unions.

You're right that the labor aristocracy is not exploited.. but that's because it doesn't engage in production. It acts as an agent of the bourgeoisie in the union. It draws its pay from the dues of union members (who actually create surplus value), and sometimes even through stocks, etc., in the company it supposedly fights against (e.g. UAW in the U.S.).

The labor aristocracy is not made up of the workers who have organized, struggled and won gains. Organized workers are usually better paid then their non-union counterparts, yet they are more likely to take militant action.

There are no "non-exploited" workers. If you're not exploited, you're not a proletarian.

[Niccolò Rossi]

One's relation to the means of production is what determines their class. As managers of the 'knowledge-mongering institution' they are members of the petit-bourgeosie.

Yes, yes, the question I'm posing is: Does the management have a different set of relations to the means of production and/or the process of social production as a whole so as to constitute a separate class?

I think the answer to the questions comes down to how we understand constitutes a "relationship". Is a relationship defined only in terms of ownership/control of the means of production and as such the right to appropriate the products of the labour of those working the given means of production eg. managers, coordinators, civil servants, cops compose a stratum within the working class due to their non-ownership of the means of production and subsequently are forced to sell their labour-power for survival. Or is it defined in a much more general manner, eg. managers and coordinators form a class because of their being conferred their right to administer the day-to-day utilisation of the means of production and the labour process; police, judges, lawyers, civil servants, politicians form a class due to their relationship to the means of production and the labour process as guardians and protectors of the status-quo, of property rights in the form of the state etc.


Just because they do work doesn't mean they can't belong to the petit-bourgeoisie. Shop-keepers, self-employed craftsmen, managers, etc., often do work too.

Of course. How else could one be considered a part of the petit-bourgeoisie unless they work ie. do not have sufficient earning from their capital to fully alleviate them from performing labour, even if it is in the form of management.


They are both members of the same class in the sense that they both sell their labour power as a commodity to survive...

[...]

Therefore, although there is the same relationship to the means of production, a professor and a manual worker may not have the same class interests.

How, given that according to you, both a professor and a manual worker are in the same social class, can they have differing class interests? Surely the two may have a different outlook, consciousness (or rather, ability have have theirs realised) and political content - one with an inherently revolutionary consciousness (whether realised or not), the other with a Janus or petit-bourgeois outlook i.e. a lesser potential in realising a revolutionary class consciousness due to a myriad of factors e.g. relation to their wage-form, to work, relation to other workers, relation to other classes, relation to the means of production (not merely in terms of ownership/non-ownership), relationship to the product of labour etc. - however, are their class interests still not fundamentally the same?


There are no "non-exploited" workers. If you're not exploited, you're not a proletarian.

What then of janitors, of cashiers, of teachers etc. These people do not directly produce surplus-value through their labour and as such can not be directly exploited. Does this mean they are not members of the working class? To give an even better example:


Imagine there is a worker in a car factory, Mehmet. Mehmet's work patterns change everyweek (This is common practice in car plants). On week he is involved in the actual physical production of the car, the next week he is merely involved in washing it. Is Mehmet adding more value to the car in the week that he is producing than when he is washing? Does this change in value cause his class status to flucuate on a weekly basis? Is in fact the economic basis of this entire argument complete rubbish?

This question of exploitation and membership of the proletariat was discussed by myself and Yehuda Stern via PM's just recently, some of which has been posted in his nomination thread and also the thread re the class of cops. He gave an interesting perspective on the question but I'd be interested to hear yours.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, yes, the question I'm posing is: Does the management have a different set of relations to the means of production and/or the process of social production as a whole so as to constitute a separate class?Yes, without question. Workers have no control over the means of production, so they have to sell their labor-power to survive.

Capitalists own the means of production, but often find it easier/more efficient to hire people to manage and oversee its use. Those are petit-bourgeoisie managers.

The petit-bourgeois of old (e.g. shopkeepers) are still around, but they are constantly being replaced (that is, there are more and more) managers. This is exactly what Marx said would happen in The Manifesto:

"In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."


What then of janitors, of cashiers, of teachers etc. These people do not directly produce surplus-value through their labour and as such can not be directly exploited. Does this mean they are not members of the working class?You have to look at the over all process.

"It is indeed the characteristic feature of the capitalist mode of production that it separates the various kinds of labour from each other, therefore also mental and manual labour – or kinds of labour in which one or another predominates – and distributes them among different people. This however does not prevent the material product from being the common product of these persons, or their common product embodied in material wealth; any more than on the other hand it prevents or in any way alters the relation of each one of these persons to capital being that of wage-labourer and in this pre-eminent sense being that of productive labourer. All these persons are not only directly engaged in the production of material wealth, but they exchange their labour directly for money as capital, and consequently directly reproduce, in addition to their wages a surplus value for the capitalist." - Marx

Train drivers don't dig coal from the ground, but if they are a necessary part of the process of selling coal.. if they didn't move it from the mines to the mills, coal yards, etc., the mine owners wouldn't be able to sell it.

Retail workers are proles because they assist in the expansion of capital, they're tied up in the process of gathering raw materials, turning them into products, and selling the products (that's where they come in).

Etc.

They all add more then they are given in the form of wages. They're all exploited.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yes, without question. Workers have no control over the means of production, so they have to sell their labor-power to survive.

Many of those in management also do not own or have a control of the means of production that allows them to appropriate the surplus-value of the production process and as a result have to sell their labour-power, being put to work in the management and coordination of the shop floor (or whatever other context).

As such wouldn't management still constitute a stratum or section of the proletariat.


Capitalists own the means of production, but often find it easier/more efficient to hire people to manage and oversee its use.

They also find it easier/more efficient/more productive to hire people (workers) to utilise the given means of production in the production of commodities.

Where is the difference between the two? Sure one represents the interests of the boss on the shop-floor (of course all workers do insofar as they are directly productive or facility productivity, but management stand out in this regard in their regulatory work) and thus on a day-to-day level confronts the rest of the workforce as an alien force, the representative of the enemy, but on an objective level the two share a common social class in themselves.


The petit-bourgeois of old (e.g. shopkeepers) are still around, but they are constantly being replaced (that is, there are more and more) managers. This is exactly what Marx said would happen in The Manifesto:

"In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

Me thinks you are drawing from this statement more than I. Whereas you see Marx as suggesting that the "petit-bourgeoisie of old" is being replaced with a new petit-bourgeois class compose of "overlookers and shopmen", isn't it just as possible that he is suggesting that the labour traditionally associated with the petit-bourgeoisie is being transformed into the task of the proletariat itself. I think the latter interpretation also seems to fit more nicely with remarks made by Marx earlier in the Manifesto, most notably:
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.- Marx, Chpt 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians, Manifesto of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)

Train drivers don't dig coal from the ground, but if they are a necessary part of the process of selling coal.. if they didn't move it from the mines to the mills, coal yards, etc., the mine owners wouldn't be able to sell it.

Retail workers are proles because they assist in the expansion of capital, they're tied up in the process of gathering raw materials, turning them into products, and selling the products (that's where they come in).

Cops don't produce commodities, but they are a necessary part of the process of commodities. If you were to remove the police force or the whole of the bourgeois state tomorrow the capitalist class would run into problems maintaining order in the process of social production and in the realisation of surplus-value. Cops are proles because they assist in the expansion of capital, they're tied up in the process of gathering raw materials, turning them into products, and selling the products (facilitating and perpetuating all of the above processes).

Plausible, no?

NB: The views I express in this posts and others prior are not necessarily views that I hold to be true. I am asking for the sake of clarification and criticism. Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not a cop apologist nor cosy with management.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Many of those in management also do not own or have a control of the means of production that allows them to appropriate the surplus-value of the production process and as a result have to sell their labour-power, being put to work in the management and coordination of the shop floor (or whatever other context).

Their relation to the means of production are completely different. The workers do not decide what is done with the means of production, how they are used, etc.. They simply use them as they are told, by the managers over top of them who are overseeing the process.

You're right, the managers do not own the means of production.

But that's what makes management petit-bourgeoisie and not bourgeoisie. Their control of the means of production is only temporary -- something assigned to them by the real owners for a set time every day.

If they owned it themselves, they wouldn't be managers. They'd be capitalists.


Where is the difference between the two?

You don't see the difference between utilizing the means of production and overseeing its utilization? No offense comrade, but have you ever worked?

There's a huge difference between the folks standing on the assembly line and the guy standing on the catwalk "supervising" everything.

Their different relations to the means of production makes their role in production completely different.


Cops don't produce commodities, but they are a necessary part of the process of commodities. If you were to remove the police force or the whole of the bourgeois state tomorrow the capitalist class would run into problems maintaining order in the process of social production and in the realisation of surplus-value. Cops are proles because they assist in the expansion of capital, they're tied up in the process of gathering raw materials, turning them into products, and selling the products (facilitating and perpetuating all of the above processes).

Plausible, no?

No.

Cops are a part of the state. They're necessary for the defense of private property and the continuance of the rule of the bourgeoisie, but they play no role in production. They don't extract raw materials, they don't produce anything of use, they don't transport anything, they don't work the places where things are sold.

I could post some things from Marx and others in support of all this, but I'm not really interested in going back and forth in a "quote fest." Sometimes its useful to quote Marx, Lenin, etc., when it can help clarify something, but other etimes comrades refer to old texts from people like Marx and Lenin as religious folks quote their Holy Writ. The latter is obviously something we should avoid.

Besides, everything we've touched on here so far is pretty basic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Me thinks you are drawing from this statement more than I. Whereas you see Marx as suggesting that the "petit-bourgeoisie of old" is being replaced with a new petit-bourgeois class compose of "overlookers and shopmen", isn't it just as possible that he is suggesting that the labour traditionally associated with the petit-bourgeoisie is being transformed into the task of the proletariat itself.

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this part before.

The Manifesto speaks of the petit-bourgeoisie as a class suspended between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, which is “ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society."

It's a class that has had to find new positions for itself in capitalism... The dwindling percentage of shop keepers and the like has given way to a rise of manager, overseers, etc., with the same position (i.e. "fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie") in the current order (i.e. capitalism).

[mikelepore]

Correctly speaking, terms like petit bourgeoisie or middle class can mean only one group. Such terms can only mean self-employed small business owners. Their businesses are so small that they must personally work in them. They don't have sufficient revenues to tell employees to take over entirely, then move away and have dividends mailed to them. Therefore their incomes are neither profits nor wages. Their incomes are in a separate category.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sorry, that's overly simplistic and completely wrong. One's relation to means of production determines their class, not whether or not they are paid.

Cops, prison wardens, judges, district attorneys, even the President, are all paid a wage.

[Post-Something]

Aren't academics a class of their own? Intelligentsia?

[Niccolò Rossi]

You don't see the difference between utilizing the means of production and overseeing its utilization? No offense comrade, but have you ever worked?

Of course I work, it may only be part-time and in fast-food but I do confront management, week in, week out and have no illusions of the role they play in the process of production or the interests they represent. The fact is, however, I don't believe my own personal understanding and experiences are sufficient basis for such theoretical (though not necessarily political) questions.


Their different relations to the means of production makes their role in production completely different.

Whilst the role they play in the process of production is different, certainly, if management constitute a class separate from the working class, ie. petit-bourgeoisie, they aught also to hold class interests independent of and separate to the proletariat, that is, they have "something to lose" where the proletariat proper does not. Of course I'm sure you'll claim that the supervisory power-position managers occupy in the process of production is this "something", however I'd still find this a little iffy.


I could post some things from Marx and others in support of all this, but I'm not really interested in going back and forth in a "quote fest." Sometimes its useful to quote Marx, Lenin, etc., when it can help clarify something, but other etimes comrades refer to old texts from people like Marx and Lenin as religious folks quote their Holy Writ. The latter is obviously something we should avoid.


I would agree we shouldn't should treat the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin or whoever or whatever else as “Holy Writ”, nor am I interested in a “quote war”, but if you happen to have any comments my any such figures on the question of cops, lawyers, civil servants, managers and their respective class positions and interests I'd be interested to see them.

Also, I'll give you a rep hit for all your efforts in this thread. Thanks for your arguing your case so constructively.

[PRC-UTE]

Aren't academics a class of their own? Intelligentsia?

the impression I'm getting from what Marmot and NHIA are saying is that the intelligentsia can belong to more than one class. some can hire and fire, some are basically workers.

[black magick hustla]

Furthermore, the majority of "academics" get wages comparable to the ones of a janitor. There are very few intellectuals in university that are tenured professors and have a wage of 100k dollars. most post-doc fellows start with around 35-40lk and assitant and associate professors (this is after quite a few years of travelling around in 2-3 year contracts. 40-55k. And most intellectuals are post-doc fellows.