Intro to Marxian class

You have the Capitalist and the Worker,

A Capitalist (Bourgeoisie in Marx's writings) is someone who makes money primarily with money (or Capital).

A Worker (proletariat in Marx's writings) is someone who makes money entirely with Labor

Then you have the small buisinessman or self employed (petit-Bourgeoisie in Marx's writings) who has Capital but also creates value with labor, for example a plumber with his own truck and tools, or a barber shop where the boss is a barber.

(there are others but we'll keep it simple.)

There are other valid was to look at class, but Marx used this way as a way to analyse a part of economy.

Capitalists can be (broadly speaking):
Industrial Capitalists: Capitalists who produce commodities (goods and services) for consumption, anything from engineering firms, to factories to software producers to costumer support to massage parlors to landscaping. These are Capitalists in productive industries.

Financial Capitalists: Capitalists who lend Capital, Bankers, Financial institutions, Brokers and so on, these are non productive industries but many times necessary for the function of productive industries.

Merchant Capitalists: Capitalists who buy and sell commodities, Stores, wholesale, import export companies and so on, like financial Capitalists they are non productive but many times necessary for the function of productive industries.

(Again, we'll keep it simple and leave it there.)

Amung Workers you have productive and non productive

Productive: Anyone invovlved with creating commodities, be it a product or a service, engineers, factory workers, garderners, barbers, software engineers and so on.

Non Productive: People involved with paid activities that are necessary for functioning of hte productive industry: Security guards, accountants, managers, HR, advertising and so on.

Obviously these are roughs and sometimes you have crossovers, however using this analysis will allow you to understand production in capitalism.

The Industrial Capitalist makes his money by extracting labor from the worker, he buys means of production, and then buys workers, the value that workers produce with the means of production is then sold on the market, the value comming back is 100% given to the capitalist, who then pays the workers a wage (totally irrelivant of the value they produce, the Capitalist buys their labor power not the value their labor power produces).

He then takes the surplus, of what is created and spends some on non-productive labor, some on means or production and phyisical capital, some paying of financial capitalists, some to taxes and a big chunk of it to himself.

I would explain it differently, productive labour is labour that generates surplus value, this is not necessarily (although usually it is) producing or creating commodities.

How is productive labour carried out without resulting in the production of a commodity?

Marxian? Only heard that word with Hitler before. :D

It could be labor performed in order to help with the production or distribution of a commodity; such as a retail clerk or truck driver.
Without trucks to drive goods back and forth from and to factories and stores, the production of commodities becomes a moot point.

Well one could say that that is unproductive labor, still labor, and still neccessary for production, but when doing Marxian analysis it is considered unproductive, but necessary labor.

Now for example I suppose a taxi driver would be considered productive labor becuase he is creating a commodity, a service for a consumer, rather than just aiding in the production or distribution or funding of commodities.

To divert the immediate topic for a minute, I've been reading recently a piece on the genesis and organizational/political positions of the communist left posted at libcom , and found something of interest for the issue of Marxist class analysis:

I was always under the impression that communists tend to overlook the importance of concrete effects of social division of labour (as well as the technical division of labour), and here we have a confirmation of thi importance with respect to class analysis. What is more interesting, we see good ol' Karl rejecting what would later on become the standard basis of determining stratification in "mainstream" social studies - income.

But what is important here could also be fleshed out by the following quote from Bordiga, from "Party and Class" (also found in the original piece at libcom):

http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek

Here's some food for thought.

Karl Does differentiate between different Capitalist classes, and different proletarian classes.

But the rejection is not to say that it is'nt important, its just in discussing modes of production Marx finds it better to discuss things in the terms of Marxian class.

I think in different stages of Capitalist development different class structures become more or less important.

You here now people talking about "Those who work for a living, and those who just move money." Which is the exact Marxian analysis, whereas 10 or 15 years ago you'd only hear about class being purchasing power.

Hi Gacky,

I took your advice and came here.

Here is what I think is wrong with Marxist thinking.

The capitalist makes his money using his capital. That is true. But Marx forgot that he risks his capital. There is no certainty of making money. He can lose it all and more if he borrows.

So to take the risk, he has to be compensated or he might as well as spend his momey. That compensation is called profit. That profit can be big or small or none at all. A lot of it is luck.

If he invests in an apple orchard and hire workers, there might be a drought or frost which kills his trees. His workers get a fixed salary no matter if the capitalist makes a profit or a loss.

Secondly, Marx was living in a time where the stock market was not well developed. So the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the worker was clear cut. Europe was mostly agrarian and the French revolution was what inspired him. His mental image was impoverished peasants and indolent nobles extracting profits from their labor.

Today most capitalists are also workers. I work for people and at the same time own stocks of various companies. So I am both capitalist and worker. I am both bourgeoisie and proletariat.

So Marx is out of date. He lived in the 19th century and was inspired by the French revolution which took place in the 18th. Since Marx's day, none of the contradictions have resulted in the fall of capitalism.

To Marx you have productive non productive industries. To us all industries are productive. We classify them as manufacturing and service industries

Hope this above helps you understand your argument holds no water around here.

As to the second part that I deleted. Ya, capitalists work. So did nobles and kings. In fact, they arguably worked harder than capitalists... you know, that whole stabbing people with lances and swords deal...

Not at all relevant to what Marx is talking about, risk does'nt add value, and Marx was NOT talking about merit here.

Again, this is not a Merit argument, this is not even an argument, its just an explination of how class i used in Marxian language.

Anyway, even given your point, you can only risk something you legitimately have, and that is totally debatable, also compensation for risk is totally arbitrary, and in a rational system would be checked by other factors.

Its still clear cut today, all the stock market does is spread the risk and raise capital, the actutal CONTROLERS of capital (Marx was not interested in owners, but rather controlers of capital), are still clear cut, the major stockholders (the ones that can call the CEO at any time) and the board of directors.

No your not, I seriously doubt you have functional control over capital.

EIther way, when Marx talks about capital and workers, he's talking about relationships, NOT people, so yeah, your point is the same, Marx would agree with you there, sometimes there is cross over.

BUT marx was not interested in talking about people as people, only as their relation is to the economy.

Yes they have, and the only reason capitalism is around today is HUGE influxes and inteferances by the state.

Thats just semantics ...

This is a good topic.

good thread I think thanks.