27
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by EmoThugInMyPhase@hexbear.net to c/hexbear@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dead@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What you are saying is absolutely liberalism. If you don't understand why cops are not working class, then you don't understand class conflict and if you don't understand class conflict, then you are not a leftist.

Class is a person's relationship to labor and the means of production. The defining characteristic of being working class is doing productive labor while not owning the means of production. A working class person uses their labor to create commodities or services which they do not own.

Cops do not do productive labor. Cops do not produce anything. Cops are not exploited by the bourgeoisie. Cops are guard labor and guard labor is worthless.

Here is an excerpt from chapter 13 of Marx's Capital.

The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, [14] and consequently to exploit labour-power to the greatest possible extent. As the number of the co-operating labourers increases, so too does their resistance to the domination of capital, and with it, the necessity for capital to overcome this resistance by counterpressure. The control exercised by the capitalist is not only a special function, due to the nature of the social labour-process, and peculiar to that process, but it is, at the same time, a function of the exploitation of a social labour-process, and is consequently rooted in the unavoidable antagonism between the exploiter and the living and labouring raw material he exploits.

Again, in proportion to the increasing mass of the means of production, now no longer the property of the labourer, but of the capitalist, the necessity increases for some effective control over the proper application of those means. [15] Moreover, the co-operation of wage labourers is entirely brought about by the capital that employs them. Their union into one single productive body and the establishment of a connexion between their individual functions, are matters foreign and external to them, are not their own act, but the act of the capital that brings and keeps them together. Hence the connexion existing between their various labours appears to them, ideally, in the shape of a preconceived plan of the capitalist, and practically in the shape of the authority of the same capitalist, in the shape of the powerful will of another, who subjects their activity to his aims. If, then, the control of the capitalist is in substance two-fold by reason of the two-fold nature of the process of production itself, which, on the one hand, is a social process for producing use-values, on the other, a process for creating surplus-value in form that control is despotic. As co-operation extends its scale, this despotism takes forms peculiar to itself. Just as at first the capitalist is relieved from actual labour so soon as his capital has reached that minimum amount with which capitalist production, as such, begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workmen, and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage-labourer. An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers), and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function. When comparing the mode of production of isolated peasants and artisans with production by slave-labour, the political economist counts this labour of superintendence among the faux frais of production. [16] But, when considering the capitalist mode of production, he, on the contrary, treats the work of control made necessary by the co-operative character of the labour-process as identical with the different work of control, necessitated by the capitalist character of that process and the antagonism of interests between capitalist and labourer.

This excerpt tells us that the exploitation of productive labor on a large scale requires a "real army" to prevent workers from taking control due to the opposing interests between the capitalist and laborer. The excerpt tells us that this is a "special kind" of wage-labourer ie not a productive labourer, not working class. The excerpt tells use that this kind of laborer is "faux frais of production", meaning that this person does not add value to production. The excerpt tells us that the role is the person is to control the antagonism of interests between the capitalist and working class.

The class interest of police is aligned with the capitalist class interests. The class interest of the police is prevent the working class from gaining power. The police of the capitalist state exist to prevent socialism from happening.

There is importance in understanding that cops are not working class because when you organize working class people, you have to be aware that the police will be working against you 100% of the time. It's not a "moral reasoning". It is materialist analysis.

Part of gaining class consciousness is recognizing that your own productive capacity is being exploited. The capitalist takes value from what you create and gives you less than the value you generated. Cops do have productive capacity and are not exploited. Cops are part of the exploitation process.

[-] blame@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This excerpt tells us that the exploitation of productive labor on a large scale requires a "real army" to prevent workers from taking control due to the opposing interests between the capitalist and laborer. The excerpt tells us that this is a "special kind" of wage-labourer ie not a productive labourer, not working class. The excerpt tells use that this kind of laborer is "faux frais of production", meaning that this person does not add value to production. The excerpt tells us that the role is the person is to control the antagonism of interests between the capitalist and working class.

The “real army” in this excerpt is metaphorical and Marx is clearly talking about managers and supervisors. As I mentioned in a different part of the thread this has echoes of that barista debate from last year because of people using the distinction of productive vs non productive work as their estimation of whether or not someone is in the working class.

I am willing to accept that managers, supervisors, cops, and people who are generally on the side of the bourgeoisie as part of their occupation are not proletarian - but it makes me wonder what they are? Simply “a special kind” of wage laborer? That’s kind of an unsatisfactory description.

I think Engels provides a useful framing for this debate and for how we can think about working classes in current year. I also don't think this actually disagrees with what you're saying.

What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century

Proletarians, then, have not always existed?

No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.

So then under this framework we can consider proletarians a particular kind of worker with a relatively specific definition and actually do not make up the majority of the workers of western economies. However from this exerpt we can conclude that one does not actually need to be proletarian to be working class. So I think a lot of us (including me) are conflating the two and causing unnecessary confusion and we should regard the proletariat as a subset of the broader working class.

[-] dead@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Did you seriously compare cops to baristas? Baristas make coffee. Police make nothing. Baristas serve coffee. Police use violence to enforce the will of the capitalist class. Some baristas work for a capitalist and some baristas are artisans who own their own coffee show, they could either be a worker or a small business owner. Police serve the interests of the bourgeois state. Stop going on twitter. Stop doing twitter discourse. Stop posting twitter discourse on hexbear.

The Marx quote is not a direct comparison because police as we know them today did not exist during the time of Marx's life. However the passage matches the characteristics of police as we know them today.

Managers and supervisors are often considered to be petite bourgeoisie depending on the amount of authority that they have in a company. Cops are part of the state and the state acts in the interests of the capitalist class.

The Engels quote you posted is saying that the working class of pre-capitalist economies were not proletarian, because the proletariat is specifically the working class of the capitalist economy. The working class that the Engels quote is referring to is slaves and peasants of past economies, ie slave society and feudalism. Slaves and peasants still had productive capacity but did not receive a wage for their productive capacity. The defining characteristic of the working class is still productive capacity. The additional characteristic of the proletariat is receiving a wage for the production. Cops do not produce. Cops receive a wage but not produce. Cops are not working class.

[-] blame@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Did you seriously compare cops to baristas?

I compared the debate around this. Last year there was a whole struggle session about Baristas because some people considered them non-productive labor and therefore not "working class".

The Marx quote is not a direct comparison because police as we know them today did not exist during the time of Marx's life. However the passage matches the characteristics of police as we know them today.

Why are you allowed to extrapolate from what Marx and Engels say but I can't?

The Engels quote you posted is saying that the working class of pre-capitalist economies were not proletarian, because the proletariat is specifically the working class of the capitalist economy.

Of course! This was written in 1847, he could only look at the past and compare it to the present. We can also look at the past and compare it to the present. If we think that the service economy workers aren't proletarian that is fine but they are obviously working class, just a different kind of working class. But it doesn't sound like you think that. There are other people who do think that and will also use Marx and Lenin to back up their argumentation which seems based on the productive vs non-productive labor line.

[-] dead@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

Service workers who are payed a wage by a capitalist are proletarian. Service work is productive labor. The capitalist is extracting value from their labor.

Whether a barista is proletarian is entirely situational. Some baristas are proletarian. If a barista works for starbucks for example, then they are proletarian. If a barista works for themself and owns the coffee shop, then they are artisan, small business owner, petite bourgeoisie, middle class, etc. Baristas do not inherently fall into a specific economic class. If you ask, "Is a barista working class?", if they work for a capitalist, then yes, if they work for themselves, then no. The discussion is pointless because it could be either. Some baristas are working class, some baristas are not working class.

Cops are not service workers. Being a cop is not a service. Cops do not produce any service or commodity. Cops are never working class.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
27 points (90.9% liked)

hexbear

10297 readers
17 users here now

Hexbear Proposals chapo.chat matrix room.

This will be a place for site proposals and discussion before implementation on the site.
Every proposal will also be mirrored into a pinned post on the hexbear community.

Any other ideas for helping to integrate the two spaces are welcome to be commented here or messaged to me directly.

Within Hexbear Proposals you can see the history of all site proposals and react to them, indicating a vote for or against a proposal.

Sending messages will be restricted to verified and active hexbear accounts older than 1 month with their matrix id in their hexbear user profile.

All top level messages within the channel must be a Proposals (idea for changing the site), Feedback (regarding non-technical aspects of the site, for technical please use https://hexbear.net/c/feedback), or Appeals (regarding admin/moderator actions).

Discussion regarding these will be within nested threads under the post.

To gain matrix verification, all you need to do is navigate to my hexbear userprofile and click the send a secure private message including your hexbear username.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS