Are cops proletarians?

They *are* proletarians, but used as watchdogs by the standing social order.
That's not to say they wouldn't join a revolution in the right circumstances. Ultimatedly they are part of the people and stand to lose if the people lose.
I daresay a successful revolution would likely require the support of at least a sizeable chunk of the armed forces

Quote:

Productive workers (i.e. their labour adds value to the commodity) are often mistakenly seen by many communists (often Maoist Third-Worldists)as the only types of proletarians. What I (and Marx) am pointing out is that many non-productive workers are also proletarians.

Maybe that's what you are pointing out, but please let Marx speak for himself.

Quote:

Which wage-labourers are not proletarians? The only ones I can think of are petty-bourgeois workers who own their own labour.

What? What does owning your "own labour" mean?

Quote:

They still pay themselves wages of course but keep the surplus-value they extract out of themselves.

What??

Quote:

Examples? If they earn a wage then they work part of the working day for nothing and are therefore exploited.

To be exploited you need to be paid less than the value of your work (in order to create surplus-value). Bosses are often paid much more than what they actually work, they are paid with surplus-value from other actual workers. They are not exploited, they are the exploiters, the parasites. Take for example Paul Hermelin. He is the Président-directeur général of Capgemini and was paid in 2012 € 2.49 million. This money doesn't come from his capital, for he doesn't own the company, he is only the boss and can be fired by the shareholders.

Quote:

No, Marx is talking about unproductive labour.

No what? No to what? Are you trying to say that this guy isn't a merchant because his work is unproductive? Or becayuse he receives a wage? What are you trying to say exactly? If you just write stupid things in order to write "no", without any reason, I can't understand or answer your statements. You have to be more specific.

Quote:

As you can see, Marx considers this merchant to be a wage-worker akin to someone who spins textiles or makes pills (i.e. a proletarian)

I never said that he isn't a wage-worker, since that's clearly written. My understanding of English, although limited, remains sufficient. So what's your point? You write:

"If they earn a wage then they work part of the working day for nothing and are therefore exploited."

Why do you want them to work part of the working day for nothing? In this example of Marx, the wage-worker works 10 hours and is paid 8. How does Marx know the value of 8 hours of work since this work isn't productive? He doesn't (and he doesn't care, because that wasn't his point). The guy could work 10 hours and be paid 15 hours, just because his work is necessary for reproduction and because it's not productive. Yet he would still be a wage-worker, but certainly not a proletarian, and certainly not akin to textile workers.

Paul Hermelin is paid 2.49 million euros. Paul Hermelin is a parasite, he could be replaced by a young student who would gladly work efficiently for half this wage and even less. Yet Paul Hermelin is paid much more than what he works, or what he creates, because as a non-productive worker, he is part of the whole system of reproduction that is controled by the bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie can afford a man such as Paul Hermelin, a good friend of them, and pay him much more than his actual value, just in order to protect its interests. Parasites like Paul Hermelin can be replaced easily, it was done at Tower Colliery.

And what's true for the bosses, managerial staff, and other people in charge of the reproduction of the process of production, is also true for the workers themselves. A boss CAN decide to pay a worker MORE than what he creates, more than the actual value of his work. Thus he will work 10 hours and be paid 12. How can he do that? With surplus-value from other workers. How do we call that? Labour aristocracy!

Quote:

What? What does owning your "own labour" mean?

Owning your own labour means you don't have to sell it to a capitalist. You are your own (small-scale) capitalist. Think of an independent artisan or craftsman who spends all day making a commodity and selling it. He is self-employed and so pockets the surplus-value he creates through his own labour. They are the petit-bourgeoisie.

Quote:

To be exploited you need to be paid less than the value of your work (in order to create surplus-value). Bosses are often paid much more than what they actually work, they are paid with surplus-value from other actual workers.

All unproductive workers (including cleaners etc.) are paid out of the surplus-value created by productive workers. Remember that the term "bosses" can cover a whole range of people. Low-level bosses are often not paid that much better than the workers they control.

Quote:

They are not exploited, they are the exploiters, the parasites. Take for example Paul Hermelin. He is the Président-directeur général of Capgemini and was paid in 2012 € 2.49 million. This money doesn't come from his capital, for he doesn't own the company, he is only the boss and can be fired by the shareholders.

These people are more like the petit-bourgeoisie than the haute bourgeoisie. They are paid more than they need (unlike most unproductive workers) and they are paid in a salary, not wages (unlike most unproductive workers).

Quote:

No what? No to what? Are you trying to say that this guy isn't a merchant because his work is unproductive? Or becayuse he receives a wage? What are you trying to say exactly? If you just write stupid things in order to write "no", without any reason, I can't understand or answer your statements. You have to be more specific.

You said that Marx was talking about capitalists. I was saying no, Marx was talking about unproductive labour.

Quote:

Why do you want them to work part of the working day for nothing? In this example of Marx, the wage-worker works 10 hours and is paid 8. How does Marx know the value of 8 hours of work since this work isn't productive? He doesn't (and he doesn't care, because that wasn't his point). The guy could work 10 hours and be paid 15 hours, just because his work is necessary for reproduction and because it's not productive. Yet he would still be a wage-worker, but certainly not a proletarian, and certainly not akin to textile workers.

Marx explicitly says he is akin to a textile worker! The reason he does not work 10 hours and get paid the value of 15 hours is because the capitalist system treats proletarians (productive and unproductive) alike - i.e. as exploited wage-labourers. Therefore they will pay them the bare minimum to get by.

Quote:

Paul Hermelin is paid 2.49 million euros. Paul Hermelin is a parasite, he could be replaced by a young student who would gladly work efficiently for half this wage and even less. Yet Paul Hermelin is paid much more than what he works, or what he creates, because as a non-productive worker, he is part of the whole system of reproduction that is controled by the bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie can afford a man such as Paul Hermelin, a good friend of them, and pay him much more than his actual value, just in order to protect its interests. Parasites like Paul Hermelin can be replaced easily, it was done at Tower Colliery.

Paul Hermelin is paid a salary, not a wage. He is not a wage-labourer. Secondly, his obscene salary is goverened by market prices - i.e. if they didn't pay him that at Capgemini he could go to another big company and do the same job there for a similar salary. Paul Hermelin is paid much more than he needs in order to replicate his labour and is therefore petit-bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie. But compared to the vast majority of unproductive labourers he is a tiny exception.

Quote:

And what's true for the bosses, managerial staff, and other people in charge of the reproduction of the process of production, is also true for the workers themselves. A boss CAN decide to pay a worker MORE than what he creates, more than the actual value of his work. Thus he will work 10 hours and be paid 12. How can he do that? With surplus-value from other workers. How do we call that? Labour aristocracy!

But capitalists don't decide to do this, otherwise they go out of business. Why would they just decide to raise wages for the hell of it at the expense of their own profits? Wages rise because of market forces and industrial action.

Quote:

Owning your own labour means you don't have to sell it to a capitalist. You are your own (small-scale) capitalist. Think of an independent artisan or craftsman who spends all day making a commodity and selling it. He is self-employed and so pockets the surplus-value he creates through his own labour. They are the petit-bourgeoisie.

Ah yes indeed, the petty-bourgeois can be a "worker" in a way. However he owns the means of production, thus he isn't a "wage-labourer".

Quote:

All unproductive workers (including cleaners etc.) are paid out of the surplus-value created by productive workers. Remember that the term "bosses" can cover a whole range of people. Low-level bosses are often not paid that much better than the workers they control.

Indeed, that's why I said often.

Quote:

These people are more like the petit-bourgeoisie than the haute bourgeoisie.

They are not! They are part of the haute bourgeoisie. They come from the same families, they have the same culture, the same friends, the same network of relations, they learned in the same schools and they have an important capital. The petite-bourgeoisie is a different world.

Quote:

Paul Hermelin is paid a salary, not a wage. He is not a wage-labourer. Secondly, his obscene salary is goverened by market prices - i.e. if they didn't pay him that at Capgemini he could go to another big company and do the same job there for a similar salary. Paul Hermelin is paid much more than he needs in order to replicate his labour and is therefore petit-bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie. But compared to the vast majority of unproductive labourers he is a tiny exception.

I don't use this difference in French. We only have salaries, we don't have such things as wages (even though this word also comes from French). Because the difference is pointless. When Marx speaks about wages, he also means salaries. When we speak about wage-workers in general, we also include people working for a salary. But anyway, to replicate his labour Paul Harmelin needs a little bread and water, and nothing more. Why would the capitalists want to pay Paul Harmelin that much? Is he really necessary for the company? Is he a genius? Is he better than, let's say, Thomas Piketty? No. He is paid that much because he comes from the same class.

Quote:

You said that Marx was talking about capitalists. I was saying no, Marx was talking about unproductive labour.

Capitalists are unproductive workers (when they work).

Quote:

Marx explicitly says he is akin to a textile worker! The reason he does not work 10 hours and get paid the value of 15 hours is because the capitalist system treats proletarians (productive and unproductive) alike - i.e. as exploited wage-labourers. Therefore they will pay them the bare minimum to get by.

Marx is only taking an example, and this example has no real existence. If what you say was true, there would be no difference at all between wages. Why is this guy paid more than the average worker, if he is "akin to a textile worker"?

Quote:

But capitalists don't decide to do this, otherwise they go out of business. Why would they just decide to raise wages for the hell of it at the expense of their own profits? Wages rise because of market forces and industrial action.

You are thinking like a 18th century capitalist. Haven't you learned about Keynes? Keynes explained why raising wages was important for profits, even if it's at the expense of profits on an individual scale. But that's just what Ford did, when he said: "Five dollars a day." Why did he do that? To increase profits indirectly. And to increase profits indirectly, many features be taken into account: psychology, health, ideology, class struggle... So what's the point of paying a part of the workers MORE than what they actually work, thus creating a "labour aristocracy"? Simple: dividing the working class.

Quote:

Ah yes indeed, the petty-bourgeois can be a "worker" in a way. However he owns the means of production, thus he isn't a "wage-labourer".

Well if he is very small-scale then he could technically break his payment down into his means of subsistence (i.e. his "wage") and the surplus he generates on top of that. Of course, he wouldn't actually pay himself a wage as such.

Quote:

They are not! They are part of the haute bourgeoisie. They come from the same families, they have the same culture, the same friends, the same network of relations, they learned in the same schools and they have an important capital. The petite-bourgeoisie is a different world.

The haute bourgeoisie are the people who control and own the means of production. Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc. People such as high-level company executives, bankers etc. are not haute bourgeoisie because they do not own the means of production. They are still very wealthy and depend on the capitalist system for their huge wealth. But as you say, they can be fired by the actual bourgeoisie who own the companies they work in. Thus we cannot consider them to be true bourgeoisie.

As to the stuff about families, schools, friends etc., this does not make them objectively bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie own the means of production; this is their objective definition. All that other stuff is going to make these people sympathetic to the bourgeoisie and their ideals, but it doesn't make them bourgeoisie. If I had been sent to Eton College for some reason, that alone would not have made me bourgeois.

Quote:

I don't use this difference in French. We only have salaries, we don't have such things as wages (even though this word also comes from French). Because the difference is pointless. When Marx speaks about wages, he also means salaries. When we speak about wage-workers in general, we also include people working for a salary.

Wages are different from salaries because they are paid according to a specific amount of time worked (time wages) or for a particular piece produced (piece wages). Salaries are just a fixed sum paid on a monthly or yearly basis regardless of how much time is worked and how strenuous the work is. It is easier to figure out the surplus-value generated on wages due to the way they are broken down. Salaries are more worked out in average. However, they also tend to be paid to unproductive workers because of the lack of surplus-value that they create.

Quote:

Capitalists are unproductive workers (when they work).

Correct

Quote:

Marx is only taking an example, and this example has no real existence. If what you say was true, there would be no difference at all between wages. Why is this guy paid more than the average worker, if he is "akin to a textile worker"?

Because wages are determined by the market. Increased demand for one type of labour will result in a higher wage being paid for that labour than another type of labour. Similarly, specific skills often command higher wages because they are harder to come by on the market. Capitalists don't just decide the wages they will pay their workers; they are subject to market prices (i.e. supply and demand).

Quote:

You are thinking like a 18th century capitalist. Haven't you learned about Keynes? Keynes explained why raising wages was important for profits, even if it's at the expense of profits on an individual scale. But that's just what Ford did, when he said: "Five dollars a day." Why did he do that? To increase profits indirectly. And to increase profits indirectly, many features be taken into account: psychology, health, ideology, class struggle...So what's the point of paying a part of the workers MORE than what they actually work, thus creating a "labour aristocracy"? Simple: dividing the working class.

You appear to have forgotten how these benefits for the working class (what you and Lenin call labour aristocracy) were generated: through domestic class struggle! The bourgeoisie didn't just hand out all these things out of the kindness of their hearts, the workers had to fight to get them. As to labour aristocracy, look at Cliff's critique of it here.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/ ... otsref.htm

Quote:

You appear to have forgotten how these benefits for the working class (what you and Lenin call labour aristocracy) were generated: through domestic class struggle!

We don't struggle for labour aristocracy, we oppose it. Labour aristocracy is a weapon used by the bourgeoisie against us.

Quote:

Increased demand for one type of labour will result in a higher wage being paid for that labour than another type of labour.

This is only true if there is a shortage. Something like that didn't happened since the end of the 1960's.

Quote:

As to labour aristocracy, look at Cliff's critique of it here.

He is a trotskyist, and I don't see how this paper contradicts Lenin or my own assumptions.

Quote:

Wages are different from salaries because they are paid according to a specific amount of time worked (time wages) or for a particular piece produced (piece wages). Salaries are just a fixed sum paid on a monthly or yearly basis regardless of how much time is worked and how strenuous the work is

This is the common definition, but when you speak about wages in general, and wage-workers in general, you also mean salaries.
When you pay someone for one hour, or one week, you are usually paying someone who has no much rights, someone working in utter insecurity because they will work one hour or one week instead of having a one-month or more contract. In France most workers receiving a salary work on a 35h/week basis according to the law. They are not paid "regardless of how much time is worked", because if they get ill, if they go on strike, if they forget to wake up, they won't be paid their day.

Quote:

The haute bourgeoisie are the people who control and own the means of production. Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc. People such as high-level company executives, bankers etc. are not haute bourgeoisie because they do not own the means of production.

No they are too, because we are speaking about a class, with class interests, and not about individuals. Although this class owns the means of production as a whole, as a class, it's clear that not all members of the haute have to own the means of production themselves. A class isn't a mere bunch of individuals with the exact same positions and interests, it's more than that. Sociologists who have worked on the haute bourgeoisie have observed that they are very supportive of each other, very communistic between themselves. They will give a lot to others without any direct compensation.

Quote:

They are still very wealthy and depend on the capitalist system for their huge wealth. But as you say, they can be fired by the actual bourgeoisie who own the companies they work in. Thus we cannot consider them to be true bourgeoisie.

Do you know how much they receive when they are fired?

Quote:

The bourgeoisie own the means of production; this is their objective definition. All that other stuff is going to make these people sympathetic to the bourgeoisie and their ideals, but it doesn't make them bourgeoisie. If I had been sent to Eton College for some reason, that alone would not have made me bourgeois.

Can your parents afford Eton for their children? You must be quite rich.

Quote:

were generated: through domestic class struggle!

This is a fable for children. Albeit this is sometimes true, the idea that a capitalist can't make social concessions without being faced by a strong working class is wrong. Compared to the 18th century capitalist, the 20th/21th century capitalists have evolved and understand very much that giving to a worker more than what he needs to strictly reproduce his work can also help increasing productivity (better mood at work, better health...). The new discovery for example is that most of the time controling people at work has a negative effect. Therefore the bourgeoisie shall try to decrease control unilaterally, regardless of how much "domestic class struggle" there is.

Quote:

We don't struggle for labour aristocracy, we oppose it. Labour aristocracy is a weapon used by the bourgeoisie against us.

So you oppose all improvements for workers do you? Because all these improvements just help create the "labour aristocracy" in your eyes.

Quote:

This is only true if there is a shortage. Something like that didn't happened since the end of the 1960's.

So why do some companies pay higher wages than others? Why does a person who works in a chemist earn more or less than someone who works in a bakery?

Quote:

He is a trotskyist, and I don't see how this paper contradicts Lenin or my own assumptions.

Then you clearly didn't read it. The paper argues that Lenin's theory is a myth because all improvements for the working class affect the working class as a whole. For example, the abolition of child labour didn't just improve things for one section of the working class.

Quote:

No they are too, because we are speaking about a class, with class interests, and not about individuals. Although this class owns the means of production as a whole, as a class, it's clear that not all members of the haute have to own the means of production themselves. A class isn't a mere bunch of individuals with the exact same positions and interests, it's more than that. Sociologists who have worked on the haute bourgeoisie have observed that they are very supportive of each other, very communistic between themselves. They will give a lot to others without any direct compensation.

And yet Marx's example clearly indicates people can be seen as a member of a political class.

Marx wrote:

In order to simplify the matter (since we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist and merchant’s capital until later) we shall assume that this buying and selling agent is a man who sells his labour. He expends his labour-power and labour-time in the operations C — M and M — C. ... More. We shall assume that he is a mere wage-labourer, even one of the better paid, for all the difference it makes. Whatever his pay, as a wage-labourer he works part of his time for nothing.

Marx clearly points out that you can identify an individual as a capitalist or a wage-labourer. (Remember that Marx hardly uses the words 'bourgeoisie' or 'proletariat' in Capital. Therefore this terminology is consistent with labeling people as part of the capitalist class or wage-labour class which he does repeatedly refer to.)

In addition, you are using subjective class affiliations. What you are forgetting is that most workers in the world do not seem to support communism. In fact many are quite conservative and support bourgeois governments and the capitalist system. Therefore, by your logic, workers cannot be proletarian! The way out of this twisted logic of yours is to remember that one's class is determined by one's relations to the means of production.

Quote:

Do you know how much they receive when they are fired?

They don't always get something, especially if they have committed a crime or gross misconduct. Newsflash: big corporations don't get rich by handing out vast sums of cash all the time. You seem to think the bourgeoisie keep giving each other money all the time for no apparent reason! They're in competition with each other! This isn't some club where they all pay each other money for fun!

Quote:

Can your parents afford Eton for their children? You must be quite rich.

No, it was a hypothetical question. But Harrow (another top English private school) offers bursaries of up to 100% for students who are poor but clever. Would those students be deemed bourgeois simply because they went to Harrow, despite coming from a working class background?

Quote:

This is a fable for children. Albeit this is sometimes true, the idea that a capitalist can't make social concessions without being faced by a strong working class is wrong. Compared to the 18th century capitalist, the 20th/21th century capitalists have evolved and understand very much that giving to a worker more than what he needs to strictly reproduce his work can also help increasing productivity (better mood at work, better health...). The new discovery for example is that most of the time controling people at work has a negative effect. Therefore the bourgeoisie shall try to decrease control unilaterally, regardless of how much "domestic class struggle" there is.

So why is none of this implemented in the developing world with its sweatshops and unsafe working conditions?

Quote:

So you oppose all improvements for workers do you? Because all these improvements just help create the "labour aristocracy" in your eyes.

Why do you call an aristocracy "improvement"? This is shameful.

Quote:

So why do some companies pay higher wages than others? Why does a person who works in a chemist earn more or less than someone who works in a bakery?

Because the guy spent a lot of time and money in his studies, he a has higher expectancy, he usually doesn't come from the same social class. Even if there was 1000 chemists and 10 bakers, the chemists would be paid more than the bakers. But compared to Paul Hermelin, the difference between their salaries is insignificant.

Quote:

Then you clearly didn't read it. The paper argues that Lenin's theory is a myth because all improvements for the working class affect the working class as a whole. For example, the abolition of child labour didn't just improve things for one section of the working class.

What? The paper says that Lenin's mistake is that labour aristocracy isn't an "infinitesimal minority" but is "spread throughout the working class". Thus he doesn't refuse the concept of "labour aristocracy", he totally endorses it! This is written in the introduction.

Quote:

Marx clearly points out that you can identify an individual as a capitalist or a wage-labourer.

You don't understand what Marx says. When Marx says: "we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist", he doesn't mean that this merchant isn't a capitalist because he is a wage-labourer, he means that he isn't a capitalist because he is involved in a C-M-C and not M-C-M operation. The fact that this guy is a wage-labourer is irrelevent to Marx's demonstration in itself, but it's useful "in order to simplify the matter". You shamefully distort the words of Marx, but I'm used to it now since you obviously like to google search some quotations and quote it without even reading the whole chapter or the whole paragraph (one more example with Cliff below).

Quote:

In addition, you are using subjective class affiliations.

If that was subjective, you couldn't analyse it objectively. Yet it can be analysed objectively. Paul Hermelin sides with the big bourgeoisie for very objective reasons. There is nothing magical there. However saying that Paul Harmelin is a proletarian because he sells his workforce exactly like the factory worker does is a typical example of the failure of the economist deviation.

Quote:

In fact many are quite conservative and support bourgeois governments and the capitalist system.

The dominant ideology is the idology of the dominant class.

Quote:

Therefore, by your logic, workers cannot be proletarian! The way out of this twisted logic of yours is to remember that one's class is determined by one's relations to the means of production.

Is my logic twisted? Or is it your understanding? Where did I say that Paul Hermelin is a bourgeois because he shares the opinions of the haute bourgeoisie? I spoke about his opinions, his family, his culture, his education, his relations, and his function. In a word: his position. A part of the proletariat shares Paul Hermelin's opinion, maybe (but certainly not entirely), but they will NEVER have the same culture, the same relations, the same education, the same family, the same friends, and of course the same salary, because they live in two different worlds, they are from two different classes.

Quote:

No, it was a hypothetical question. But Harrow (another top English private school) offers bursaries of up to 100% for students who are poor but clever. Would those students be deemed bourgeois simply because they went to Harrow, despite coming from a working class background?

That's certainly not enough of course, but that's an element of embourgeoisement. And that's also the aim of the bourgeoisie. How do they call that? Social mobility isn't it? They want social mobility but without social equality, because the dream of the bourgeoisie is to have a strong capitalist society, with all its injustice, inequalities, and the exloitation of the working class, WITHOUT class consciousness (especially proletarian consciousness).

Quote:

They don't always get something, especially if they have committed a crime or gross misconduct.

Of course if they have committed a crime, as anyone else I guess... B

Quote:

They're in competition with each other! This isn't some club where they all pay each other money for fun!

OMG. But THIS IS A CLUB, an enormous club. Even during WWI when French and German capitalists lacked of raw material to kill their working class, they managed to trade via Switzerland. Even during WWII US companies in Germany remained American because THIS IS A CLUB.

Quote:

So why is none of this implemented in the developing world with its sweatshops and unsafe working conditions?

Because those countries are developing. They don't have great business schools, a great infrastructure, and a strong state. Imagine 100 enormous leeches attacking a poor cow who went drinking in a river. Those leeches are not clever and will try to pump as much blood as possible from the poor animal, which will die. The survival of the 100 leeches will be compromised. But in the other group of leeches, led by a chief, the chief organizes the production so that the animal survives. That's basically the difference between 19th century capitalism and 20th/21th century capitalism. Better for the cow? Not sure, since the dying cow, understanding that she is a bout to die, might try everything to get rid of the leeches. While the second might not even understand that she is being pumped.

Quote:

So you oppose all improvements for workers do you?

I'm a leninist. I truly and sincerely struggle for any improvement for the working class, but I also truly and sincerely hope for the worse: "The worse, the better."

Quote:

Why do you call an aristocracy "improvement"? This is shameful.

I don't believe there is a labour aristocracy. I am merely extending your logic and concluding that your position is that you oppose all improvements for the working class.

Quote:

Because the guy spent a lot of time and money in his studies, he a has higher expectancy, he usually doesn't come from the same social class.

I call bullshit on that. First of all record numbers of people are going to university (at least in the UK) and many of them are from working class backgrounds. University is no longer the destination of the privileged few. Secondly, because so many people have degrees and huge student debts, they are struggling to find high paying jobs that match their expectations. Therefore many are taking low level jobs that they didn't expect they would have to do.

So your expectancy and social class arguments are invalid.

Quote:

Even if there was 1000 chemists and 10 bakers, the chemists would be paid more than the bakers.

What? Why and how did you even come up with this nonsense? Why would chemists automatically be paid more than bakers?

Quote:

What? The paper says that Lenin's mistake is that labour aristocracy isn't an "infinitesimal minority" but is "spread throughout the working class". Thus he doesn't refuse the concept of "labour aristocracy", he totally endorses it! This is written in the introduction.

You still haven't read it.

Cliff wrote:

An inevitable conclusion following upon Lenin’s analysis of Reformism is that a small thin crust of conservatism hides the revolutionary urges of the mass of the workers. Any break through this crust would reveal a surging revolutionary lava. The role of the revolutionary party is simply to show the mass of the workers that their interests are betrayed by the “infinitesimal minority” of “aristocracy of labour”.

This conclusion, however, is not confirmed by the history of Reformism in Britain, the United States and elsewhere over the past half century: its solidity, its spread throughout the working class, frustrating and largely isolating all revolutionary minorities, makes it abundantly clear that the economic, social roots of Reformism are not in “an infinitesimal minority of the proletariat and the working masses” as Lenin argued.

Showing where Lenin’s analysis went wrong will help us to see more clearly the real economic, social and historical foundations of Reformism.

Quote:

You don't understand what Marx says. When Marx says: "we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist", he doesn't mean that this merchant isn't a capitalist because he is a wage-labourer, he means that he isn't a capitalist because he is involved in a C-M-C and not M-C-M operation. The fact that this guy is a wage-labourer is irrelevent to Marx's demonstration in itself, but it's useful "in order to simplify the matter".

He is describing unproductive labour using an example of an unproductive wage-labourer! If unproductive labourers specifically couldn't be wage-labourers, why would Marx use one in an example? That would be like using a capitalist as an example to demonstrate productive labour!

Quote:

You shamefully distort the words of Marx, but I'm used to it now since you obviously like to google search some quotations and quote it without even reading the whole chapter or the whole paragraph (one more example with Cliff below).

I am one of the better read Marxists on this site having extensively read most of his most important works (including all four volumes of Capital), plus those of many others. I have made plenty of notes on these works from which I draw a lot of my arguments. This is a lot more than can be said for you as you have demonstrated many times in the past.

Quote:

If that was subjective, you couldn't analyse it objectively. Yet it can be analysed objectively. Paul Hermelin sides with the big bourgeoisie for very objective reasons. There is nothing magical there. However saying that Paul Harmelin is a proletarian because he sells his workforce exactly like the factory worker does is a typical example of the failure of the economist deviation.

I never said he was a proletarian, I said he wasn't haute bourgeoisie.

Quote:

The dominant ideology is the idology of the dominant class.

So there will never be a socialist revolution then? If the ideology of the dominant class is always bourgeois because the dominant class is always the bourgeoisie, you have an endless circle.

Quote:

Is my logic twisted? Or is it your understanding? Where did I say that Paul Hermelin is a bourgeois because he shares the opinions of the haute bourgeoisie? I spoke about his opinions, his family, his culture, his education, his relations, and his function. In a word: his position. A part of the proletariat shares Paul Hermelin's opinion, maybe (but certainly not entirely), but they will NEVER have the same culture, the same relations, the same education, the same family, the same friends, and of course the same salary, because they live in two different worlds, they are from two different classes.

Right, so what about policemen (which is the original point of this thread)? The average police officer has the same sort of culture, relations, education, family and friends as the proletariat. Yet you say they are bourgeois because they share his opinions. Yet when the proletariat share his opinions you consider them to still be the proletariat!

Quote:

OMG. But THIS IS A CLUB, an enormous club. Even during WWI when French and German capitalists lacked of raw material to kill their working class, they managed to trade via Switzerland. Even during WWII US companies in Germany remained American because THIS IS A CLUB.

There is a certain amount of inter-capitalist organisation, but you seem to think of it as a massive conspiracy theory whereby the bourgeoisie arrange wage differences in order to sow divisions within the working class while giving huge payoffs to sacked managers just because they like him so much.

Quote:

Because those countries are developing. They don't have great business schools, a great infrastructure, and a strong state.

Some of them have very strong and repressive states (e.g. China) and they are able to get advisers in from Western countries and send people to the West to learn about business and management. Infrastructure is bad because it is cheap. The reason they have poor working conditions is because their labour movements are not particularly developed. In the West, striking miners negotiate via their unions. In South Africa they get shot by the police.

Quote:

I'm a leninist. I truly and sincerely struggle for any improvement for the working class, but I also truly and sincerely hope for the worse: "The worse, the better."

You're actually a cross between an impossibilist and a Maoist Third-Worldist

Quote:

I am one of the better read Marxists on this site having extensively read most of his most important works (including all four volumes of Capital), plus those of many others. I have made plenty of notes on these works from which I draw a lot of my arguments. This is a lot more than can be said for you as you have demonstrated many times in the past.

You haven't read ANY work from MARX, you are not even a marxist or a communist, but a comic and a troll. I hope that you actually didn't read the 4 volumes of Capital, because if you did, you obviously have a big problem of understanding or must be very, very young (which is totally possible).

I maintain that you don't understand Cliff's paper, you don't understand what Marx writes, and you don't even understand what I say. Worse, you persist. At least I have a new quotation for my signature.

Cool name calling and ad-hominems. Really conductive.

Yes, on the simple basis that they are only working for what service, however thuggish it often is, to the state. They don't own their own capital, only their labour.

There seems to be a strange idea going about this thread that to be a proletarian means you have to carry out directly productive work. An administrator in an office isn't directly productive, but their work co-ordinates various other branches of the same company and acts as a kind of nervous system within the company - just not that of the owner/capitalist/bourgeoisie, but rather as a result of alienated labour.
Hell, if we were to go purely on what Marx said, we'd only recognise cotton mill/textiles workers as being proletarian.

I take it you've given up again as you don't attempt to answer ANY of my points.

Quote:

You haven't read ANY work from MARX, you are not even a marxist or a communist, but a comic and a troll. I hope that you actually didn't read the 4 volumes of Capital,

Well if you like I could always bring up this classic of yours where you said that Marx 'never used P...C'-M'-C...P and that P only stands for profit.' Of course I simply provided the direct quote to prove you wrong (you know, having actually read Capital), which oddly enough was also from Capital, vol II which Marx's example I used in this thread is from. I can therefore reasonably conclude that YOU STILL HAVEN'T READ IT. Odd how someone can go around accusing people of 'not being a Marxist' when they themselves have not read Marx's most important work.

Quote:

I maintain that you don't understand Cliff's paper, you don't understand what Marx writes, and you don't even understand what I say.

Of course, no attempt from you to prove this or to directly challenge Cliff's thesis. Why engage in reading and debate when you can just sling personal abuse?

Yes as you say I have given up. I don't see the point of discussing with someone who is obviously unable to stand a proper discussion. The fact that you don't understand Cliff's paper is already proven, everything has been said. The fact that you don't understand this quotation from Karl Marx is clear too. If you fail to understand your mistakes, there is nothing I can do, but other people will understand it very well. And you shouldn't link to an old discussion in which you deny the opposition between C-M-C and M-C-M. And there again, since you still don't understand what C-M-C and M-C-M are, you don't understand why this guy in Marx's example isn't a capitalist, not because he is a wage-worker, but because he is involved in a C-M-C and not M-C-M process.

Quote:

Yes as you say I have given up. I don't see the point of discussing with someone who is obviously unable to stand a proper discussion.

What, you mean the way I provide evidence to back up my claims whereas you just shout "you don't understand"?

Quote:

The fact that you don't understand Cliff's paper is already proven, everything has been said.

STILL no evidence from you that I have misunderstood Cliff's paper. Of course, I provided a lengthy quote from it outlining his arguments, but when have you ever let evidence ever stop you? For the record, here it is again:

Cliff wrote:

An inevitable conclusion following upon Lenin’s analysis of Reformism is that a small thin crust of conservatism hides the revolutionary urges of the mass of the workers. Any break through this crust would reveal a surging revolutionary lava. The role of the revolutionary party is simply to show the mass of the workers that their interests are betrayed by the “infinitesimal minority” of “aristocracy of labour”.

This conclusion, however, is not confirmed by the history of Reformism in Britain, the United States and elsewhere over the past half century: its solidity, its spread throughout the working class, frustrating and largely isolating all revolutionary minorities, makes it abundantly clear that the economic, social roots of Reformism are not in “an infinitesimal minority of the proletariat and the working masses” as Lenin argued.

Showing where Lenin’s analysis went wrong will help us to see more clearly the real economic, social and historical foundations of Reformism.

Quote:

The fact that you don't understand this quotation from Karl Marx is clear too. If you fail to understand your mistakes, there is nothing I can do, but other people will understand it very well.

Really? Because other people seem to just think you're throwing out ad-hominems.

Quote:

And you shouldn't link to an old discussion in which you deny the opposition between C-M-C and M-C-M. And there again, since you still don't understand what C-M-C and M-C-M are, you don't understand why this guy in Marx's example isn't a capitalist, not because he is a wage-worker, but because he is involved in a C-M-C and not M-C-M process.

You got so confused in that old discussion it's no wonder you still can't understand what I said in it.

Quote:

What, you mean the way I provide evidence to back up my claims whereas you just shout "you don't understand"?

Exactly. You quoted Cliff again, but the quotation doesn't contradict what I said.

Quote:

Really? Because other people seem to just think you're throwing out ad-hominems.

But I can do both.

Quote:

You got so confused in that old discussion it's no wonder you still can't understand what I said in it.

What you said is quite clear, you didn't understand that CMC corresponds to a capitalist economy, thus you believed that there was also CMC in a socialist society: "But ok, for a minute let's say that you think M-C-M doesn't exist under socialism. How therefore does the state produce the value to expand the means of production under socialism? How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism as Marx says it has to?" That's a good reason to get confused, isn't it?

Quote:

Exactly. You quoted Cliff again, but the quotation doesn't contradict what I said.

You said: 'I don't see how this paper contradicts Lenin or my own assumptions.'

Cliff says: 'This conclusion, however, is not confirmed by the history of Reformism in Britain, the United States and elsewhere over the past half century: its solidity, its spread throughout the working class, frustrating and largely isolating all revolutionary minorities, makes it abundantly clear that the economic, social roots of Reformism are not in “an infinitesimal minority of the proletariat and the working masses” as Lenin argued.

Showing where Lenin’s analysis went wrong will help us to see more clearly the real economic, social and historical foundations of Reformism.'

I.e. Cliff thinks Lenin's analysis was wrong. If you read the article further you will see that Cliff thinks Lenin was wrong to invent a labour aristocracy because all the evidence shows that it doesn't exist. I can't spell it out any more than that. You haven't read it and you won't because you know I'm right.

Quote:

What you said is quite clear, you didn't understand that CMC corresponds to a capitalist economy, thus you believed that there was also CMC in a socialist society: "But ok, for a minute let's say that you think M-C-M doesn't exist under socialism. How therefore does the state produce the value to expand the means of production under socialism? How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism as Marx says it has to?" That's a good reason to get confused, isn't it?

You really want to do this again? Have you read volume II of Capital yet? It's the background reading for this debate.

You might want to start by actually answering the question of mine that you quoted. How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism?

Quote:

I.e. Cliff thinks Lenin's analysis was wrong. If you read the article further you will see that Cliff thinks Lenin was wrong to invent a labour aristocracy because all the evidence shows that it doesn't exist. I can't spell it out any more than that. You haven't read it and you won't because you know I'm right.

Cliff says that Lenin was wrong to believe that "labour aristocracy" is a tiny minority. He says for example: "But this factor, again, affects the standard of living not only of a minority of “aristocracy of labour” but the whole of the working class of the industrial countries." (the WHOLE? really?) So basically he endorses Lenin's concept of labour aristocracy. The only thin difference is that he believes that it's not a minority but a majority. Therefore if you want to criticize Lenin's concept of labour aristocracy you will have to find a better paper. I found one some times ago explaining that there is no labour aristocracy at all, much more interesting than Cliff's paper. You should find it and quote it, since that's what you do the best. Then you should try to understand it.

Quote:

You really want to do this again? Have you read volume II of Capital yet? It's the background reading for this debate.

No it's volume I. It's the basis.

Quote:

You might want to start by actually answering the question of mine that you quoted. How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism?

How? But how did it occur BEFORE capitalism? Do you really believe that there was no expansion before capitalism?

Quote:

Cliff says that Lenin was wrong to believe that "labour aristocracy" is a tiny minority. He says for example: "But this factor, again, affects the standard of living not only of a minority of “aristocracy of labour” but the whole of the working class of the industrial countries." (the WHOLE? really?) So basically he endorses Lenin's concept of labour aristocracy.

No he doesn't! How can a labour aristocracy comprise the entire working class? An aristocracy by its very nature is a minority within society. Lenin says that imperialist profits are used to bribe the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy (i.e. union leaders etc.). He describes them as 'This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy'. How can they be a stratum of the working class if they comprise the entire working class?

Quote:

Therefore if you want to criticize Lenin's concept of labour aristocracy you will have to find a better paper. I found one some times ago explaining that there is no labour aristocracy at all, much more interesting than Cliff's paper. You should find it and quote it, since that's what you do the best. Then you should try to understand it.

Link?

Quote:

No it's volume I. It's the basis.

C-M-C and M-C-M are in vol I but if we want to discuss the expanded forms of these schemas (and thus how money and capital are invested into productive capital - i.e. how C-M-C and M-C-M help expand production), you need to look at these chapters in vol II:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 2/ch01.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 2/ch02.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 2/ch03.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 2/ch04.htm

Quote:

How? But how did it occur BEFORE capitalism? Do you really believe that there was no expansion before capitalism?

Slaves and serfs still produced a surplus. Peasants had to pay their surplus as rent to the landlords.

Now answer my question and tell me how it will happen under socialism.

Quote:

No he doesn't! How can a labour aristocracy comprise the entire working class? An aristocracy by its very nature is a minority within society.

Probably, but the main idea behind the concept of "labour aristocracy" is that the bourgeoisie plunders other countries and workers (imperialism) to bribe a part of the working class. Although Tony Cliff considers that this is actually widespread in industrialized countries (which is gross in itself), he doesn't challenge seriously Lenin's plea that this is a tiny minority since workers from industrialized countries are already a minority.

Quote:

Lenin says that imperialist profits are used to bribe the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy (i.e. union leaders etc.). He describes them as 'This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy'. How can they be a stratum of the working class if they comprise the entire working class?

Only the entire working class of industrialized countries. If you want to bribe the whole working class of industrialized countries with the "crumbs" of imperialism, you have to plunder an important part of the working class from third world countries. That's why I say that this paper isn't interesting, this is just byzantinism imo.

Quote:

Link?

I don't find it anymore, maybe it was Charlie Posts's paper, but I thought it was better than that.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128

Quote:

C-M-C and M-C-M are in vol I but if we want to discuss the expanded forms of these schemas (and thus how money and capital are invested into productive capital - i.e. how C-M-C and M-C-M help expand production), you need to look at these chapters in vol II:

Yes to better understand capitalism, because that's the point of Marx's work. But we were not speaking about capitalism.

Quote:

Slaves and serfs still produced a surplus. Peasants had to pay their surplus as rent to the landlords.

Now answer my question and tell me how it will happen under socialism.

With planification of course.