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