So You're a Socialist...

[chequita guevara]

Highly paid professionals are middle class. CEOs are typically drawn from the ranks of the capitalist class, and even when they aren't, they soon join it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I agree. Highly paid prodessionals should be classified as capitalists. Just like the capitalists, the're able to gain high income, because of the current system.

.

I dont know id go that far. As Guev correctly indicates, class analysis is about relationship to production, and i (not really a marxist) would add, role in society and politics. Its not simply a question of income strata. I would simply argue that managers and professionals function as class quite distinctively from any reasonably defined working class. With respect to means of production, i think the case can be made more strongly for the distinctive role of the management class, while the professional class, though of greater importance and autonomy, is still more like the classic professional class.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont know id go that far. As Guev correctly indicates, class analysis is about relationship to production,

I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Highly paid professionals are middle class. CEOs are typically drawn from the ranks of the capitalist class, and even when they aren't, they soon join it.

I believe you are incorrect about the social origins of CEOS, who at least in the US are largely drawn from the same origins as other upper managers and upper professionals, though I dont have any data handy to prove it.

You are correct that in some sense CEOs are assimilated quickly into the capitalist class, in the sense that through Stock options and other means they typically have very large equity stakes in the companies they run (as well as large amounts of general wealth, but then thats true for other upper managers and upper professionals as well) On the other hand they are also subject to being fired, and their economic power and status is primarily dependent on their functioning as managers, not prinmarily on their ownership of capital. Think of Michael Eisner vs Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is important in ANY industry he chooses to invest in. Michael Eisner, should he leave the media complex where his management skills matter, is a figure of much less importance. Who cares if Michael Eisner invests in say, General Motors, on his own account. I would say that in terms of RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION, Michael Eisner is NOT in the same class as Warren Buffet. Doesnt matter if they happen to attend the same parties (that last is a general remark - I know you know better, Guev)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

Fortunately social thinkers since then, both Marxist and non Marxists, have investigated the nature of economic and social class.

When I want to worry about what cannonical texts say, I turn to my religion, which is obsessed with such things. When it comes to social analysis, Im not really worried that a 120 year old text, however insightful, is inadequate as a guide to contemporary realities. (leads us to the question - would Marx be a "Marxist" if he we alive today??? I rather think not - i cant see such a creative and original thinker engaged in talmudic debate about texts from a previous century - which is NOT to say he wouldnt still be a Socialist - he might well be)

[chequita guevara]

That fact that there are hierachies and stata in classes should not be seen as evidence that classes don't exist or are other than what they are. Steelworkers and burger flippers and web page coders are all workers but our relationships within society are different. Yet we are all the same in that we sell our labor-power to a capitalist in order to live.

I have to admit, class is an area on which I'm not well versed. I do recognize the problems you raise with classifying high level corporate executives as members of the capitalist class. Are they bourgeois or petit-bourgeois? I'm not sure.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
When I want to worry about what cannonical texts say,

The point wasn't slavish devotion to old books but to the methods by which Marx understood class. Anyway, the fundimentals are pretty much the same. Capitalism hasn't become something new, just more complicated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

Of course Marx DID say that class conflict is the driving force in history, and class relations are the substructure to other social relations. IIUC he meant economic class defined by means of production. He would certainly have recognize that other social groupings exist, but he would have seen as superstructure, not the true driving force in society and politics. By calling myself a non-Marxist, im indicating that while recognizing the power of a social analysis based on economic class, i am not convinced it is the essential motor of history.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That fact that there are hierachies and stata in classes should not be seen as evidence that classes don't exist or are other than what they are. Steelworkers and burger flippers and web page coders are all workers but our relationships within society are different. Yet we are all the same in that we sell our labor-power to a capitalist in order to live..

A professional EMPLOYEE is different from other employees, in that they have control over the details of their work. Arguably they are the least "proletarianized" workers on a continuum.

Independent professionals OTOH, do NOT sell their labor power, they sell services. They are really more like small capitalists, or master craftsmen. Confusion is added by the contemporary practice of corporations using individual "contractors" who in effect ARE selling their labor power, but using institutional means associated with the purchase of services.

[chequita guevara]

Just becaue something is the driving motor doesn't mean it has control. A steering wheel doesn't move the car, but it has a lot of influence on where it goes. Same with social superstructure. Engels later wrote that he and Marx put such emphasis on economics because they were argueing against people who ignored it altogether. He said they never denied other aspects of society had great importance. Unfortunately, this was in a single letter and I seem to be one of the few Marxists to have paid it much attention.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
A professional EMPLOYEE . . .

I don't think I disagree with what you write there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


. Capitalism hasn't become something new, just more complicated.

That was the original response of Marxists to the studies that showed the seperation of management and ownership. Non-Marxists were inclined to say that it HAD become something new.

Unfortunately in Academe today hardly anyone other than Marxists is interested in serious class analysis, AFAIK, so if capitalism HAS become something new, there really isnt anyone to tell us.

BTW the classic study on the separation of management and ownership was Berle and Means, 1932.

[chequita guevara]

There are the post-modernists, but I doubt either of us care what they have to say.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Socialism is rejection of the equality of man.

capitialism is in direct confrontation with true equality of men.

wealth = power
power = inequality
wealth -> inequality

economic equality must be realized before any true notion of equality can be realized.

the son of a major CEO has a far greater chance to succeed in society than the son of a janitor. people are being born into their classes. it's still a feudal caste system, albiet more mobile.

the rich always seem to get off when they get in legal trouble, except for a few token cases to make us feel we're all ok. martha stewart got taken down for selling stock with some insider information. how many people did she hurt? the enron executives GOT OFF for the same thing AND MORE, and screwed thousands of hard working people out of their money.

this is gettinf fragmented, so i will stop.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


A professional EMPLOYEE is different from other employees, in that they have control over the details of their work. Arguably they are the least "proletarianized" workers on a continuum.

Independent professionals OTOH, do NOT sell their labor power, they sell services. They are really more like small capitalists, or master craftsmen. Confusion is added by the contemporary practice of corporations using individual "contractors" who in effect ARE selling their labor power, but using institutional means associated with the purchase of services.

Even if they are employees, not independent contractors, as you say, they are able to negotiate control over their work and pay. That significantly seperates them from the working class.

In this day and age knowledge capital works the same as tangable and financial capital. UberKrux put it corectly, wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth.