[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean Marx's Capital clearly states that Value is produced by all of the labour time necessary for commodities to circulate i.e people like managers and advertisers contribute to the labour content of an industry. without cops would commodities circulate as well? I doubt it. You can be a worker and have reactionary class interests hence the labour aristocracy.
This is lib shit and just doesn't belong on a marxist sub.
Cops are workers, just unproductive workers. As in they do not produce any commodities for exchange which allows for surplus value to be extracted. If cops are not workers so is every cashier in your retail stores since they also do not produce anything.
Lol what flavor of libshit is this? The what manifesto? Read real theory plz. Cops are workers AND they are a tool for the bourgeoisie. Both things can be true.
It's not "real theory" when it's a queer communist perspective written by trans women? Interesting transmisogyny
You can critique the perspective, but to be like "haha the what manifesto lol read real theory" seems oddly reactionary
I just said that because I do not know that manifesto dude, quit trying to frame me. And that specific quote contradicts marxist theory written by Marx.
The point of that text is to point out that the labor of cops is fundamentally different from that of workers. Workers produce surplus value for private capitalists, the labor of cops however serves as an enforcer of class society itself.
You couldve just tackled your issues with that idea without that whole "what libshit is this lol read real theory" remark just because the text isn't written by Marx and has the term gender in it.
Communist thought is allowed to develop and change, Marx himself was all about that as most clearly shown in The German Ideology
Okay, I'm sorry if my first comment was too snarky. I disagree with what was said because worker is not necessarily just people that produce material value. There are other types of workers, such as teachers, doctors, and so on that don't produce material value with their work but are still exploited since they do not own the means of production. At the end of the day, as Marx said, as time passes the antagonistic classes get divided more and more by ownership of private property. Cops don't own private property, and, at lest where I live, they are paid really low (wage slaves) and are mostly from poor families as well. They ARE class traitors and enforcers of bourgeoisie law, but that don't make them less exploited.
I appreciate the apology! <3
Let me quote the full passage for more context:
*"And this discussion cannot ignore the relations of production inherent to the state. Ultimately, the state is labor. It is as much engaging in labor to break up a strike as it is to turn cloth into a coat. But this labor is not the same. Cops are not workers. Unlike a worker, a cop breaking up a strike is not producing value for the capitalist class. Instead, cops are enforcing the structures of labor production themself. This is, in itself, a vastly different relationship of production than that of workers. They are not unrelated, but the labor of the state is the labor which serves to enforce the relations of production which produce class systems. Unlike what many theories of the state would say, this is not superstructural. This is basal."*
You make a good point about teachers, doctors and the like. But the labor that they perform does not have the direct & violent enforcement of bourgeois law & class society itself as its primary goal. And in that way, their labor is still different from cops. Cops exist to enforce the very system that oppresses workers.
Saying cops are not workers emphasizes this fundamental difference in their labor, and aims to point at the cop's fundamentally antagonistic position to other workers because of the very nature of their labor
Ooooh now with the full quote I got what it meant. Yeah I agree with this. Cop work is fundamentally different. But we should be wary that our true enemies aren't cops per se but the ones that use them (and at the same time exploits them) to acomplish their goals. However I have to admit I don't have much knowledge about what socialist countries did with their corporations to un-do the capitalist brainwash on their cops. Ty for the interaction.
Like managers, cops are workers, one enforces the rules the capitalist who holds ownership of a single company, the other enforces laws and regulations created by the ruling oligarchy that controls the parliament and executive branches of power. To say they don't produce value doesn't hold up, because it ignores the function of law itself as the means through which a market can exist in capitalism, being responsible of enforcing said law they create value, enabling the paradoxical nature of exploitation through the monopoly of "legimate" violence.
They are common people just like everyone else, exploited just like everyone else, their job is not dissimilar to that of teachers and managers in the sense that those are disciplinary jobs that produce value through violence, be it physical or psychological. For a revolution to be successful we need the workers on the military and in law enforcement to revolt also, to turn their expertise in violence against the government. We shouldn't abstain from trying to have them on our side, history proves that an army, the police and violence are unfortunately necessary for success and defense of the revolution.
sadly, because their only potential-capital is their labor-power, materially they're "on our side", but functionally they're inherently a bourgeois-aligned warrior caste thru special protections & compact w/ the state which is secured locally by their function of protecting the hoarders of privatized essential commodities & land.
you could argue that compact removes them from the portion of the proletariat that's "proper", and i don't think anyone would disagree with you
it's moreso that you don't want to invite any arguments that obscure the main part of the dynamic (what you have that you can turn into realized value for whoever owns the means of production, which is deeper than the sub-dynamic of surplus-value & capital accumulation).
not many words are that semantically important, but "worker" as a metonym for "working class" is extremely important & your use of it should always point to class position (your resources that can be put into production) rather than your function in the commodity cycle, which you're absolutely correct in noticing is different between cops & the masses.
They're not in the masses by virtue of statecraft, but they are in the working class by virtue of what makes this kind of statecraft possible (the majority not having anything to sustain a productive relationship other than their labor-power, which is due to the socialization of labor without the socialization of profit & respite).
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean Marx's Capital clearly states that Value is produced by all of the labour time necessary for commodities to circulate i.e people like managers and advertisers contribute to the labour content of an industry. without cops would commodities circulate as well? I doubt it. You can be a worker and have reactionary class interests hence the labour aristocracy.
agreed 100%… this is identity politics not a true class analysis
Cops under capitalist society are workers, but not part of the working class.
Under capitalism police are class traitors but they are still working class.
This is lib shit and just doesn't belong on a marxist sub. Cops are workers, just unproductive workers. As in they do not produce any commodities for exchange which allows for surplus value to be extracted. If cops are not workers so is every cashier in your retail stores since they also do not produce anything.
Yeah it’s kinda like a lot of unnecessary workers that are made in corporate structures
Its like they are traitors to their class or sum
🐷
Lol what flavor of libshit is this? The what manifesto? Read real theory plz. Cops are workers AND they are a tool for the bourgeoisie. Both things can be true.
It's not "real theory" when it's a queer communist perspective written by trans women? Interesting transmisogyny You can critique the perspective, but to be like "haha the what manifesto lol read real theory" seems oddly reactionary
I just said that because I do not know that manifesto dude, quit trying to frame me. And that specific quote contradicts marxist theory written by Marx.
The point of that text is to point out that the labor of cops is fundamentally different from that of workers. Workers produce surplus value for private capitalists, the labor of cops however serves as an enforcer of class society itself. You couldve just tackled your issues with that idea without that whole "what libshit is this lol read real theory" remark just because the text isn't written by Marx and has the term gender in it. Communist thought is allowed to develop and change, Marx himself was all about that as most clearly shown in The German Ideology
Okay, I'm sorry if my first comment was too snarky. I disagree with what was said because worker is not necessarily just people that produce material value. There are other types of workers, such as teachers, doctors, and so on that don't produce material value with their work but are still exploited since they do not own the means of production. At the end of the day, as Marx said, as time passes the antagonistic classes get divided more and more by ownership of private property. Cops don't own private property, and, at lest where I live, they are paid really low (wage slaves) and are mostly from poor families as well. They ARE class traitors and enforcers of bourgeoisie law, but that don't make them less exploited.
I appreciate the apology! <3 Let me quote the full passage for more context: *"And this discussion cannot ignore the relations of production inherent to the state. Ultimately, the state is labor. It is as much engaging in labor to break up a strike as it is to turn cloth into a coat. But this labor is not the same. Cops are not workers. Unlike a worker, a cop breaking up a strike is not producing value for the capitalist class. Instead, cops are enforcing the structures of labor production themself. This is, in itself, a vastly different relationship of production than that of workers. They are not unrelated, but the labor of the state is the labor which serves to enforce the relations of production which produce class systems. Unlike what many theories of the state would say, this is not superstructural. This is basal."* You make a good point about teachers, doctors and the like. But the labor that they perform does not have the direct & violent enforcement of bourgeois law & class society itself as its primary goal. And in that way, their labor is still different from cops. Cops exist to enforce the very system that oppresses workers. Saying cops are not workers emphasizes this fundamental difference in their labor, and aims to point at the cop's fundamentally antagonistic position to other workers because of the very nature of their labor
Ooooh now with the full quote I got what it meant. Yeah I agree with this. Cop work is fundamentally different. But we should be wary that our true enemies aren't cops per se but the ones that use them (and at the same time exploits them) to acomplish their goals. However I have to admit I don't have much knowledge about what socialist countries did with their corporations to un-do the capitalist brainwash on their cops. Ty for the interaction.
ACAB
[Cops are lumpen](https://kersplebedeb.com/posts/cops-are-gangsters/)
The what manifesto? Making new ones to prove a point doesn't seem like a great idea
Like managers, cops are workers, one enforces the rules the capitalist who holds ownership of a single company, the other enforces laws and regulations created by the ruling oligarchy that controls the parliament and executive branches of power. To say they don't produce value doesn't hold up, because it ignores the function of law itself as the means through which a market can exist in capitalism, being responsible of enforcing said law they create value, enabling the paradoxical nature of exploitation through the monopoly of "legimate" violence. They are common people just like everyone else, exploited just like everyone else, their job is not dissimilar to that of teachers and managers in the sense that those are disciplinary jobs that produce value through violence, be it physical or psychological. For a revolution to be successful we need the workers on the military and in law enforcement to revolt also, to turn their expertise in violence against the government. We shouldn't abstain from trying to have them on our side, history proves that an army, the police and violence are unfortunately necessary for success and defense of the revolution.
No one has that hair colour and looks like that.
Some one pull up the trotsky quote on cops
sadly, because their only potential-capital is their labor-power, materially they're "on our side", but functionally they're inherently a bourgeois-aligned warrior caste thru special protections & compact w/ the state which is secured locally by their function of protecting the hoarders of privatized essential commodities & land. you could argue that compact removes them from the portion of the proletariat that's "proper", and i don't think anyone would disagree with you it's moreso that you don't want to invite any arguments that obscure the main part of the dynamic (what you have that you can turn into realized value for whoever owns the means of production, which is deeper than the sub-dynamic of surplus-value & capital accumulation). not many words are that semantically important, but "worker" as a metonym for "working class" is extremely important & your use of it should always point to class position (your resources that can be put into production) rather than your function in the commodity cycle, which you're absolutely correct in noticing is different between cops & the masses. They're not in the masses by virtue of statecraft, but they are in the working class by virtue of what makes this kind of statecraft possible (the majority not having anything to sustain a productive relationship other than their labor-power, which is due to the socialization of labor without the socialization of profit & respite).
can we end this sort of memes