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

hexbear

10255 readers
1 users here now

Now that the old Hexbear fork has been officially abandoned, this community will be used as a space for meta-discussion on the site itself.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They stop being working class when they become a cop. Their relationship to labor is completely altered

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

personally i for one agree with the take that they are working class, but class traitors

relationship to labor

they do not own the means of production, they perform labor for a wage, that wage is their sustenance

they are as much a wage slave as the next, the only difference is that their task is enforcing wage slavery and private property relations on the rest of us, which they do with glee

there is, in no part of this, an absolution of the moral harm cops do compared to other workers. you know, because they're traitors to their class, having sold out themselves, their families and their children for the owners' money

p.s. like what would you even want to call them instead? they're not petty bourgeois because they don't own any capital. They're just goons

[–] heggs_bayer@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

p.s. like what would you even want to call them instead? they're not petty bourgeois because they don't own any capital. They're just goons

Calling them the goon class actually sounds like a great idea.

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

i'm a member of the goon class panting

[–] blame@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

as far as I am aware at least in Marx's literature he only talks about 4 classes and the only one that comes close to describing the position police have is proletariat. It seems reasonable to call them class traitors as well because they are certainly not working in the interest of their class.

I don't know what the context of the removed comment is but it also seems reasonable to ask people to look at things objectively. If your argument is that the police aren't proletariat because it feels icky that's not a very good argument.

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

thank you for reading marx so losers like me don't have to, but yeah, like that's p. much what I think, idk what else occurred in the argument from OP tho

also imo like, otherwise what is the point of the term "class traitor"?? like, cops are the ultimate class traitors. The children of working poor who sell themselves to the service of the bourgeois state which keeps not just themselves, but their friends, their families, almost everyone they've ever met in servitude, only to perpetuate that gross exploitation themselves, daily?

cop is like the definition of class traitor, in p. much all cases (I assume idk I don't know the statistics on how poor people are going into the police but I assume like the military it's used as a way out of poverty and, yknow, people are willing to do that, at least to a point)

[–] blame@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

i think people like to think of class traitors as people like Engels who are bourgeois or petit bourgeois but work in the furtherance of the revolution in spite of their class interests. In other words it's a positive trait. But it works both ways and the traitors to the working class are way, way more numerous.

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As I see it (could be wrong):

They're the state-equivalent to private security, so they're being hired by the ownership class in a non-market, non-commodified way. They're not offering their labour up on a labour market, their "output" is barely being invested in, they're not having their wages driven down either. The way their jobs work is completely separate from the rest of the economy and the rest of the working class. I'd assume that mapping their wages to the rest of the economy bares little relation.

They are direct extensions of capital rather than being semi-independant bodies in the market.

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They're the state-equivalent to private security, so they're being hired by the ownership class in a non-market, non-commodified way.

they're human beings with survival needs who, in the absence of common means to provide for them, must debase themselves in some way to extract the necessities of life from some capital owner, somewhere

this doesn't mean their decision to do so isn't fucking evil, but like, it is what it is. Unless they're some rich failson (who would be bourgeois, or, idk, bourgeois-in-waiting?) who wants to be a cop for fun, idk, people have rent and bills and shit to pay.

The way their jobs work is completely separate from the rest of the economy and the rest of the working class

you can say this about a lot of jobs, but that doesn't mean that the people who have those jobs have the ability to produce an income without selling their employment to their employer in exchange for a wage

it's not like they can go out and be a "private" cop not working for the state, then they would just be a robber/murderer

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

you can say this about a lot of jobs,

I literally can't, that's why they're different.

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

I literally can't, that's why they're different.

I would call the whole like idk work from home office "job" people who can "work" while playing videogames all day some type of weird labor aristocracy or whatever but that doesn't change their fundamental relationship to how their labor is performed, which is ultimately at the behest of and facilitated by employment by the capitalist class

the real big difference is their ultimate, extreme treachery, but like, idk I think of the Jack London poem about scabs:

Ode To A Scab

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which He made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a waterlogged brain, and a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out. No man has a right to scab as long as there is a pool of water deep enough to drown his body in, or a rope long enough to hang his carcass with. Judas Iscariot was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his Master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab hasn't.

Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas Iscariot sold his savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British Army. The modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children, and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer, trust, or corporation

like, that's the same as a cop, but that doesn't mean they don't work for their wage ultimately to survive

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, I'm talking about labour power and labour markets in regards to cops and their employment, not just "doing stuff for people for money". They're not proletarians, specifically.

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You'll notice cops aren't getting hired based on labour output. They're not getting squeezed for labour or getting their hours extended or bringing machinery to increase their output (they buy their own machinery through the department to protect themselves or enhance how much pain they can inflict and how much privacy they can spy upon, but it's not actually a capitalist money circuit where their variable capital shrinks as all this constant capital builds up).

[–] blame@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

This kind of has echoes of the barista debate last year.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

they do not own the means of production, they perform labor for a wage, that wage is their sustenance

It's not just labor, but socially necessary labor. And you're vastly underestimating how much pigs earn. Most pigs are taking home 6-digit salaries and are guaranteed that 6-digit salary forever in the form of a pension.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They may have to work to earn a wage but their wage will always be secure and enough to keep them satisfied

[–] AmericaDelendaEst@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

so is like some oil rig worker guy, who you could also argue to be as much of a servant of capital

idk, seems like an arbitrary exclusion and more simple and personally satisfying to me at least to call them working class, but traitors to their class (but this also is individually variable bc again some rich dude deciding "hey I wanna be a cop" isn't the same as someone who otherwise needs to earn a wage to survive but then becomes a cop)

the predication of survival on the ability to earn a wage, which is only available through labor in the employ of those who own the means of production, is what determines whether a person is "working class" or not, to me

and again like idk what's wrong with calling all cops class traitors lmao