<p>Marx's discussed struggle had less to do with your income-position in society and more to do with how you derive income, whether through profits, wages, or rents. You bring up a fascinating issue with his analysis and the solution is all about framing. Even doctors end up selling their labor on the market (in increasingly specialized components). While the labor of a doctor is different than say a machinist, their income is <strong>fundamentally</strong> different than that of someone who owns the means of production. The 17th century putting- out system would be maybe the clearest split between the two.  Keep reading Marx! Eric Fromm has some great essays that explain the nuance in Marx's world view. Hopefully this answer helps</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-15T00:04:28.280Z
What are the names of the essays that you would recommend?
j.jerrod.taylor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-15T12:32:44.803Z
Erich Fromm - Marx's concept of man.
bdempe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-14T22:51:59.013Z
2016-09-19T05:21:12.533Z
2016-09-19T05:21:12.533Z
bdempe
<p>An interesting point to your question might be that Marx is writing before there is such a thing as a "Doctor." The AMA won't establish medical schools for almost half a century. Anyone can sell any service and personal reputation is about all the customer has to choose his care. </p>

<p>Legal, of course, set up licensing standards much earlier.  But the "professional class" about which you're asking is small to non existent when Marx wrote. </p>

<p>The shopkeeper and farmer would be the largest group I can think fitting the profile you're seeking. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-19T05:19:57.660Z
Have you heard of the term [artisan](https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/ac/artisan.htm) or [bourgeoisie](http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/bourgeoisie.aspx)?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-18T22:46:49.220Z
2016-09-18T22:46:49.220Z
Charlie
<blockquote>
  <p><em>Why wasn't this class of worker included in the Communist Manifesto
  and where do they fit in with Marx and Engel's theory?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Quoting from the Communist Manifesto:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society
  as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps,
  into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and
  Proletariat.</em>"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save
  from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They
  are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are
  reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their
  impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their
  present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint
  to place themselves at that of the proletariat."</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first passage alludes to a comment made, that the professional class did not fit the communist narrative. The second passage is the only one in the manifesto where the professional class, lumped together with other classes, is briefly mentioned and discussed, rather dismissively I would say.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-01T20:14:02.233Z
2016-10-01T20:14:02.233Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>The relationship of the proletarian to capital is that of the sale of labour power.</p>

<p>Professionals are a cultural category of people who exert intellectually, in the context of certification mechanisms.</p>

<p>As Gramsci amply points out some workers work by hand and others by mind.</p>

<p>Professionals may therefore also be wage labourers if they are paid to sell their working by mind.</p>

<p>To the extent that the additional training received by professionals both embodies past labour and allows the exertion of labour power that is compounded and requires exceptional exertion the labour power of working class professionals is complex: an hour of it is proportionally greater in the production of value than that of the standard average hour of socially necessary labour time. It would take more engineers longer to perform an hour of nursing than a nurse. It would take more nurses longer to perform an hour of engineering than an engineer. This in part is reflected in a higher price for labour in professions, through intermediating processes such as the political contest of labourers with capital regarding the specific price of their labour. </p>

<p>However, some professionals exert themselves as petite-bourgeois, selling services that they nominally control.</p>

<p>Some professionals take on management positions and end up with class relationships on the scale of class traitor (foreman style managers) through to effectively stipendiary capitalists (CEO and paid Director style managers). </p>

<p>Yet other professionals control capital, and even should they engineer or nurse on the side they are primarily engaged in controlling others labour through higher management, directorial duties, or investment. </p>

<p>In some societies professionals have sought to control capital in general without receiving personal profit, and only receiving minimal social stipends above the average worker (ie 7-10 multiples of the average wage.)  These attempts have been political, and, due to the <em>claim</em> that they portended an end to profit maximisation in capital movement, Veblen’s <em>Engineers</em>, Djilas’ <em>New Class</em> of nomenklatura, and Ehrenreich’s <em>Professional Managerial Class</em> have been considered as the possible nucleus for a post-capitalist non-socialist ruling class. All three of these theories point to use-value maximisation as the interests of this purported “class,” and Djilas almost goes so far to purport a bearer of social worth other than “exchange value,” in the form of relationships of cultural control over absolute labour time (ie the meetings will continue until morale improves). This account is weakly received in Marxism. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-22T06:56:32.283Z
2018-10-22T06:56:32.283Z
Samuel Russell
<p>I know that in the first part of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engles discuss at length the relationship between the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The former being the owners of the means of production and the latter being the working class that is engaged in a struggle against said owners.</p>

<p>However, after reading the first part of the manifesto I can't figure out where "Professionals such as doctors, layers, accountants, nurses, etc. fit into this model. While they aren't the owners of the means of production for physical goods they posses special knowledge that allows them to charge a premium for their services. As such, members of the professional class generally aren't viewed as struggling workers. </p>

<p>Why wasn't this class of worker included in the Communist Manifesto and where do they fit in with Marx and Engel's theory?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-13T17:56:41.080Z
Their theses were targeted at despondent laborers under harsh residual-claimants, so it wasn't part of the narrative that the communist manifesto was pushing.
VCG
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-13T20:52:45.260Z
You can find some discussion of the professional classes in Engel's *Anti-Dühring*. His solution was the rotation of jobs to remove the division of labour and the distinction in class, power and pay between the the proletariat and professionals.
Henry
<labor-economics><history-economic-thought><marxism>
How does the professional class fit into Marx and Engel's class struggle theory?
j.jerrod.taylor
# How does the professional class fit into Marx and Engel's class struggle theory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-13)

I know that in the first part of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engles discuss at length the relationship between the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The former being the owners of the means of production and the latter being the working class that is engaged in a struggle against said owners.

However, after reading the first part of the manifesto I can't figure out where "Professionals such as doctors, layers, accountants, nurses, etc. fit into this model. While they aren't the owners of the means of production for physical goods they posses special knowledge that allows them to charge a premium for their services. As such, members of the professional class generally aren't viewed as struggling workers.

Why wasn't this class of worker included in the Communist Manifesto and where do they fit in with Marx and Engel's theory?

**Tags:** labor-economics, history-economic-thought, marxism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Their theses were targeted at despondent laborers under harsh residual-claimants, so it wasn't part of the narrative that the communist manifesto was pushing.  
> **username_2**: You can find some discussion of the professional classes in Engel's *Anti-Dühring*. His solution was the rotation of jobs to remove the division of labour and the distinction in class, power and pay between the the proletariat and professionals.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-09-14. Score: 2

Marx's discussed struggle had less to do with your income-position in society and more to do with how you derive income, whether through profits, wages, or rents. You bring up a fascinating issue with his analysis and the solution is all about framing. Even doctors end up selling their labor on the market (in increasingly specialized components). While the labor of a doctor is different than say a machinist, their income is **fundamentally** different than that of someone who owns the means of production. The 17th century putting- out system would be maybe the clearest split between the two. Keep reading Marx! Eric Fromm has some great essays that explain the nuance in Marx's world view. Hopefully this answer helps

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What are the names of the essays that you would recommend?  
> **username_3**: Erich Fromm - Marx's concept of man.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-09-18. Score: 2

An interesting point to your question might be that Marx is writing before there is such a thing as a "Doctor." The AMA won't establish medical schools for almost half a century. Anyone can sell any service and personal reputation is about all the customer has to choose his care.

Legal, of course, set up licensing standards much earlier. But the "professional class" about which you're asking is small to non existent when Marx wrote.

The shopkeeper and farmer would be the largest group I can think fitting the profile you're seeking.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Have you heard of the term [artisan](https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/ac/artisan.htm) or [bourgeoisie](http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/bourgeoisie.aspx)?  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2016-10-01. Score: 1

> *Why wasn't this class of worker included in the Communist Manifesto
> and where do they fit in with Marx and Engel's theory?*

Quoting from the Communist Manifesto:

> *"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society
> as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps,
> into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and
> Proletariat.*"

and

> *"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save
> from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They
> are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are
> reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their
> impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their
> present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint
> to place themselves at that of the proletariat."*

The first passage alludes to a comment made, that the professional class did not fit the communist narrative. The second passage is the only one in the manifesto where the professional class, lumped together with other classes, is briefly mentioned and discussed, rather dismissively I would say.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-10-22. Score: 0

The relationship of the proletarian to capital is that of the sale of labour power.

Professionals are a cultural category of people who exert intellectually, in the context of certification mechanisms.

As Gramsci amply points out some workers work by hand and others by mind.

Professionals may therefore also be wage labourers if they are paid to sell their working by mind.

To the extent that the additional training received by professionals both embodies past labour and allows the exertion of labour power that is compounded and requires exceptional exertion the labour power of working class professionals is complex: an hour of it is proportionally greater in the production of value than that of the standard average hour of socially necessary labour time. It would take more engineers longer to perform an hour of nursing than a nurse. It would take more nurses longer to perform an hour of engineering than an engineer. This in part is reflected in a higher price for labour in professions, through intermediating processes such as the political contest of labourers with capital regarding the specific price of their labour.

However, some professionals exert themselves as petite-bourgeois, selling services that they nominally control.

Some professionals take on management positions and end up with class relationships on the scale of class traitor (foreman style managers) through to effectively stipendiary capitalists (CEO and paid Director style managers).

Yet other professionals control capital, and even should they engineer or nurse on the side they are primarily engaged in controlling others labour through higher management, directorial duties, or investment.

In some societies professionals have sought to control capital in general without receiving personal profit, and only receiving minimal social stipends above the average worker (ie 7-10 multiples of the average wage.) These attempts have been political, and, due to the *claim* that they portended an end to profit maximisation in capital movement, Veblen’s *Engineers*, Djilas’ *New Class* of nomenklatura, and Ehrenreich’s *Professional Managerial Class* have been considered as the possible nucleus for a post-capitalist non-socialist ruling class. All three of these theories point to use-value maximisation as the interests of this purported “class,” and Djilas almost goes so far to purport a bearer of social worth other than “exchange value,” in the form of relationships of cultural control over absolute labour time (ie the meetings will continue until morale improves). This account is weakly received in Marxism.


---

