"This is a vastly different relationship of production than that of workers.", too. It would read better as, "This is a vastly different relationship WITH production than that of workers."

Might just be someone whose second language is English?

When I clock in at work, my labor directly generates profit - I do a task, company gets money for it.

A cop breaking up a strike is defending the system. The cop is not directly employed by a private parent company (usually). Unless the company is being directly paid by a customer, directly for this cop’s action, and the cop is directly paid a wage by said company, the relationship is different.

There is parallel benefit between cops and capitalists, but one does not have direct authority over the other.

Wording here is terrible. But in the end so is the message. This is some tanki slop

The cops are workers in the sense that they are disenfranchised from benefiting from the use of their time. To say that they do not create value in the same way a wage worker does befuddles the damning reality of the laborers loss in benefiting from the value they have created.

Cops absolutely create value to a capital society. Just not to the working class. But they damn sure don't benefit from the value they have created.

Also, fuck the police.

not in a Marxist sens. Classical marxists analyze work in order to make the workers the liberation class. Those definition to got some value that workers could take from capitalists.

In that sens, cops are needed for the expropriation of value from workers, not the production of value. So workers could keep this value for themselves if they have no cops.

This definition is operational in a lot of work situation, however it do have some flaws. As pointed out, it's mean that workers in the public sector to do not suffer from exploitation, that reproductive work is not work, or informal work (like drug dealing or sex work) is not work too. This last example show what those flaws let class disdain could hijack it.

I see 3 possibilities :

• this definition is true, but incomplete
• this definition is tree, but their is other form of work we have to take in consideration (maybe boss exploitation is not the same than domestic exploitation)
• this definition is wrong

• cops do not prevent crime : they'd rather let the crime happen to make an arrestation in order to have good stats. Futhermore arresting someone actually de-socialized them, leading to precarity, leading to criminality.
• cops do no protect You may trie to fill a case against your boss of against sexual violence. A lot of time, it will not help. When it does, it to try to know what are the victims need, and isolate them from their social network
• the function of police is not to fight crime Foucault 101 there. In short : criminality exists because of its interdiction. Immoral or dangerous things could legal, moral or healthy things could be illegal. Criminality exists because Police exists, and they both have a social function : keep the social order in place. That's why law focus on things poor people do and not what powerful people are doing

If you point is : "some things done by individual could not be tolerated", we agree. However punishment do not stop this thing to happen, and those things could be done by cops, magistrate or powerful people too. restorative justice an stuff