From: "Chris Wright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net> Subject: Fw: whoo-hoo!! middle class again... Re: AUT: Re: empire & globalization, was... Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:01:03 -0600 > Well, I also get a stronger resolution... but just the opposite :) > > > i find it really funny that i'm more-or-less > > predictable on this issue, tho i have to say that > > evertime this conversation comes up i get something > > out of it. of course, that something tends to be a > > stronger resolution that the middle class does not > > exist (thus my move, if noitced, that i know longer > > even argue for a mediating layer... more on this > > below). hee hee... oh well... onward! > > > > > > > After all, why should big capital take risks > > > in these areas when it > > > can let petty bourgeois take the risks > > > > the distinction between "bourgeois" and "petty > > bourgeois" is something i've never quite grasped. > > after all "pettry bourgeois" just means little > > bourgeois... that is: little capitalist. so, i've > > never figured out why little capitalists are seperated > > from big capitalists class-wise. it seems to me that > > little capitalists would be those on the low end of > > the bourgoisie proper, and not some class in and of > > itself. > > Well, I separate them for relatively simple reasons: > First, petty bourgeois refers to the fact that the exploiter cannot survive > without also working, whereas a capitalist gets by without having to work > (they may work, but as someone put it, they don't have to). The petty > bourgeois has to labor alongside the workers they employ (or they may not > even employ other workers, just working themselves to death on their own > property.) > > Second, while wealth is not totally the issue, it does play a part. The > living standards of most petty bourgeois are similar to most working class > people. As such, that impacts the extent of their privileges. To claim a > position for such people in the "ruling class" means the taqueria owner in > my neighborhood has been lumped with Bill Gates (as someone else pointed out > quite percpetively). Rather, such people clearly have access to some > privileges and a mode of functioning in relation to labor that is > exploitative, but at the same time, they can be just as squeezed, > overworked, impoverished, as almost any worker. Hence, middle class. > Hence, the contradictory attitudes of the middle class. > > > especially when you begin to consider class interests. > > that is: the interests of the little capitalist does > > not differ drastically from the big capitalists... > > only in the fact that the little capitalist wants to > > be a big capitalist, and the big capitalist wants to > > stay a big capitalist. but ultimately this means that > > they both want to be a big capitalist. > > Actually, many middle class people I know do NOT want to be big capitalists. > At least no more so than most working class people. Often, they just want > to be left alone to do their own thing, but it is very hard for them to > remain independent. Big capital squeezes them competitively in many ways, > such as the big grocery chains against small supermarkets or cafes vs. > Starbucks. And direct changes that hurt working class people can demolish > middle class elements. Layoffs in auto in the 1980's effected 3-4 people > for every layed off autoworker (that is the low end estimate.) So the small > business people have a definite interest in seeing more wealth come to > working class people in certain situations (as long as it is not their > employees, eh?) That alone shows their contradictory interests. > > > also: the little capitalist does not want to overthrow > > capitalism, but instead wants to competitavely get to > > the top, and so does not occupy the position of former > > middle classes. which means that they are certainly > > not a class by themsevles in terms of class struggle. > > Well, no one ever claimed that the middle class wants to overthrow > capitalism. The whole point is that they find themselves trapped in the > middle and will be pulled along by either one class or the other, with no > independent political course. However, the lower sections of the middle > class have more reasons to be attatched to the health and welfare of the > working class. In fact, in certain situations, the middle class can be more > hostile to big capital or at least more adversely effected as a social > layer, by crises. This had a lot to do with fascism's mass base in the > petty bourgeoisie. > > > > In fact > > > capital can fail to penetrate certain areas because > > > it cannot make what > > > people want, because working class people reject it > > > in favor of a local > > > shop. > > > > i'm not entirely sure how this would mean that > > "capital [has] fail[ed] to penetrate certain areas"... > > to me it seems pretty clear that capital is there in > > force: as (a) small capitalist(s). > I should have said "big capital", since clearly the capital-labor relation > applies here. However, I think my point stands: big capital does not find a > sufficient profit everywhere where profit can be made, and that provides > space for the middle class (so agribusiness has taken over some kinds of > farming, but many independent farmers, including those who hire laborers, > continue to exist, while corporations prefer to sell seed, manure, > equipment, etc. without being directly involved in the risks associated with > a bad harvest.) > > > > 2. We have management and politicians and > > > professionals of all sorts. Why > > > do I call these people middle class or petty > > > bourgeois? They are rarely > > > independent business owners. They are usually > > > salaried, can have horrible > > > working conditions, lousy lives, make less than many > > > workers (though I have > > > never seen a manager who makes less than the workers > > > they manage, and if it > > > happens, it is very rare), etc. But they do > > > something important, they have > > > an important place because the capitalist class, all > > > 1% of the population of > > > it, cannot rule directly. They do it through > > > intermediaries, through a > > > middle class. > > > > again, i'm not clear on how this would create an > > intermediary class. why aren't these rulers-by-proxy > > ruling class? that is: i can't see how they are > > "rulers-by-proxy", and think they represent the > > section of the bourgeoisie that does the actual > > ruling. > > Again, this term 'ruling class'. I have a real problem with that term > because I am talking about the capitalist class, not some generic 'ruling > class'. As I said before, Marx uses the term to refer in a broad sense to a > situation with multiple propertied classes sharing power. However, here we > are talking about the capitalist class. To call cops capitalists could not > be more off base. As I take your usage, ruling class becomes a hangover > from Althusser and Poulantzas, since Poulantzas, using the same logic, > identified a 'political class' separate from the capitalist class, whose > existence was predicated on 'ruling', on control of the state apparatus. > But this is a rather radical departure from Marx and reflects Poulantzas' > structuralism. > > > and before we can go on, we have to understand what is > > meant by "professional"... i assume you mean: doctors, > > lawyers and other such folks. and again: i don't see > > how these folks are not working class. the only > > argument could be one of their priviledge (if they > > have any) in the system, and we've already basically > > ruled this out as a means, by itself, to understand > > class. > > Well, as I said a while back, doctors more and more fall into the working > class, especially with the HMO-ification of healthcare. But no one > "profession" is often entirely middle class. "Profession" is a fairly > subjective term that generally refers to jobs dominated by intellectual, > rather than manual, labor with a relatively high level of education and the > appearance of (or actually) greater autonomy. Professional, in the sense I > use, includes that set of conepts, but also aims at those layers who provide > services which mediate the capital-labor relationship, such as lawyers. But > it is slang at best, and I admit that readily. Some "professionals" are > working class people. > > > now: doctors and lawyers and such who own their own > > practice, or are partners in a practice, i would say > > are capitalists (sometimes small, and, as in the case > > of lawyers who are partners in a large firm, sometimes > > big). but i can not see how merely being a doctor or a > > lawyer makes one not working class. > > Agreed, see above. > > > > The middle class is the social class > > > whose role, whose > > > existence gets determined by their relation to the > > > capital-labor relation: > > > they mediate that relation, making it indirect, > > > bureaucratic, etc. Whether > > > or not they always do that successfully or are aware > > > of doing it is > > > irrelevant. They do it. > > > > and this is what i don't see. i don't see how they are > > in a mediating position. it seems to me that they > > comprise the largest section of the ruling class, and > > their job is to do the ruling. to filter our view of > > the capital-labor relation thru the spectacle of > > bureaucracy, etc. > > Well, you just said the same thing, except that since you don't see them as > a middle class, you don't see them as mediating. Of course, I disagree with > your use of the term 'ruling class', and that is important to this > discussion. Also, their job is not just to rule: lawyers do not rule, they > mediate the relations between workers and bosses (contracts, for example), > workers and the state (criminal, civil, and marital law, for example), but > also between ALL people and the state or between capitalists. In that > sense, they really mediate. Union officials, priests, cops, judges, > managers and so on, all do the same thing. In a certan sense, they are all > bureaucrats in so far as they mediate between people and "institutions" > (representing crystallized forms of the capital-labor relation.) > > > > Now commie00 suggests that these people are part of > > > the ruling class. Aside > > > from the imprecision of this term, commie00 does not > > > reckon with Marx's > > > usage. Back in his day, Marx had to recognize that > > > the capitalist class had > > > to share power with slavholders and feudal > > > aristocracies. The term ruling > > > class or ruling classes allowed Marx to encompass a > > > group of class all > > > hostile to the oppressed, to peasants and workers. > > > Today, capitalists are > > > certainly the dominant section of the propertied > > > classes. So is ruling > > > class even a useful term? > > > > its useful precisely to point out that the job of a > > large section (i'd say the largest section) of the > > ruling class is to do the ruling. > > > > what we have to recognize here is that the internal > > relations of the ruling class are also hierarchical. > > just as the internal relations of different parts of > > the working class are hierarchical. > > > > there are those sections of the ruling class who give > > orders to those who give us orders, just as there are > > sections of the working class (such as teachers) whose > > job it is to discipline sections of the working class > > (students). > > > > on this kind of mediation, i give you harry cleaver's > > bit on it from reading capital poltically: > > > > "But what does it mean to say that capital intervenes > > as a mediating force everywhere? In the examples just > > given, we find that the mediating entity which I am > > calling capital ranges from money to the state to > > groups of workers. This raises an issue discussed in > > the Introduction which must be re-emphasized here for > > such assertions to make sense, namely, that these > > mediating entities are all moments of capital itself. > > While seeing money as capital is perhaps not difficult > > (we will deal with that in the next section), seeing > > the state, or particular segments of the working > > class, as capital is more problematic. Earlier, I > > emphasized the point that the working class is part of > > capital, is capital, just as capital is not just one > > pole but includes, is, the working class -- at least > > as long as the working class is functioning as > > labor-power, as > > long as it is working. Thus, one part of the working > > class can mediate as capital since in that role it is > > capital. For example, men mediate the relation between > > capital (industry or the state which pays the wage) > > and women in their role as housewives. Capital (K ) - > > waged men (M ) - unwaged women (W ) -- each of these > > three > > elements is a part of capital, but each plays a > > different role: capital imposes work (in exchange for > > income), men are waged workers in factory or office, > > women are unwaged workers in the home. Each of the > > elements mediates the other two in different ways. > > There is K-M-W, but there are also K-W-M and M-K-W. > > The three elements make up a totality -- a subtotality > > of capitalist society but a totality nevertheless. In > > the first case, K-M-W, men mediate capital's relation > > to their housewives by making them work to reproduce > > the men's labor-power (by cooking, washing, making > > love, etc.) and by absorbing the brunt of women's > > revolt > > against their condition. In the second case, K-W-M, > > women mediate men's relation to capital. One way is > > through shopping, in which the real equivalence of the > > money wage to the means of subsistence is made clear > > -- women have to stretch the buck, and if they do it > > poorly (given prices, etc.) they are blamed instead of > > capital. In the third case, M-K-W, capital mediates > > the relation between men and wives through marriage > > laws, birth control, and so on. Here capital appears > > as the > > state with its laws and police force. > > > > This same kind of mediation is widely used by capital > > in its division of other segments of the working > > class. Let us briefly examine two other well-known > > cases: the > > school and the use of immigrant labor. In the case of > > the school, capital may be represented by the > > administration (A ), whose problem is to organize its > > relations with two groups of workers: students (S ) > > and professors (P ). The usual hierarchical > > organization of the school places professors in the > > middle, mediating between the students and the school > > administration A-P-S. This role is at least twofold. > > The professor must receive the administration > > guidelines, rules, grading system, and such, and > > impose them on the student. On the other hand, > > teachers must absorb any student discontent with their > > "education." Sometimes, in the case of teacher strikes > > or periods of layoffs and job shortage, capital tries > > to use the students to discipline the professors: > > A-S-P. Or this may occur occasionally when students > > intervene to protect a popular teacher from dismissal. > > In general, the administration mediates the relations > > between students and professors (P-A-S ) through its > > various institutional structures, from class structure > > to the use of police. In the case of immigrant labor, > > there is the well-known attempt by capital to pit > > immigrant > > workers (I ) against local workers (L ). Employers (E > > ) try to use immigrant demands for jobs and income to > > weaken trade unions dominated by local workers > > (E-I-L ). At the same time the local wage workers are > > placed between the income demands of the immigrants > > and capital (E-L-I ). Of course, in all of this > > capital > > plays its own role -- for example, by structuring the > > relations between immigrants and local workers in both > > factory and community -- so we have L-E-I." > > > > note the use of the state-as-capital in the mediation > > between men and wimmin. same with "employers" (who > > could also easily be managers) in the last bit on > > immigrant labor. note that at no time does a middle > > class enter to do this mediation. either members of > > the working class are pressed into it (i.e. A-P-S), or > > sections of the ruling class do it directly (i.e. > > M-K-W, where K = the state). > > > > ((since cleaver makes it clear that "capital" contains > > both classes, this could all be turned around, i > > suppose... but when capital "appears" as the state. it > > seems to me the implication is that the state is a > > manifestation of the ruling-class-as-capital. but > > maybe i'm reading it wrong.)) > > > > > First, how did Marx understand who a capitalist was? > > > A capitalist seemed to > > > be an owner of capital. Of course, a capitalist > > > also existed as the human > > > embodiment of one end of an antagonistic social > > > relationship: the > > > capital-labor relation. Capital appears as > > > alienated labor power, the > > > separation of the producer from the means of > > > production, and a capitalist as > > > the person who 'alienates' that labor power from the > > > laborer, who extracts > > > surplus value in the form of commodities and > > > services (since Marx never > > > denied the ability of mental labor to produce > > > surplus value, I find Negri's > > > 'immaterial labor' immaterial.) > > > > but a lot of work was done since marx on the > > composition of the ruling class as it has changed. > > castoriadis, if i understand him correctly, even went > > so far as to argue that ownership means nothing now, > > and that the class distinction is between "order > > givers" and "order takers". > > Catoriadas, IMO, both hits an interesting point, but also partially > misunderstands Marx's notion of capitalist property or private property. > Marx uses the term in two senses: juridical private property, which > bourgeois law recognizes, and class property, that is, the property > belonging to capital as a whole, the state of property as separated from the > producers, which bourgeois law has no concept of. In that sense, capitalist > property (productive property) is always property of the entire class > internationally because it does not matter which capitalist owns it (or if a > particular, individual, juridical capitalist owns it at all), but merely > that that property exists in separation, as totally alienated from, the > producers. How else can one imagine capitalism where no capitalist class, > where no juridically-defined, individual owners of property, exists? But > what else is 'state capitalism', as some people would call it? So > Castoriadas is correct that private property in the juridically recognized > sense does not matter, but he does not go deep enough into Marx to see that > another kind of private property exists, capital as the private property of > the entire capitalist class, indifferent to any owner, but totally fixated > on the separation of the producer from the means of production. > > > this extremism seems like a mistake, since there are > > obviously still owners.* and they still have ultimate > > say. but the truth in this, i think, is we have to > > include within the ruling class those who control. > > that would be: politicians, managers, etc. > > Again, I would say I disagree with the term 'ruling class' being used in > this way. It sidesteps the problem of the capital-labor relation in favor > of an empirical approach to who 'rules', or rather, who governs. G. William > Domhoff has the same approach. Rather, the key here lies in the separation > of exploitation and domination, of the economic and the political, in > capitalist society. That fragmentation flows from the separation of > exchange from the point of production. Now, I do not think 'state > capitalism' is a very stable formation exactly because it depends on the > relative weakness or even abscence of a coherent capitalist class, a class > of owners of capital, in any given locale. However, even if several states > have no coherent capitalist class, they no less have coherent capitalist > social relations because capital operates at the world level, not upon who > owns and who does not, but on the separation of producers from the means of > producing, which forces the issue of the commodification of labor, labor > markets, exchange, etc. > > > *(the situationists sometimes reproduced this mistake, > > but, it seems to me, only skeptically... however, i > > think this mistake might be the root of the retreat > > from class some post-situs have engaged in... esp as > > they have incorporated the post-modernist mistake of > > capital-centric thinking by incorporating folks such > > as baudrillard, foucault, etc. [this is a mistake i > > think negri runs the risk of in his distinction > > between empire and multitude, which stinks of > > camatte's notion that all of humanity is proletarian > > and capital is running amuck according to its own laws > > without human agency... of course camatte is based in > > bordiga who, while useful in some ways, carries with > > him the capital-centered mistake of the leninists and > > second international "marxists"... so the mistakes > > have the same root.]) ((nice aside, eh? =P)) > > Actually, this aside is relevant, because in many ways, your approach shares > with Negri the idea that we have only two great social forces. Of course, > Negri has abandoned any notion of working class, IMO, with his term > 'multitude', and flees from the capital-labor relationship with terms like > 'mulititude' and 'empire', which really could best be grasped as populist, > republican (classical bourgeois radical circa the 16th-19th centuries) > terms. Of course, that was Spinoza's politics, so this is no mistake that > he picks up those terms. But you come perilously close to the same > approach, I think. > > > > To call cops capitalists ruling class, btw, allows > > > for the misuse of a weak > > > terminology to escape facing up to the problem of > > > the middle class. Cops do > > > not extract surplus labor from workers, meaning they > > > can't be capitalists. > > > Neither do stock traders, slumlords, politicans > > > (generally), lawyers, or > > > doctors. I would even argue that while managers > > > exist to guarantee the > > > extraction of surplus value, they don't actually > > > alienate it. We alienate > > > our own labor as a result of having to confront a > > > separate owner of the > > > means of production (not a manager.) > > > > this seems weak to me. i'm not sure it matters who > > actually does the alienating. in fact, i doubt that > > any section of the ruling or working class consciously > > alienates. alienation is just an effect of class > > relations. > > Conscious alienation is irrelevant. Relevance comes from understanding > private, capitalist property in its dual sense, which I did not make clear, > so that is my fault. That owner may or may not be an individual capitalist, > it may be the state or a modern corporate group of shareholders. > > > hrm... we ARE alienated from the means of production > > by the fact that we do not own and control them. the > > owners enact this initial alienation via being owners, > > and managers reinforce this alienation by being > > managers. > > Yes. > > > but this is not the only form of alienation: there is > > also alienation from control over our lives, which is > > enacted by politicians and managers and reinforced by > > owners. meaning: as some experiments have shown, it is > > perfectly resonable to have worker-control of > > capitalist institutions which are not owned by the > > workers. > > But alienation from our lives flows from the initial separation of producers > from the means of production. Politicians and managers do not alienate us > from our lives. The fact that in order to eat, have shelter, clothing, etc. > we have to sell our labor to someone who owns the means of producing, in > return for a sum of money which may or may not allow us to buy the products > produced by our own activity, that relationship alienates us. All the other > losses of control flow from that. Certainly, we could say that the other > forms of alienation arise in concert and form a necessary part of > maintaining that primary separation, but that only tells us that the modus > operendi of capital is 'separation', fragmentation, fetishization, > alienation. > > The totality, the completeness of our separation, of our alienation, is what > makes the working class capable of communism. Our total negation, our total > alienation, is also the source of our possibility for total revolution (a > dialectic I am sure Negri woud grouse about.) > > > as to cops, the question turns into one of > > composition. cops exist to enforce the rule of > > capitalism on us. like politicians, their job is one > > of permenent ruling (tho, they are of course much > > further down the hierarchical ladder). cops differ > > from other functionaries of the state, such as welfare > > shite-workers, because of the permanance of their > > position, and what that position is: enforcing laws. > > whereas welfare shite-workers are forced to obey laws > > in how they give out assistance, which often means > > being the bearers of bad news, they do not enforce > > laws. they merely pass on what is handed down by > > politicians and enforced by cops. > > > > so here we have another example of ruling class (in > > the form of cops) as mediator, versus working class > > (in the form of the shite-workers) as mediator. > > And I would call them both middle class. Cops mediate with the law, but > they also directly oppress. Welfare-shite workers, as you call them, > mediate the lowers ends of the labor market, especially the reserve army of > the unemployed. How much more mediatory can you get in the interests of > capital? > > > > So i suggest we rethink the idea in terms of the > > > relation to the separation > > > of the producer form the means of production, as a > > > middle class in the sense > > > of a mediating class standing between. > > > > from what i can gather, there is no mediating layer. > > either sections of the ruling class (such as > > politicians and union bureaucrats -- and hell, they > > usually send lackies to actually do the mediating) > > mediate, or we are pushed into mediating for > > ourselves. > > You can't have it both ways, comrade. In the paragraph above, you say they > mediate. Now you see no mediation. In fact, because you are dealing with a > nebulous concept of class in your use of the term 'ruling class', it makes > sense. But I think that is really the critical issue here. I see a > capitalist class that has a certain relation to the alienation of labor (in > a sense, they own dead alienated labor) that differs from the middle class > that mediates that process of accumulation and alienation. > > > what i think has happened is that whatever could have > > been called a "middle class" prior to, say, 1945 has > > been absorbed into either the ruling class (in the > > case of small capitalists) or the working class (in > > the case of doctors, lawyers, acedemics, etc. in > > general). now, these sections are still maybe the > > first choice for mediation, since together they can > > create a gray, blury, overlapping area between the two > > remaining classes (i know small business owners who > > have refused to fire anyone, have revolutionary > > interests, etc. and some doctors, lawyers, and what > > not become small business owners), but they are not a > > class, and are merely either the bottom of the ruling > > class or the top of the working class, depending. > > Your dating seems highly arbitrary. Why post-WWII? Because it makes the > student radicals of the 1960's working class? Maybe you want to point to > Negri's notion of the social worker (not Tronti or Bologne's, since they > both defend the notion of a middle class)? But even Negri argues for that > as a post-1968 process, locating it in capitalist crisis, understood as a > social and economic crisis inseparably linked. Unfortunately, Negri, in > posing a new class composition already in process, also assumes that capital > has already found its way out into Empire, that the crisis is resolved even > as it has begun. Otherwise, I am curious where you get this? If anything, > the middle class gets a massive injection of bodies in the post-WWII period > (in the US, England, etc., but earlier elsewhere), as the union bureaucracy > solidifies and grows, as the corporate bureaucracies swell to make room for > workers who have to be bought off, as Keynsian solutions massively expand > the state, etc. I have no doubt that the middle class is reconfigured, as > part of the response to the power of labor in the 1920's and 1930's. I see > no reason to believe that it ceases to exist. In that, the burden of proof > is on your argument. > > Also, I do not understand the stubborn refusal that many people have, > including people I largely agree with, that being middle class or working > class or even bourgeois, does not preclude being a communist, feminist, etc. > Political beliefs and social class have no one-to-one ratio. Everyone in > this society is alienated, fetishized, messed up. There is no sanctum > sanctorum. At best, we can say that certain social classes have > possibilities or not possibilities. The capitalist class as a class can > never escape its dependence on alienated labor, and the working class cannot > help but struggle for the end of that relationship. The middle class cannot > help but be torn between them. > > But Marxism is not a theory of individual human behaviour, it is a theory > against society. To try to sociologically or psychologically determine why > any one person in any one class choses these or those politics that seem > contradictory is like trying to map all the hay in a haystack to show its > necessary structure. Chaos theory has a point on this, in so far as > predicting the patterns of individual atoms makes no sense. But as Ilya > Prigogene points out in his book on Chaos theory in science, disorder gives > rise to order and back again. We cannot pinpoint the individual atoms > (Heisenberg is right about this, even if he is philosophically wrong), > however, those individual atoms tend to move in more predictable manners in > aggregates. We are, after all, social creatures (this is the sense in which > Marx uses the term materialism, btw, not to talk about an objective material > world existing outside us, i.e. a crude matterism like Lenin, Plekhanov, > Engels, etc., but humans as practical-critical, where practical always > includes social.) All that to say that one person's political ideas cannot > simply be reduced to their belonging to a class and that one's 'occupation' > should not be thought of as precluding a political position, even one at > odds with that occupation (though I think you said, some time back, that > certain occupations tend to make certain politics less likely, and that is > of course true.) > > > and i think it is important to understand how the > > concept of "middle class" is used as a means to > > decompose the working class. well-paid white and blue > > collar workers are told they are middle class in an > > attempt to seperate them from the rest of the class. > > they are even seperated out into suburbs and posh > > (sterile) apartment complexes. people with jobs at all > > are told they are middle class (abeit "lower middle > > class", perhaps) to seperate them from "those damn > > welfare recipiants who are stealing all of our tax > > money", etc. > > Ok, but this is not a sufficient argument. I know people who call > themselves capitalists just because they believe in capitalism. Our > understanding of class has to be fought for. We cannot sidestep a thorny > issue by saying we will just drop the concept or because the concept is > abused. > > > and from the standpoint of working class stratagy, it > > seems dangerous to me to maintain this notion since it > > can only reinforce the capitalist argument. this is > > esp true since most arguments for middle class are > > going to come down to priviledge and money. that is: > > what would make them a mediating layer? in what ways > > are they put into the middle? why do they / would they > > fight to stay there? etc. > > Again, this ignores the degree of damage the middle class can suffer. It > also ignores that some people who may not be capitalists are privileged. I > think the bigger danger comes from believing that we will have fewer enemies > than we do. This is where the idea that once we get rid of capitalism, we > won't have any opposition to really worry about. It underestimates the > problem and takes on a utopian character. It ignores the problem of civil > war, effectively, and the material human basis for attempts at capitalist > restoration (aside from the 10,000 years of shit we are trying to slough > off.) > > > and i guess i ultimately have a problem with is class > > being understood on solely economic grounds. power > > relations are also important, which marx would agree > > with i think (see his attacks on hierarchy in > > _grundrisse_). its unfortunate that marx never got to > > complete _capital_, since what he thinks might be more > > clear in his discussions on the state, etc. things > > which are only hinted at in grundrisse and a few other > > books. > > Ah, here's the rub. It isn't that I am not concerned with power relations, > hierarchy, etc. I think those are critical issues and any political > practice which is not anti-hierarchical will only reproduce the same old > shit internally and in political practice. However, the relation of the > separation of the producers from the means of producing has a complex > relationship to the fetishization of social relations that leads to these > things. The separation of doing from means of doing transforms "power to" > into "power over", as John Holloway recently expressed it. This is not an > 'economic' approach. We are not starting from surplus value or even class. > We are starting from alienated labor, the specific form (mode of existence) > of alienated labor, which gives rise to fetishized human relations, which > under capital become 'economic', 'political', 'legal', 'religious', > 'philsophical', 'artistic', 'the state', etc. Fetishization is the constant > recreation of those moments (statification, classification, commodification. > monetization, racialization, sexualization, legalization, etc..., which gets > uglier and uglier ;) in conflict with our defetishization of those relations > in practice and theory. > > Note, I use the term alienated labor, but given the way Marx uses the term > labor, we could comfortably use the term creativity. So if you put it as > alienated creativity, and you start from human beings as creative, as > constantly creating our social world dynamically, to be alienated from our > creativity is to be alienated from our very species being. In my opinion, > denying the existence of the middle class denies the depth of Marx critique > of fetishization and mediation (read the Grundrisse again, mediation is all > over it.) > > > wheeeee.... > > What he said! > > > ====> > commie00 > > Chris --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005