File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0106, message 489


From: "dannylambert" <danlambert-AT-sniffout.com>
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Class; class; class.
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:13:26 -0000



----- Original Message -----
From: commie00 <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:10 AM
Subject: AUT: Re: Class; class; class.

Hi commie00
You're in trouble, you've made me get down my Oxford English'! :-)

> danny said:
>
> Anyway if you're employed, and you rely on wages you are objectively
working
> class no matter what the work, or who you identify with.
>
> i say:
>
> this neglects a large part of the unpaid / unwaged proletariat, like
> students, homemakers, the unemployed, etc.
>

Proletariat, def, wage earners, those without capital and dependent on
selling their labour. And students are wage slaves undergoing training.
Homemakers are in the "business" of maintaining the present, and producing
capitalism' next generation of wage slaves. The unemployed are the reserve
army of labour that help to keep the price of labour down.

> tho, i don't like this word "objectively" since i'm not sure that we can
be
> objectively sure of anything.

Objective, def, external to the mind; actualy existing; real. Dealing with
outward things or exibibiting facts uncoloured by feelings or opinions; not
subjective. As I would say without prejudice (prejudgment). Like "I depend
on wages, therefore I am working class".
>
> plus this analysis leaves out the question of power. thus...
>
> danny said:
>
> The local "ruling class" as you describe them are no more than paid
lackeys,
> the capitalist class is the capitalist class they don't work, the workers
> are employed (used) to do that.
>
> i say:
>
> ...you end up with the absurd notion that the local ruling class (local
gov
> officials, the police, small business owners, etc.), who have direct
control
> over the lives of working class people, are somehow part of the working
> class. they are the "risk takers, supervisors and directors" (marx's
> definition of the ruling class from the 6th chapter of capital) on a local
> level. just because they exist on the relative bottom end of the
> international ruling class does not mean they are not ruling class.
> it is important to realize that large sections of the ruling class DO work
> as supervisors and directors.

Commie, this strikes me as confused, like how small is the business? Police,
supervisors, risk takers and directors are in exactly the same economic
relationship as the rest of the working class, in that they jump to the tune
the ruling class has played for a wage. Just because they receive higher
wages alters nowt.

Yours for freedom
Danny.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---






     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005