From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:07:14 +0800


--- Message Received ---
From: Floyce White <anti_property-AT-yahoo.com>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: AUT: Historical as against ideological analysis

GREG:
Floyce I have just read your post from the refernce you sent (No Compromise With Capitalism).

There is much I agree with and some which I disagree but only a couple of things seem pertain to what has been raised in this thread so I will confine myself to these.

First we seem to be at cross purposes. When you say: "What's more, why would I want to "unite" with the radical bourgeoisie?" I believe you have misread what I have said.

1) not a radical bourgeoisie, but a radical petit bourgeoisie in transformation from independant property owners into dependant servants of capital - managers.

2) not the need to make an alliance with this class section, but an acknowledgement that such a defacto alliance existed in the past.

3) point two is an explanation of how the sectarian ideological divisions of the present left can be understood as a contradictory reflection and/or opposition to this defacto hiustorical class alliance.

4) historically this class has already transformed, the alliance is in fact dead and we need to redefine what we are about in the light of this.

Far from wanting any such alliance I believe we are forced to dispose of its ugly reminders.

When you say: "Your method of defining classes by income is fundamentally flawed, therefore, any conclusions based on this argument are unfounded."

I believe you are referencing my statement about this class becoming managers and bureacrats. In your referred post you make this statement.

"Another way to attack the self-organization of the
working class is to define classes as something other
than property classes.  In this way, capitalists can
pretend to be working-class people and can continue to
infiltrate workers' groups and prevent
self-organization.  For example, classes could be
defined by occupation.  Butcher, baker, candlestick
maker--all are forms of work, so all doers of work are
supposedly working class.  Managers, executives, and
"the bosses" are seen as "real" capitalists."

Which can be read as to count managers into the working class. I beleive you make the assumption that because I do not and that I used the expression new middle class that I must therefore be using income as a defining category.

1) Many people who are managers and bureacrats (I do not include clerks in this) are of course fairly badly paid, in some industries well below a trade's person's wage.

2) You define class relations via relations to property as I do myself amongst other things. My definition, though not stated, defines managers precisely because of their relations to the property form.

a) Managers/bureacrats are not paid for their work at all - their primary role is one of power - the rate of pay merely reflecting the market price of loyality.

b) The relationship the manager/bureacrat has to property is I grant you not direct (discounting those who are paid directly in shares). But it is clear enough that they comprise the "household" of the bourgeoisie much the same way as personal servants did in the past. They are niether exploited (like persoanl servants in the past -whom they most closely resemble) or for the most part produce or realise labour, they oversee the process of production and/or profit realisation.

c) despite this the manager/bureracrat does not hold a clear class position, they have become a dependant class, a true middle class. From our perspective in so far as they represents the interests of the bourgeoisie they are the bourgeoisie's police of production and our enemy. However, they lack the distinct class interest that their classic petit bourgeois ancestors had, they tend to exert an interest in expanding their powers, but can only do so with the connivance of their masters.

I hope this helps to clear matters up a little.

Greg


Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________






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