Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:36:49 +0100 From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> Subject: M-TH: Re: Who is Working-Class? James H wrote: >In message <199803050300.QAA03038-AT-mailhost.auckland.ac.nz>, Dave >Bedggood <dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz> writes >>What's wrong with class-in-itself and class-for-itself? >>Dave >Well, I don't have the text to hand, but Hal Draper made the point that >this was a mistranslation, the original being closer to mass-in- >itself/class-for-itself. The pertinence of the point is that the process >of moving from passive to active does not leave the subject unchanged, >but reconstitutes it as a class, where, prior to that act of self- >creation, the mass of wage-workers are an atomised mass. (I think you >know where I would take this). Well we need chapter and verse here, don't we. Draper's point seems to be pure wishful thinking. People are organized by their social relations of production regardless of whether or not they're conscious of them. A class-in-itself is precisely such an objectively organized group of people, with objective social interests growing out of this. Class-for-itself is the result of the transformation brought about by understanding the processes and conditions involved in these social relationships. The laws of mechanics don't disappear -- and matter isn't turned into a disordered heap of jelly -- just because they aren't explicitly formulated and understood. Once they're understood things can be done a lot more efficiently and matter can be used for our own ends far more consciously. The line James preaches is pure voluntaristic idealism used as a cover for fatalism and scepticism in relation to the revolutionary character of the working class and the role of the revolutionary party in relation to this. Cheers, Hugh --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005