Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: Class and individuals



On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

> 
> I have been following the discussion between Lisa and Justin,
> and I basically agree with Justin. [ Perhaps this implies I 
> should withdraw my entire polemic against him re:market
> socialism. Hey ho. ]

Sure, that follows. Glad you mainly agree, though. I disagree with you
about something below.

> Lisa: "This is one way to look at a class - it has conflicts [of interest]
> within it;".
> 
> Adam: No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. You'll forgive my old Maoist backgroung creeping in here, but
the Chairman Mao was right that there are contradictions among the people
even if they are nonanatogonistic. Incidentally he was following Marx
here, who in the Preface to the Cont to the Crit. of Pol Econ remarks that
communism will mark the end of _antagonistic_ conflicts, not all conflicts.

Firstly, on an obviously individualistic level, workers compete with each
other for jobs and capitalists for businesses, just to stick to the
classes in bourgeois society. Mutatis mutandis things are similar in
feudal and slave society.

Second, there are conflicts between groups in the same class. With regard
to capitalists, that's why we get imperialistic conflicts. With regard to
workers, some are in more favored positions than others: first against
third world workers, white over black, men over women, etc.

Adam says these kinds of conflicts don't really count because in the long
run it's in the worker's interests not to compete either as individuals or
as members of groups internal to the class but to unite and fight. We can
agree that it is in their interests to do so, but we have to distinguish
between long range interests and short range interests, classwide
interests and narrower interests. It is in my interest to beat the next
guy out for a job. As a white male first world worker it is in my interest
to oppose affirmative action, keep Blacks and women down and keep the
third world poor. These are real interest. That they are short range and
partial doesn't make them less real. It's because they are real interests
that unity is so hard to get. The sad fact is that long range,
universalistic class interests do conflict with short range and partial
interests. If we don'tr see that, we are not only obtuse, we are crippled
in the practical conduct of the class struggle.



> 
> There is a subtext here, and that subtext is women's oppression.
> I think the issue is whether working class men and working class
> women have a conflict of interest.
> 
> I think not. I think working class men have an interest in fighting
> women's oppression, and that the way to get rid of women's oppression
> is to use the methods of class struggle. Concretely, this means working
> class women should not attempt to unite with middle and ruling class
> women, because it weakens the fight against womens oppression. Instead,
> they should see working class men as their ( potential ) allies.
> 
> Adam.
> 
> Adam Rose
> SWP
> Manchester
> UK
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---