At 12:23 PM 1/27/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Frances + Kelley:
Sitting in a tree?
oh yeah Frances baby!!!
(i was crossing my fingers when I typed that)
>The fact of teaching doesn't make you working-class or middle-class or any
>particular class. You can be, for instance, wife of a bourgeois
>fundamentalist and teach your kids and fellow fundamentalists' kids _for
>free_ to promote home schooling. Since no wage labor is involved in this
>example, your class location isn't determined by your teaching, which is an
>avocation supported by your husband's wealth.
Say what? you mean to say that this babe has no relation to the means of production? You mean to say that when someone is 'outside' of the wage labor system, then they have no objective relationship means of production?
Yeeeow Yoshi. High Five. That's how I'm gonna escape the vagaries of capitalism, ideology, consciousness (in or for), etc: become a full fledged card carrying wife.
And hey, say, I guess I'm just going to have to stop flirting with you because you've been flouting my attentions and haven't been trying to get to know me in the least have you? Well, looks like I won't be typing up any more luscious posts for your delight.
Anyway, you can find the answer to this question in the Manifest, The German Ideology, 18th Brumaire. MarxyMarx and his Funky Bud had it fairly well laid out. Angela (My Queen) also pointed you to a specific passage
You can be a _self-employed_
>tutor who caters to rich kids; in that case, you are petit-bourgeois. I
>teach for wages, nor for free, and I'm not self-employed; nor am I a small
>capitalist who teaches kids for fees while also employing other teachers. I
>don't live on investment income. So that makes me working-class. Simple as
>that.
No, no, no sweetie you'd be what MarxyMarx&His Funky Bud called intellectuals or ideologists (part of the bourgeoisie) who they also lumped in with capitalist investors and rentiers who owned the land and/or machinery (19th Brumaire)
As I said before, if you want to study the actually existing reality of the world we live in, we need more refined concepts than worker v. not or whatever you wanna call them. M&E knew this and they weren't afraid to deploy these concepts now were they? They saw them as useful to understanding how conflict broke out within a class. And why was that Yoshie? Yes, that's right consult oh say the Manifesto and right there is that simple little tract they deploy these distinctions because when this sort of conflict breaks out these 'factions' start taking sides during moments of what habermas called 'legitimation crises' Now, since a proletarian revolution req'd that the majority (and not just a small class minority) revolted agaisnt capitalism then this was important: delineating the conditions under which fractions of the ruling class or bourgeoisie started to see themselves as aligned w/ workers. See, we here on this least are mostly a faction of the ruling class or bourgeoisie insofar as many of contribution to the production of ideology (or try our damndest not too) See the 18th Brumaire again
Now, again as I said before, when M&E started talking about or predicting what was going to happen, then they start deploying this binary of prole/bourg and very nearly go ballistically Hegelian on us if it weren't for their insistence on praxis, etc.
Oh and here, I'll post my 'rationalization' post again in case you decide I'm starting to get you a little hot n bothered and want to get to know me better.