Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> thpe on Wed 27 Jan 1999
<snip>
>As Barkley Rosser pointed out on this list, it doesn't at all mean that
most college teachers think of themselves as working-class, which is a
great problem. However, this gap between objective conditions and
subjective grasp of them can't be closed by mulling over one's
privilege. I want to see the gap closed, and for this purpose I think
it important not to confuse job characteristics with objective class
locations. In other words, feeling like 'middle class' doesn't make
you middle class.
Furthermore, acknowledging this fact doesn't make you blind to the
objective and subjective differences in working conditions between me
and
Paula, for instance. BTW, I'm curious as to your and Kelley's
definitions of 'middle class.'
>Yoshie
This very issue is one major reason I do not consider myself a Marxist. I don't think class is *objectively* defined strictly by your relations to the means of production -- but is also defined by your relations to work. That is, I will repeat that top the 20% of the non-capitalist population (in which from previous descriptions of your work life you are definitely not included) has more than their fair share of consumption, and more than their fair share of pleasant and empowering work.
Mike Yates came very close to the solution when he suggested equalizing up rather than down as much as possible. In the very long run this is quite possible; in anything less than the very long run there is the literal dirty work of sweeping floors and changing bed-pans and the figurative dirty work of answering phones and entering data. Until we find a way to automate all robotic or unpleasant taks out of existence either some retain a privleged relation to work, monopolizing most of the empowering and pleasant aspects of work, while others spend most of their time on the repetitous task, where not only external oppression, but the requirements of the job leave little room for control or decision making.
In short, even in a socialist society not every job could leave room for worker control over the job to the degree that Mike Yates describes (except as I said in the very long run). Thus it would only be fair that every body spend some of their time performing those function which do allow for some of this control, and that everybody do their fair share of the robotic and unpleasant jobs.
Incidentally (back to Yoshie here) the hostility to what I describe as the coordinator class is very real thing among workers. (I know you said there is no such thing as a worker. But I do not see how you can admit the existence of a class, the working class, while denying the existence of it's members -- workers.) It is quite true the college professors and teachers are not the main target of this hostility. Change the subject to lawyers, or managers if you want hear hatred.
Lastly to Charles. I'm sorry, but I do not agree that coordinators have objectively the same class interest as workers, or that we can count on their interests converging. Yes, as Doug has pointed out in the latest issue of LBO, they show no great signs of supplanting capitalists as the ruling class, and capitalists would be thrilled to do without them. But the fact is that capitalists have not figured out a way to do without coordinators, nor is their any sign that a capitalist class will ever be able to completely abrograte the control functions to themselves, nor that coordinators will be unable to extract concessions exceeding the surplus value they produce in return this control function. Thus, so long as a separate coordinator class exists, coordinators will have a class interest different from both capitalists and workers .
I think this subject is an important one. Because coordinators are most likely to end up in leadership of democratic and anti-capitalist movements (not having the same class interests as capitalists, and being more likely to have the time and skills leadership requires) this particular class analysis (if correct) exposes a class bias that could be very self defeating in any movement trying to appeal to workers. If wrong it could lead to disasterously wrong tactics. Thus it is important either way -- to develop into a concrete strategy or to expose as dangerously wrong headed.
-- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/