kelley wrote:
> obviously not if you think that unionization should be denied a group of
> workers on the basis of their location in relation to the means of
> production, in this case in their role as armed agents of the state.
Fundamental understanding of class is one thing, and it is vital. And in all discussions of class I have always asserted at some point the qualification that "Hard Cases Make Bad Law." That is, it is silly and intellectually exhausting to argue endlessly over borderline cases, which always exist in actuality.
The personnel for the repressive power of the state is recruited for the most part from within the working class. Those so recruited are declassed. The mostly useless classification of "lumpen proletariat" might be refurbished to describe such declassed elements. If you want to mess about endlessly on the margins, you could say that social workers or teachers who operate as though they were cops are scabs. I don't care. It is simply obscurantism to mix questions that are analytically separate. And concrete political analysis goes on within the framework provided by class analysis, but the latter does not translate directly into the former.
Geez!
Carrol