Chris Kromm wrote:
> This style of argument isn't very convincing. It seems like a pretty popular
> technique on this list to argue positions by saying, "you can't say that,
> because if you go down THAT road, you end up with x," x being some political
> consequence that we are all supposed to shudder in horror at. It reminds me
> of when my comrades (casually defined) used to tell me I should stop
> describing how powerful the imperialist powers are, because "if you go down
> that road, you make it sound like the working classes/anti-imperialist
> forces can never win -- it's defeatist." Well, if the imperialists are
> powerful, and defeat looks likely, to me it seems smarter to point that out,
> rather than ditch the accurate analysis because the outcome is unpalatable.
Your example is not relevant to the question of social classification, since your example deals with attempts to analyze empirical actuality -- and it is true wishful thinking has no place there. But that is not what is at issue in class analysis. Note: *All* possible classifications of anything are empirically accurate. Ther3 is no way that they can be empirically false. Consider the most ancient classification in science: water, earth, air, fire. It is 100% correct. It is also not very useful except for poetic purposes. (It was originally quite useful: it replaced a form of explanation which placed an agent's will behind each event with a form of explanation which emphasized abstract principles. Instead of "It stormed because the storm wanted to storm" or "Zeus sent the storm" we had "It stormed because the elements of fire and water were out of balance.") And surely at one time or another you played the game, Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral -- based essentially on the physics of the four elements. But that classification system, though true, led to very unfortunate consequences such as bleeding people to death to cure them. (The medical practice of bleeding was based on regulating the body's balance of "humors," a medical theory derived from the theory of the four elements.)
So when we judge a classification of peopl we must not pay attention to its mere accuracy. Of course it is probably accurate. We have to judge (1) the validity of the theory which generates it and (2) its usefulness in practice. Wright's classification does not *lead* to a rejection of marxism. It *stems from* a rejection of marxism. That does not mean that it might not be useful. Sometimes it is useful to know how the number of overweight people compares to the number of under weight people. But you have to first show the principle which makes the classification useful before you start arguing about the classification.
A big ripple was made in litcrit circles back in the '50s by Northrop Frye's *Anatomy of Criticism*. It is a wonderful book and I still make use of it in various ways. But it utterly failed of its purpose, which was to place literary criticism on a "systematic basis," the means being an elaborate classification system both of literature and of modes of criticism. Very impressive, except Frye was mistaken in believing that classification was a point of departure for anything, let alone a scientific investigation.
You have to start with a general theory of social relations, then elaborate the kind of classification system that theory calls for. (I am not concerned here with how one arrives at such a theory -- I merely want to emphasize that whatever your theory is, it is that theory that creates the classification,
not the classification that creates the theory.) So you can neither prove nor disprove a theory by classifying people. Repeat: all classifcations in themselves are always correct. (I assume that the elementary principles are observed: You don't want to classify people into [1] those who eat oranges and [2] those who wear purple shirts. It would be accurate, however, to classify all people into [1] those who eat oranges and [2] those who don't eat oranges.)
No one asks you to be a marxist. And anyone can call themselves a marxist for any reason they choose. But it is, I think, a bit silly to call oneself a marxist and adhere to a social theory that rejects what are usually considered rather fundamental marxian principles. Most of my local political comrades are not marxists -- and it never leads to quarrels. If they started calling themselves marxists, however, without changing their principles, or I started calling myself a Christian without changing mine, it would probably lead to harsh words. Basic theory is ultimately of tremendous importance, but it has to be used sensibly.
Carrol