"Capital must expand, but conditions change and with them come new contradictions for capital and capitalism. It is up to us, then, to evaluate the forces that come to play on profit rates. Rising OCC is still a factor, but it's only one. Look around you. It is obvious that surplus value is created in different ways today, and even more obvious, it is realized in many different ways (appears in many different forms) compared to more than a century ago. Taxes and government, the growth of unproductive labor, whole unproductive industries, etc. And notice, I haven't even mentioned the class struggle (and neither did Marx much in the 3 volumes), and the effect of *that* on the laws of motion."
so, i'm not quite clear as to why no one is making the connection or recognizes that the above is a very abstract statement for why we need to look at the issues discussed here.
chris writes:
> I appreciate kelley et al's criticism of that
>approach -- which to me don't make it wrong, just one-sided) describes
>reality pretty well.
i'd really recommend a read of Stolzman & Gamberg's "Marxist Class Analysis v Stratification Analysis." Berkley Journal of Sociology (18). a recommend for everyone, in fact. mine was a methodological critique about theories of inequality [as opposed to stratification], so limited and specific to my concerns. dissertation wanking!
i'm trying to develop a model of class analysis that uses ethnography, but to make generalizable claims about social structure [but not by erasing individuals] by using critical methodologies [as opposed method] show us how to bridge the chasm between agency and structure, micro and macro, self and society. it's a method that seeks to delineate what Mills argued was the fundamental task of sociology: it "enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society." [the relationship b/t character and culture, self and society iow]
my argument is that most statistical procedures are *not* capable of analyzing class as a social structural phenomenon. they can only tell us about individuals and their characteristics, opinions, preferences. it does not tell us how classes "act" or about the nature of class antagonism, alliances, etc. [which is what is important for FROPdiscussion]
however, there is an approach called *mathematical modeling* which is quite different from std statistical research. here, i think statistics can be used to theorize class as a social structural phenomena that ha *generative properties*. [which is why, Carrol, you are wrong to think that classes are not entities that take on a life of their own; again, see Bhaskar on this.].otherwise, any research that claims to be saying something about "classes" that uses conventional stats in order to engage in correlational analysis of variables is not class analysis. As Wilson (1987: p 279) argues:
"Mathematics cannot play the same role as a vehicle for
expressing fundamental concepts and propositions in the
social sciences as it does in the natural sciences. The
reason for this is that the basic data of social sciences,
descriptions of social phenomena, are inherently intensional
in character: the social sciences cannot insist on extensional
description without abandoning their phenomena; rather,
that mathematics play a heuristic rather than a fundamental
role in the study of social phenomena"
What's new about his work, Wright says, is that it accounts for the embarrassment of the middle classes: "Why does the middle class fail to see itself as part of the proletariat?" [The failure of FROP is hinting at this as a problem too] He cannot provide a relational model of class development, transformation, conflict because his model is *not* based on social structural phenomena, but on individual phenomena: survey data are data about individuals who have no necessary relation to one another, by definition. So, the only thing that is really new is worthless which leaves us right back where marx was, since Marx deployed different categories to analyze historical class conflict recognizing various factions which, to use Wright's language, occupied contradictory class locations--he was most intrigued with the role of intellectuals.
But i'm arguing that labor process theories are a better approach [inspired by Braverman, Burawoy and other labor process theorists . oh and Chris, have you read Wright's debates with Burawoy, they're quite good. i might be mis-remember but i think B and W went to school together and are great pals. B invited W to Berkeley for a semester where they seemed to have some fairly excellent debates recounted in Wright's _The Debate on Classes_. Roemer and other analytic Marxists in this anthology as well. Like Justin, I was bitten by EP Thompson and affiliated work in the cultural studies tradition [Birmingham School] as well as what Mike picked up on, the labor process tradition of theory/research.
>In other words, dismissing Wright because his analysis does damage to
>traditional views (or even "writes off" such views -- which he doesn't) of
>the working class doesn't prove your point. He *intends* to do such damage.
>The question is, is he right? And if not, marshall the evidence, or at least
>a tenable alternative.
I'm working on it dude!