It's Heating Up ( is "class" in the US today a meaningful con cept for analysis and organizing?)

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 26 12:56:15 PDT 2000


We lose battles because the ruling class is stronger, in virtue of its wealth, power, and control of the material and ideal resources in society, giving it disproportionate influence in the government, thus making it the "ruling" class. (See G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? current edition).

Siding with the subordinate classes is the _defibition_ of the left: give up on class, and you have given up the left. The ruling class would like nothing better. They are certainly class conscious. Having gone to school at Princeon and Cambridge, I can tell you from first hand experience that they have no doubt about who they are. If we lose, it isn part, also, because we are not class conscious enough.

What is your proposed replacement for "class" anyway? --jks


>From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC <MikalacNS at NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: "'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com'" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: RE: It's Heating Up ( is "class" in the US today a meaningful con
>cept for analysis and organizing?)
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:25:24 -0400
>
>
>If the Democrats were a genuine class-oriented
>party, this would be less so. But unfortunately
>they are far from it, so the Repugs benefit from all
>sorts of leakage.
>-----------------------------------
>
>"class-oriented party"?
>
>reading this thread, i'm thinking that dividing the 270 million US people
>of
>2000 into neat "class-oriented" groups ("proletariat" and "capitalist"?) to
>theorize and organize a party seems academic and naive to me.
>
>when i think of the myriad ways US citizens like to think about themselves
>today, membership in a "class" is not one of them. e.g., my Black work
>associates don't think of themselves as belonging to some "class". so why
>is it that in 2000 the Left insists on it? because the Great Book said so?
>
>
>true, US politicians on the stump from time to time, but not very often,
>speak of the "middle class" or "working class" to distinguish the lowest 9
>from the upper 1 of the income or wealth deciles when they think this
>distinction temporarily is useful to win votes on bread and butter issues,
>but is it useful for academic theorizing and party organizing as a long-run
>concept?
>
>IMO, the success of the Dems and Pubs is that they don't let their thinking
>get wrapped around "class". they talk bread and butter "issues" (OK,
>viewed
>from the Far Left or Far Right, they both seem the same, but from the
>Center
>there are distinctions). the Dems and Pubs know that "class" is not a
>concept that wins votes; in fact, they know that highlighting class
>distinctions would harm their parties.
>
>so, why is "class" so important a concept to the Left after 150 years of
>losing battles over it?
>
>(OK, so Dear Old Karl is rolling over in his grave.)
>
>norm

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list