If you really want to think about whether Marxist definitions of class might be useful, you ought to read some of the literature on the subject. On one account (G.A. Cohen's), class is defined by ownership and control of productive assets: those who control their own labor power but no significant productive assets are workers, for example. This leaves out the dimensions of class consciousness and organization that Marx insists on and which are emphasozed by E.P. Thompson. the problem of the "middle class"--people who seem to own some productivea ssets but not toi be either classic small producers or big capitalsits--is extensively discussed, e.g., by Eric Olin Wright. A good summary of the recent debate on classes is in Jeffrey Sitton's Recent Marxist Theory. But don;ta ssume that Marxism is naive about class: if there is one thing that that they have paid some attention to, it's that. --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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:25:57 -0400
>
>ok, now you are using language that i understand. in fact, your words
>below
>might have come straight out of a Ralph speech. however, he refers to MANY
>non-priviledged groups or "classes" rather than "A" class, although,
>understandably, he doesn't use the forbidden "C" word.
>
>if by "class struggle" the lefties in 2000 mean the "wealthy and (various)
>priviledged" (i.e., the "haves") vs. the "non-wealthy and (various)
>non-priviledged" (i.e., the "have-nots"), then i can understand them and
>vote for one of their preferred candidates like Ralph who wants to restrict
>the wealth and priviledges of various "haves".
>
>also, it seems useful to segment the US population for purposes of
>determining priviledged vs. non-privledged "classes", like female rights vs
>male rights, employed vs. unemployed, 1st income quintile vs. 5th income
>quintile, black rights vs. white rights, educated vs. uneducated, alien
>rights vs. citizen rights, etc. for political and economic analysis,
>organizing and action.
>
>it's the various marxist supra "classes" of "proleteriat" vs. "capitalist",
>"slave" vs. "master", "worker" vs. "owner", "wage value" vs. surplus
>value",
>etc. that confound me. e.g., 50% of US citizens are reputed to own company
>stock. what "class" are these mini-owners by marxist definitions?
>
>norm
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>Who did that? After that guy!
>
>My main interest in the idea stems from its role as an
>organizing principle in political argument. It's not
>a matter of referring to some non-existent sphere of
>comraderie or making academic arguments.
>
>Unrestrained private ownership of capital gives rise
>to exploitation (non-technical definition) of individuals
>in a variety of ways. An appeal to class means making a
>political issue of these modes of exploitation and their
>remedies. People are screwed as workers, ripped-off as
>consumers, frustrated as entrepreneurs, and disempowered
>as citizens, all because of the power of Capital. To me
>class is about economic justice -- those that don't enjoy
>it, because of those who limit it. Us and them; the many
>and the few. It's not about groups; it's a story with
>an unfinished ending.
>
>mbs
_________________________________________________________________________ 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.