>>> kwalker2 at gte.net 09/15/00 04:30PM >>>
>
>
>CB: Makes a lot of sense to me. The dialectics of the alienation and
>reification of skill.
yeah, but chuck's focus was, intially, the luser not the employee. and that's where the problem lies in his analysis because to take it seriously we'd all have to start baking our own bread and sewing our own cloths and pounding our laundry on rocks by the river. and, if not that extreme, then chuck would expect us all to want to know and care about every technological thing we use: cars, microwaves, lights, televisions, phones, vcrs, answering machines. and that is a little bit dippy because chaz baby, then we wouldn't have time to advance free love as the corollary part of the coming revo! :)
(((((((((((((
CB: My bad. I hadn't realized all that was entailed in what he said. Could he be sort of half right ?
)))))))))))) more seriously, look at in the context of the legal profession. is the answer to clients' ignorance about the law, to take it all into their own hands so they understand the law and be able to use it to their own advantage? will they then have control over it? more freedom?
((((((((((
CB: Gotta think about it. I do think some of that could occur. But I think the law is part of the state apparatus ultimately, so perhaps similarly to your critique above, I don't see our main method as easing our way up on abolishing the state and having a revolution by massive legal self-help.
I do think it would be good if every class conscious worker ( material or immaterial) could take on the lawyerly intellectual style of being responsible for figuring out or understanding big problems , and acting decisively to solve them. Every party member should , in theory, be able to step up and lead. The kind of meglomanicial /take charge confidence and boldness that lawyers have too much ( workerly criticized and reworked , of course) would help in knocking the bourgeoisie on their asses.