>From: kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com, lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: reparations & exploitation
>Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:23:13 -0500
>
>At 05:45 PM 3/9/01 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>>Kelly, you are being an example of my point. It wouldn't be CAPITALIST
>>exploitation. But why could it not be patriarchal exploitation? (For
>>example.) AFter all, serfs were not capitalistically exploited. --jks
>
>
>i disagree with eric olin wright's attempts in this regard. i posted about
>this before as i recall. exploitation is different from oppression, to
>wit:
>
>Perhaps the most sophisticated recent attempt to specify a Marxist
>approach to class is the work of Erik Olin Wright (197l; 1978; 1979; 1985).
>Wright brings the traditions of analytical theory construction,
>mathematical modeling,
>and statistical analysis to bear on the project of delineating or mapping
>out the contours of the contemporary class structure. As with earlier
>Marxist critiques of structural functionalist theories of stratification,
>Wright insists that class is a relational concept. Classes are always
>defined in relation to other classes, just as the concept of parent can
>only be defined in relation to the concept of child (1985: 34). The
>Marxist concept of class is antithetical to 'gradational' concepts of class
>which differ in the degree of some attribute such as status, income, or
>education. Wright argues that a relational concept of class must be
>defined primarily in terms of the processes of exploitation and
>subordination.
>Where Wright has broken from some variants of Marxist sociology is in his
>insistence on utilizing the tools of mainstream social science: analytic
>theory construction, survey data and statistical analyses. He believes
>that a Marxist sociology can draw on survey sampling techniques and formal
>theory construction in an effort to revise Marxist theory and make it more
>adequate to the task of understanding and predicting class relations and
>the development of capitalism.
>
>Hence, Wright has used large scale surveys in order to obtain indicators
>that will help build a theory of class structure. The concept of class was
>operationalized through questions designed to identify respondents'
>locations in the class structure. These questions distinguished between
>classes on the basis of three determinants of an individual's relationship
>to the means of production: ownership of economic surplus, control over
>the physical apparatus of production, and control over workers (1978: 73;
>1979: 24). Thus, Wright operationlizes class in terms of relations to the
>ownership, control, and command of the means of production. Those who
>effectively possess all three attributes are defined as the modern
>bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Those who possess none of these
>attributes are defined as the proletariat or working class. Wright admits a
>third class, the petty bourgeoisie, who generate and control surplus,
>operate and manage their own business, but do not employ workers. The
>class structure of the contemporary United States, then, is composed of
>three main classes defined in terms of their relation to the means of
>production.
>
>However, the impetus behind much of Wright's work has been to deal with
>the 'problem' or 'embarrassment' of the middle classes: those who do not
>fit neatly into the class categories of bourgeoisie, proletariat, or petty
>bourgeoisie. In his earlier formulations, Wright argues that individuals
>who
>possess some but not all
>attributes which signify exploitative class relations do not, strictly
>speaking, form classes. Instead, they occupy 'contradictory' locations
>arrayed between the three main classes: executive managers, supervisors
>and foremen, small to medium capitalists, and semi-autonomous wage earners
>such as professionals. These contradictory class locations are
>differentiated on the basis of skill levels and Wright argues that these
>are best operationalized through questions that indicate educational
>attainment (Wright 1987: 24-29).
>
>There are two problems entailed in Wright's attempt to operationalize
>class. First, despite his protestations otherwise and his attempt to build
>a relational model of class structure, Wright's analysis is driven by
>methodological individualism and a distributional analysis of class, both
>of which are the defining features of the structural functionalist approach
>to class. This is because Wright operationlizes class by using statistical
>survey and variable modeling and this approach cannot account for the
>Marxist conception of class as a relational process. Nor can it account
>for the concept of social change, as Stolzman and Gamberg (1974) argue.
>Wright operationalizes class as an independent variable that is derived
>from an aggregation of data about individuals. But, on the Marxist theory
>of class, this operation cannot account for social phenomena, social
>relations, and social change or history (Stolzman and Gamberg 1974:
>121-122).
>Wright's operationalization of class also conforms to a distributional
>model of inequality. For example, his attempt to map the dimensions of
>exploitation along the lines of skilled and unskilled labor reveals that,
>despite his insistence on a relational conception of class, he is willing
>to discard this principle: There is no necessary relationship between
>those who are skilled and those who are not. That is, one can be skilled
>but this does not mean, at least theoretically, that one's possession of a
>skill(s) translates into a relationship of exploitation with those
>who are unskilled (i.e., skilled lawyers do not exploit
>unskilled domestic workers; professors do not exploit dental hygienists.)
>Thus, Wright's operationlization of this aspect of class depends on a
>distributive (and not a relational) model of skilled and unskilled labor.
>Wright recognizes the limitations in this aspect of his definition,
>conceding that different skill levels may well be a for of differentiation
>within classes and not between them (1985: 85, 95, 185).
>
>As Burawoy (1989) and others influenced by labor process theories (Clegg
>1994; Thompson 1989) have pointed out, a Marxist approach to the study of
>inequality and class structure seeks to understand how groups of workers
>are exploited and not merely how individuals are exploited. Bu focusing on
>distriubtional aspects of inequality, Wirght's theory cannot account for
>historical change (Carchedi 1987: 124-131). An historical analysis of
>class structure must conceptualize class in terms of relations of
>production.
>A the center of Marx's theory is a concept of exploitation that is based on
>the alienation of workers from work and thus from their control over the
>process, product, and conditions of their labor. Marx's theory is not a
>theory of inequality 'per se.' Rather, inequality of income, education, or
>skill is symptomatic of the underlying structural relations and processes
>of historical change in the development of capitalist societies
>
>
>
>(btw, yoshie, that's why ethnography and other methods of examining people
>in the context of their everyday work lives -- in the tradition of labor
>process theory which burawoy has since expanded on--is imperative. some
>call this anecdotal. it is not.)
>
>kelley
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com