>I doubt that the complexities of class analysis can be conducted on a
>maillist -- constantly changing social relations constitute class.
If you mean they can't be discussed on a mail list if people insist on making vague assertions and refuse to discuss them, then that's one thing. Other than that, I can't see any reason they can't be discussed, in fact they have already been discussed right here on this list. Perhaps you chose not to participate, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> I
>simply post a reminder (and am indifferent to how much people mind it)
>once in a while that "middle class" and "petty bourgeoisie" are pretty
>empty cliches rather than tools of thought.
To the extent that these classifications lack any cohesive definition, they are indeed empty. The same can be said for "petty producer", since you have failed to define what you mean by it.
> If you want to know what I
>actually think about class, read the books of Ellen Meiksins Wood.
Never heard of her and I wasn't asking her. You're the only one who can tell me what you think about class. You're the one who has offered a classification which you have failed to define. But if you can't, or don't want to, define it then you shouldn't expect to get away with it as if you'd said something useful. Think of me as that annoying sod who keeps asking why your class analysis isn't wearing any clothes. ;-)
>A century ago there were large numbers of farmers, independent lawyers
>and physicians, small merchanges, independent artisans, etc in the u.s.
>and petty producers constituted a major class in the U.S.
There are still lots of people in the same category scratching out a living. Owner operators of businesses with few if any permanent employees. Maybe not so many farmers, since that has become a hugely capital intensive industry, but plenty of truck drivers, plumbers and shopkeepers etc. Same difference. Any analysis of class under capitalism still needs to be able to accommodate this phenomenon.
> They are now
>demographically trivial and not worth arguing about. What I'm concerned
>with is the habit of replacing strategic and tactical thought with
>moralistic slurs at "middle class" and "petty bourgeois."
I agree.
>There are a lot of people who would have to retire from politics (i.e.
>journalistic carping from the sidelines) if the were prevented from
>chewing on the pacifier "middle class."
They get away with it simply because there isn't any cohesive class analysis from the left. Who, as you say, waffle on about the "petty bourgeois with only the vaguest prejudices about who they mean (the people they don't like, basically.) Without a sensible class analysis there also can't be any class consciousness and hence class solidarity. Its absolutely fundamental and we can't go anywhere without it.
Therefor I get a bit exasperated by nincompoops who brush it off as pointless. They are essentially saying that class doesn't matter anymore. At some level you seem to know better, but you aren't helping matters in the least by offering empty class categories and brushing off requests for clarification.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas