In a message dated 8/13/2 3:27:29 PM, you wrote:
>>That is why I prefer the term "petty [or petit] bourgeois". These
>>folks will generally always "side" with the interests of capital.
>
>Always?
"Generally." Of course there are always inconsistencies, exceptions to the rule. Owning means of production generally stipulates being on the "side" of capital. The Russian and Chinese revolutions both seem to be good historical examples of this. The peasantry predominated, and because of their tendencies to want to control a MOP (i.e., to be petty-bourgeois), sided more with the capitalist version of democracy than proletarian rule. This is why Lenin, Mao, etc., who found themselves isolated and at the head of economically backward nations, understood the need for reliance on the petit bourgeoisie to develop the economies. Hence, "state capitalism."
>And what are the interests of capital in general, anyway?
In a word, accumulation, and the guarantee of widespread economic scarcity.
> In
>the U.S., the p.b. (e.g., independent or fadingly independent
>professionals and small-business owners) support the right wing of
>the Republican Party. They may be nationalist in their stance on
>international trade and finance issues, and opposed to the
>internationalizing aims of big capital. They may be very conservative
>on social issues, too - opposed to affirmative action and sexual
>freedom, whereas big capital can be neutral or even friendly to a
>"progressive" social agenda.
I am not saying that there are not antagonisms *within* capital; certainly there are. This will be an important factor in the downfall of capitalism. Capitalism sells the rope with which to hang it, etc.
>And what about docs in Amroviders. They're like skilled artisans of the 19th
century who were
>being sucked into the capitalist labor market.
True. This seems to me to be the reasons for heightened class antagonisms, not lessened ones. More and more people are finding themselves cut off from capital-- sort of an interesting twist after decades of this "Marx was wrong" business....
-- David
>Middle managers may feel like they've got some control over the MOP -
>and a workforce too - until they get laid off, and find themselves as
>disposable as a line worker. That had a strong influence on the
>politics of the early 1990s, and may again now, in the era of busted
>401(k)'s.