>I told you that I thought the class was made of those individuals whose alienated labour brings capital into being. This captures the relational aspect of capital and class and avoids the problem of definition where a class is simply a container in which you put all those who seem to share some feature in common. You professed not to understand this definition, and given your naive remarks about value (putting it mildly) below, I now understand why.
I profess my astonishment that you call it a definition. It merely begs the question of how do you determine which individuals' "alienated labour brings capital into being". It is a puzzle, not a definition and a cryptic puzzle at that.
What does bringing capital into being mean anyhow? Does it just mean being directly profitable to one's employer? Would a public servant or other worker in a non-profit sector qualify as working class by this "definition"? I can't tell, I don't get the impression you would see that as a fault though. An objective definition might be a nuisance to you, rather than a help.
>Tahir: The dole has therefore helped you for 19 years to avoid working for a living and therefore according to your own definition has kept you out of the class for 19 years.
Any boss in Australia can put me to work at any time. I have to solemnly declare my availability once a fortnight. So I'm clearly not free of the obligation to work for a living, there has been no interruption of that obligation, I have merely been fortunate enough to not be called on to meet the obligation. Or perhaps obnoxious enough, the host of a national TV show once called for employers to offer me a job after I appeared as a guest, but there were no takers. ;-)
Perhaps you are confusing my definition with your own pre-conceptions (I won't dignify them as a "definition".)
>But that is a crap definition of class. The reason why value is important I think is that it can help us to understand the relationship of the waged to the unwaged as a matter of class composition.
Your "definition" of class doesn't mention value.
>Tahir: Are you serious? Jesus now I have to ask you for your definition of work? You surely mean something different here. Single parents don't work? They create value for capital inter alia by working very hard to reproduce its most precious commodity, labour power. (And mostly they do also do waged work as well, but that's a separate point)
By exempted, I mean welfare recipients aren't required to directly produce surplus value for an employer in return for the right to continue to live. I think that was obvious in the context.
>but not in the more backward countries, where they are regarded as dependents/chattels of fathers or husbands. The able-bodied, who cannot work due to a lack of available jobs are also temporarily exempted, but usually grudgingly. Of course all exemptions of the working class from work are policed rigorously and always have been. Not so the ruling class.
>
>Tahir: Again the absurdity of your definition reveals itself. Those who have to work are working class,
Those who have to work for a living.
> but now according to you certain members of the class are exempted from working. If you want to insist on definitions at least come up with ones that have some functionality.
I apologise if my language was not precise enough. I'll try to do better, in the realisation that any careless phrasing will be incomprehensible to you.
>Tahir: First of all I'm not a "yank", I'm South African.
That would explain it. Apologies to the yanks.
> Secondly I'm not a backward nationalist of any type (and of all backwardnesses nationalism is the worst in my book). No I tend to think of sex as a separate category from housework, but not an unrelated one. But the role of prostitute is a very pervasive one in capitalist society and needs to be understood. If housework becomes waged, then why shouldn't sex as a service? And if it is, why shouldn't the rights of prostitutes to work in the way they choose be admitted, i.e. to become 'free' workers? Is prostitution merely convenient to capital in the wake of the breakup of families or is it somehow threatening to capital?
Prostitution commodifies sex. I doubt that capitalists would find that threatening, except for those in competition.
>Technological advances have made such a drain on available labour unnecessary, permitting women to be forced into the labour market along with men.
>
>Tahir: Please explain the last sentence to me.
See below. Its the same point, I was just repeating myself.
> Which makes it possible to reduce relative wages, as a single wage no longer has to support two people. In other words, the socially necessary cost of supporting the labourer has been reduced, so wages fall in line with Marx's theory.
>
>Tahir: Wow lucky for Marx; imagine if they had fallen another way!
>
>The value of housework has been reduced dramatically, but its still the same sort of value it always has been. Its always been essential for the ntenance of the labourer.
>
>Tahir: How has it been reduced? Whaddya mean? People don't need it as much as they did?
I see that Yoshie has done a better job than I could have, so I'll defer to her explanation.
> >I don't see how you can distinguish between class definitions and class composition. You can't just skip over the question of class definition as being 'too hard'.
>>
> >Tahir: On the contrary, I find your definition too simplistic, and since I already know it I don't need to ask anymore.
But what is the distinction between "class composition" and class definition? What do you mean by the former?
>Tahir: I've now repeated the definition above that I gave your earlier.
By too simplistic, I gather you mean not vague and ambiguous enough to suit your purposes then?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas