I would quibble with Wood's argument that there is a necessary incompatibility between class defined according to relationships to the mean of production and a definition based on comparisons. I think the two can merely be two different approaches to the same question, the first placing emphasis on cause, the second type of definition judging class according to symptoms.
Diagnosing class from the economic symptoms has a certain appeal, since these are often more readily apparent. There is the advantage of these being somewhat more accessible and any analysis of class which is incomprehensible to the uninitiated seems to miss the point. The snag is that we might fail to appreciate the causes, might not look below the surface. It can become a bit confusing unless we try to follow the fundamental relations which give rise to the outcomes, so any definition must tend to draw attention to this.
My real difficulty is with those who seem disinclined to look beneath the surface of a hierachical approach to class. Leading them to take an approach which treats the symptoms, rather than the disease. Those who define class according to apparent political power fall into that category, but they aren't the only ones.
I watched a bit of a doco on Edwardian class structure last night, which highlighted the rigid hierarchies between domestic household servants of the day. Some servants had such a low status they were not permitted to even communicate directly with higher level servants up the chain.
They were expected to be completely invisible to those "upstairs" of course.
It seems to me this is a useful illustration of the difference between hierarchy and class. The obsessive idea that there is some kind of "middle class" under capitalism seems as ridiculous to me as asserting that a servant close to the top of the hierarchy is somehow no longer a servant. In this conception, the top rank of an Edwardian servant troupe, the butler etc, are to be defined as a completely separate intermediate class. Not quite masters of course, but not to be considered servants either, by dint of their special privileges.
This sort of ignorant thinking seems to benefit only the ruling class. A servant is a servant, the distinction between servants in different parts of the hierarchy is petty relative to this major class barrier. The same goes for wider social class. I'm sure a few people here on this list whose status is analogous to butler will be offended when I remind them they are still merely a servant like me, but the conclusion is inescapable.
So that's a problem with the hierarchical approach to defining class. But I don't think it necessarily follows that we should neglect symptoms entirely. It may be safer, but it can appear a bit academic to ignore the things that people can see every day. The point is of course to use what people see on the surface, to get them to take an interest in what's below the surface, the causes. Rather than just ignore either aspect.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
Carrol Cox wrote:
>I have usually in posts to LBO _not_ assumed that the discussion
>proceeds within the framework of Marxist principle -- that is, whatever
>arguments I advance I assume must not presuppose the acceptance of
>Marxism. It seems to me, however, that on the subject of Class it is
>impossible (except in discussions totalling hundreds of pages) to
>proceed except on at least a nominal acceptance of Marxism. In this and
>following posts, therefore, I have no argument with those who do not at
>least _call_ themseles Marxists, because we share no principles in terms
>of which such an argument can proceed.
>
>Carrol