>Todd Archer wrote:
>
>>Where have people been flattening out these complex groups and insisting
>>their abstraction is the one that most closely matches reality?
> In the authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian discussion.
Oops. Sorry, I meant in reference to books, articles, web-pages, etc.
>>Can you please tell me where I can find a good argument that class
>>struggle, in the abstract, is NOT, ultimately, between two classes. An
>>argument that has stood up to critique by or endorsed by "good",
>>"Marxist", thinkers.
>
>That's a good if difficult point that takes the issue a step further. I'm
>rereading Empire which is relevant here concerning the change in what
>constitutes the proletariat.
Aha! You used the "p-word"! Does that mean the "c-word" is lurking close by?
>My reservations about what sometimes appears to be a too-easy use of
>working class vs. ruling class runs along these lines: "We need to
>recognize that the very subject of labor and revolt has changed profoundly.
>The composition of the proletariat has transformed and thus our
>understanding of it must too. . . . The fact that under the category of
>proletariat we understand *all* those exploited by and subject to
>capitalist domination should not indicate that the proletariat is a
>homogenous or undifferentiated unit." (p. 52-53)
Ok, it looks like to me that you're basically arguing against something that isn't there. The thrust of your argument is that the proletariat (and, so, more than likely, are the capitalists) is not, as Empire puts it, an undifferentiated unit. I agree with this: there are "layers" and "sections" if you will of proles and capitalists.
However, when you make a statement like this:
>It <two-class model> maintains an inflexible and distorting perspective
>illusion to think of "class struggle" as a struggle between two classes -
>working class and ruling class.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you lean towards denying class by dissolving it into individual, atomized relationships in which no abstraction is allowed in the analysis. This is something of the problem I have with Empire. Stating that, within the broad categories of Proletariat and Capital, there are lots of complexly entwined sub-categories is all well and good, but so what? I asked this question of Doug and didn't really get a terribly satisfactory answer (pace, Doug!). If you're trying to organize and educate, to get people to understand what their relationship is to the power that oppresses them, overtly or not, going into each possible sub-category is self-defeating in the short run, I would say. Why not just give the basics, tell them there's alot more out there as well (while pointing them in the right direction), and then "getting down to brass tacks."
Here's a quickie from the MIA that I think helps illustrate where I'm coming from:
"In essence, capitalism has two classes - bourgeoisie and proletariat, but no society can survive if oppressed and oppressor stand opposite each other like that, and especially since the late nineteenth century, the leadership of the bourgeoisie has taken steps to sustain a "buffer" between itself and the proletariat, and to introduce into the proletariat divisions which help soften the contradictions of capitalist society."
It seems strange to me that a Marxist would seriously, despite empirical knowledge, state that there are two uniform monads opposing (Capital and Labour) each other in reality. Maybe you've run into these people, but I haven't had the experience nor heard it described.
>
>Apologies for any peevishness. I'd also defer to Gar's post on "class
>analysis."
>
>Alec
No apology needed, but don't get me started on Gar's post again. My eyes still haven't recovered from all that rolling. 8{o>
"Crosseyes Todd"
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com