>"The shippers group also says they would protect the money in the
>longshoremen's 401(k) savings plans and provide training for new jobs >on
>the docks."
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64399-2002Jan4.html
>
>are those people still "proletariat"? "working class"? or are they
>"capitalists"? "bourgeoisie"? if they save their money (in a savings
>account or a 401(k)) or spend it like good consumers? or both?
Under capitalism there are basically two classes: capitalists and proletariats. The former owns the means of production (and appropriates the latters labour power), the latter does not. It's entirely possible for a member of the proletariat to join the ranks of the capitalists: that's one improvement over the Middle Ages, during which a non-noble could not, in theory at least, become a noble by dint of his own effort. The title/ascension had to be given to him by other nobles. Now, how powerful/wealthy a capitalist you are depends on how much capital you have.
>
>just wondering.
>
>maybe, as carrol says, "borderline cases make very bad class analysis"
>because any notion of class that can either be built on or destroyed by
>such "limit cases" is a fundamentally flawed notion of class. i think
>that's what we're talking about here. and here's at least one binary
>that yoshie seems to be working with -- you're either with us or >against
>us. you're prole or you're capitalist pig, working class or >bourgeoisie.
That's boiling things down a tad too bluntly, but it captures the essence of the matter at hand.
>in the club (a "member") or out. and her way of talking about it, imo,
>begs ian's questions: when are you in and when are you out?
and
>thanks. that's what i was trying to get at (in my passive-aggressive
>way ;-), and it's what yoshie (a smart person) seems to be dodging here
>in the process of way overstating her case.
It might be that, but it might also be the clearest answer she can give to a
vague question not worded by someone in the know. I'm not stating that is
the reason for her "evasiveness", just thinking out loud.
>
>admittedly, money makes money, but see my post from a minute ago on >this.
Money does not make money. You can't be given a whack of cash and then it grows of its own accord. If you're talking about interest, that's due to the ruling class' ability to demand and get, via law and custom (ie. what's seen as "normal"), more money from the debtor than it loaned him (this last could probably be worded more subtly, but it's early, and I must get ready for class).
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com