> > All workers, coordinator or not, want to be seen in this light.
>
>I should have been clearer. Because coordinators have greater control >of
>their own circumstances and the circumstances of others they can >become
>indispensable - a choice workers do not have.
This still doesn't serve to illustrate that your coordinator class is somehow seperate from both capital and labour, with its own agenda. While coordinators might have this greater control you talk about, relative to "front line" workers, that doesn't give them a greater chance at "indispensibility." Any worker, coordinator or not, can be considered "indispensible" by the owner(s) or board of directors for doing an exemplary job, not making trouble, doing even more work than they're expected or paid to do, etc. But, in times of crisis, they could easily be let go, through no fault of their own (other than being workers, and, thus, disposable). Again, the mass layoffs of middle-management types we've seen in the past illustrate, I think, just how "indispensible" coordinators are.
> > How do they differ from the rest of the working class? They both
>contribute
> > surplus value (pace Wojtek), both are paid a wage, and neither owns >the
> > means of production.
>
>They have more control over their lives and the lives of other >workers.
>They have a monopoly on the pleasant and empowering tasks.
I've known several managerial types, full-timers for variously sized businesses, even worked closely with one or two, and, while they definitely got lots of perks that didn't involve pay and they did get paid more than I did, they worked much harder, longer hours, and sometimes, at more distasteful jobs than most workers. "Pleasant and empowering tasks" don't make them a seperate class, assuming these tasks exist for them as a group. The impression I got was that they got paid "big bucks" for doing, basically, anything that came along that would inhibit production. If a worker's sick, the manager would either have to set aside his own assigned tasks to either find a replacement or do the job himself. I suspect managers, as representatives of your cooridinator class, get screwed for surplus value even worse than an average line worker, despite higher salaries and perks. Marx did say something about this involving "cages with bars of gold."
> > If you base your class analysis on "work", then where does it end? Every
> > type of new job created requires a revamping of the analysis.
>
>
>Not true. Does every new type of production machine require a >revamping of
>the Marxist theory of the working class? The fundamentals remain >the same.
Yes, they remain the same because Marx' theories didn't dwell, in the final analysis, on technology. His work was all about relationships, broadly speaking.
>I suspect that Kelley , if she wanted to and was able to make the >time,
>could tell you some stories about the relations between workers and
>coordinators that would illustrate my point.
So can I, but it still doesn't mean that coordinators are a seperate class.
It could be I'm not getting what you're saying because of my own limitations. Carrol's comments helped me, but how about someone else tossing in their two cents worth. I doubt very much that what you say, Gar, is the case, but I could be wrong. Will someone else contribute some more critique?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com