>>Even by (what I regard) as the ridiculously narrow interpretation
>>of working class you have implied, I must say that the above is
>>nonsense. Arguing that "only workers can be communist" etc might be
>>paradoxical if we swallow your implied premise that the people
>>arguing it are not working class.
>
>Tahir: Bill, your verbiage is outsripping you here. There was no
>"implied premise" whatsoever. It was said straight out: the majority
>of communists, including Marx, do not come from the working class in
>any meaningful sense.
But that assertion is based on a definition of working class that is unstated. The implied premise I was referring to, is the definition which leads you to conclude that they are not working class.
> I justified this assertion, which I admitted would be
>controversial, both theoretically and empirically. It was rather a
>long post, I admit, and your attention probably wandered.
What is controversial is your definition, which your long post failed to set out. If your definition of working class holds up, your observation that it is paradoxical for them to be arguing that "only workers can be communist" etc is a justifiable one.
Essentially, my objection is that you seem to be trying to gloss over the real issue. You are treating it as settled, when I don't think it is at all.
>> But actually, I think it makes sense to argue that all those who
>>have to work for a living are all working class.
>
>Tahir: Yes, but it raises other problems to say that, which is
>exactly what I was trying to explain. The most basic example here
>will problematise your hopelessly simplistic definition, which BTW
>owes nothing to marxism or communism (everyone who works is a worker
>- wow that's a real theoretical profundity).
I reject that definition. I concur with Joanna Bujes, who suggested we distinguish on the basis of whether one has to work for one's living or not. The difference between this definition and your characterisation of it, is of course the *need* to work for a living. This is such a simple definition, I'm surprised you didn't understand it.
> Now consider a guy who hauls fruit and vegetables onto the sidewalk
>every day and scrapes by with the smal profits he makes from selling
>these. A capitalist? Sure. Someone who works? Sure. Geddit now, Bill?
No, I don't really get what you are driving at I'm afraid. But when in doubt, I just give a straight answer to rhetorical questions. No, the fruit and vege hawker is not a capitalist. (He has to work for a living.) Yes, he's someone who works. Though as you point out, that isn't definitive. But, since he needs to work for a living, is not a capitalist, he's working class.
>Tahir: I didn't set out to define working class - you can take any
>reasonable definition you like and the problem I was referring to
>will still remain.
This is not true. The problem you raised disappears if most left intellectuals turn out to be working class after all. I submit that they are.
> I think workers are those people whose alienated labour brings
>capital into being.
Why?
>This or any other definition cannot do more than give you a general
>mental model of what workers are. There remain people whose status
>with respect to the class and membership of it is variable - I gave
>examples so there is absolutely no reason for you to not know what I
>mean by this.
Yes, you gave examples. I have a rough idea what you conclude, but not how you arrive at these conclusions. I assume that those examples were selected according to some criteria. You aren't just determining class arbitrarily are you?
> If you want to shift this discussion on to the domain of semantic
>theory, make sure that you are able to cope with such a debate.
Sounds interesting, I love getting in over my head. But I don't want to shift the discussion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas