Carroll
> Class analysis is, first of all and directly, aimed at understanding the
> dynamic of capitalism, and secondly to determine what are the long-term
> objective interests of the various classes. (Only practice will reveal
> the extent to which any given fraction of the working class will become
> politically active.)
>
Only one disagreement with this: class analysis will not directly determine who will support you. But if it is meaningful, it will define the limits of who will oppose capitalism. That is Engels was a capitalist. (He owned factories and lived entirely on others labor rather than his own.) But, to put it mildly, he did a great deal to advance the interests of the working class. Class analysis is useless (mostly) when applied to an indidual. On the other hand we can easily predict, via class analysis that the majority of capitalists will never oppose capitalism. Class analysis can rule out trying to win socialism by trying to convicne the majority of captialist to become socialists. Don't laugh; it has been tried. I believe that at least some of the Fabian socialists in the 19th century tried to do just that.
This is why I think the anarchist analysis of a coordinator class - a class that has the same relation to the means of production as the working class, but a different relation to work is important. It identifieds a segment of the population among whom you cannot win a majority.
: Blade Blade
>
>
> Seems pretty correct-it seems the coordinator class is what is meant by middle class, which certainly have different interests than workers. What percentage of the population would you say is each class-worker, capitalist, coordinator?
>
There is a reason I avoided the term "Middle Class". Generally "middle class" is used popularly to mean anyone who is neither rich nor poor. I think it is a lost battle to try to get people to use in the narrower techinical sense. So "coordinator class" is a good substitute.
In terms of what percentage is in each class:
Coordinators in the U.S. are at most 20% of the population; probably closer to 10%. A lot of those having coordinator job titles do not in fact have coordinator responsiblities or power. For example the manager of our local "dollar" movie takes his turn sweeping floors. The most "managerial" task he does is set up job schedules - which is done by a very rigid formula leaving him almost no choice. I would say similar things are true of a lot managers in supermarkets and so forth. Similary among the techies, not all technical workers are "coordinators". Take prommers. If you do the needs analysis, design the database, or lay out the interface you have a major influence on work conditions of those using your program. A simple line programmer (and I have been suprised recently to find out how many of those there still are) is simply a code drone, and I would say definitely worker.
If coordinators are between 10% and 20% of the population than workers would vary between just under 80% and just under 90% of the population.
The remaining would be divided between capitalists, and various minor classes - such as petty capitalist, and petty producer. In practice I would say that petty capitalists class has the same objective interests as the coordinator class and that petty producer class has the same objective interests as the working class. In short the only classes who count are the capitalists, the coordinators and the workers. And only ones among whom we can (at least theortetically) win a majority are the workers. Capitalists, and coordinators may support us as individuals - and should be welcomed when they do. You can never expect to win a majority of coordinators or capitalists to support socialism.