Jenny responds: But the opposed argument is that this is now no longer significant (or significant enough) within the U.S. So how come you think there's an organizable working class in this country, when so much of the left doesn't? I mean, I agree. (With the twist that I think of this as largely women, led by women, for various reasons I won't go into here.) What I I'm curious about is, what data or analysis or experience are you working from that you think others are not?
David: Apparently some of the same data you are using when you write that the working class movement largely consists of women. This is true: women and people of color, as opposed to Archie Bunker loading dock workers in wife-beaters. From what I've read, the largest section of wage-workers consists of service workers, mostly immigrants and people of color. Sorry I do not have any sources to cite off-hand, but rest assured they are out there. The notion that the U.S. has completely shifted its economic base away from wage labor and commodity production is simply state propaganda, aided on the left by liberals and Stalinist organizations like the WWP.
Jenny: Nah, by 'all or nothing' I meant when you say things like we'll have endless war unless we get our shit together as a class--I mean I think we could actually stop or slow this down or ameliorate it with our shit only half together, or less than that--given the splits in the ruling class, and other conditions.
David: Oh, I didn't say there weren't innumerable ways to ameliorate the bourgeoisie or at least temporarily slow down the imperialist drive to war. But, on an objective level, I don't see how the working class of every upcoming generation will avoid facing war unless the current modes of production, distribution, and exchange are completely uprooted. These splits in the ruling class you mention are also among the causes of war, globally, and tremendous opportunities for the working class to organize.
Jenny:
In other words, we shouldn't feel like we can't stop it unless some impossibly high preconditions are met, that leads to unwarranted hopelessness, if you look at history there is NO WAY some of the stuff we've won seemed like it could be won--the movement was so hopelessly unorganized, repressed, poorly funded, etc.
David: Again, I'm not saying that reforms can't be won. But, you can only put salt on rotten meat for so long before it becomes completely impalatable. (sp?)
But, as far as "high preconditions" are concerned, I thought that, above, you were agreeing with me that there is organizable working class movement in the U.S. Are you now saying the opposite? Is that fact that the working class would like to economically advance itself subject to "high preconditions"? I think not.
In my mind, the "impossibly high preconditions" and "hopelessness" are self-evident in the attempts of "the left" to cast their lot with the "progressive" bourgeoisie in Washington. That, to me, is the hallmark of sectarianism when it comes to solidarity with workers, despite all the best intentions in the world. Talk about outcomes that will never come to fruition!
Now on to Ian, who writes: Still addicted to classes without subjects heh Carrol? If you can't hold people responsible for consumption how can you blame them for pathologies in the mode of production, property etc. or anything else? You can't blame a class, a class is not a subject.
David: Well, in the standard, non-Marxist-left version of things, which evolved into New Left identity politics, you are correct. But from a Marxist perspective, class is not simply an abstract cultural identity to bandy about, as if one was simply genuflecting in reverance of the idea. Class, from the latter view, is a strictly objective set of characterizations which refers to one's primary mode of income-- wages, investment, owning the means of production, etc. The capitalist class is class-conscious and organizes itself around class demands, e.g. the ability to generate profit surplus from commodity production. Individual preferences mean little in a society based on accumulation, and in a capitalist society there is no reason a working-class person shouldn't be able to own an SUV just as a member of the bourgeoisie. If folks decide to boycott SUVs, there are a million and one ways the capitalists can regroup, recentering their investments elsewhere. Remember that capitalists control the media, too.
So, basically what I'm saying is that bleeding-heart semi-privileged liberals, as "subjects" can make all the teary-eyed moral condemnations they please, but it does not alter the basis of exploitation in capitalist society.
Best, David