> I haven't had the time to study the ParEcon model in-depth,
> but what I do find fascinating is your analysis of what you
> deem to be a failure of classical Marxism: the unacknowledged
> existence of a Coordinator Class between Labor and Capital.
Yes...
> I think this is a useful insight for a lot of reasons, not
> least of which is my suspicion that the majority of people
> today who are able to occupy the position of "activist,"
> whether professional as an NGO or trade-union staffer or
> simply people who tend to have a lot of time on their hands
> to attend meetings, are members of this coordinator layer of society.
Or they aspire to be, or they may not -- but they have commonalities with it...in the past and present -- yes.
> Someone on this list has already asked you about what they
> perceive as the difficulties in avoiding the preponderance of
> this social layer in a post-revolutionary society.
Yes...
> More interesting to me is how exactly you would define this
> social layer. There are of course obvious examples of
> specialized mental labor like managers, etc. But it seems to
> me there is a certain muddiness to the concept.
There is.
Every category that in essence divides a mass into two masses, will be muddy. Chair and not chair...red and not red...coordinator class and not...
It is inevitable, and generally more so with social ones.
> Is the defining characteristic that "working-class" labor is
> rote, whereas "coordinator" labor is by it's nature creative
> and fulfilling?
No -- that tends to be the case -- but the real issue which seems to best capture what we have in mind is empowerment effects I think. Does work leave you liable to obey, and doing so, or liable to take charge, and doing so...so to speak.
> In this case, a lot of occupations which I
> would otherwise consider naturally suited to the coordinator
> class analysis, such as teachers or social workers, might not
> belong, owing to the fact that such labor is often deeply
> alienating and the individuals who perform such labor powerless.
Teaching -- public schook -- and social workers are in that intermediate place, largely. Aspects of both -- but I would say more working class...
Yet, they can identify upward, and that can be a big impediment to their becoming radical, much less revolutionary...to be sure.
> Is the defining characteristic mental labor vs. manual labor?
Again...no, though -- at least in my way of thinking about it -- though again, this will tend to be at least in part a factor -- the issue is power, being empowerd, or not which can arise from diverse factors.
You do more mental labor being a theoretical physicist -- but it isn't particiularly empowering vis a vis economic decisions and impact...compared to, say, being a manager, which is far less mental labor.
> In this case, where does this leave contemporary computer
> programmers who often have to work with pre-existing software
> modules, sit in a cubicle, take orders, etc. The labor is
> mental rather than manual, but it has a rote, uncreative
> quality often associated with factory line-work.
Many variables, and the question is the empowerment effects on the worker -- and quality of life effects if those are balanced too.
> Is the issue a monopoly of certain knowledge? If so, where
> does that leave "skilled" workers (for example, electricians
> in an autoplant).
It is largely -- not exclusively, a monopoly over access to daily decision making and skills and knowledge that bear on decision making.
> I think the coordinator class concept a potentially powerful
> analytical tool, provided it is relatively easy to define.
> I'm already with you 9/10ths of the way when you say that
> Marxism is probably the ideological expression of this
> Coordinator Class, assuming we mean that this class, by its
> position in the production process, is often moved to
> anti-capitalist politics, but in an elitist and potentially
> authoritarian manner.
Yes, in a manner that preserves what can reasonably be called a corporate division of labor -- a class hierarchy with themselves on top.
> I suppose from a "classical" Marxist position, I would define
> the difference between a "Coordinator" and a "Worker" so: a
> worker sells his ability to labor (in the abstract) for a
> certain period of time, while a coordinator is essentially
> selling access to their specialized knowledge.
It is shoehorning -- sometimes the coordinator is not selling labor power -- but the doing of a task...other times he or she is selling labor power, but it is skilled or informed labor, yes.
> I think this is a very important question. I think the
> question of the "working-class" is all too often a "moral"
> one for much of the Left. That is to say, many left
> activists pick a definition of the "working-class" which best
> suits their own position in society, either as a means of
> acquiring legitimacy or as a means coping with the guilt of
> being, say, a white-collar employee.
Perhaps...
> My experience here in Germany is that the current core of the
> "movement" is comprised of primarily this coordinator layer:
> intellectuals, students, white-collar employees, writers,
> artists, etc.
These are not all IN the coordinator class -- they may just be aspiring, or mimicing it, or at the edge, etc. -- but yes...
> But when pressed about the problematic of trying to formulate
> an anti-capitalist politics in the interest of the
> working-class in the absence of an actual mass movement of
> the working-class, these individuals are always quick to say
> something like, "well, I get a paycheck for a living. I'm a
> worker as well."
Yes, but I also happen to have control over my work situation and that of lots of workers below me -- or I define the enivoronment they endure, etc.
> Case in point: an acquaintance of mine who
> is a Computer Science student, who refers to the degraded
> nature of programming work today as evidence of his
> "proletarian" status.
It can be...but it isn't always...
> Eagerly waiting for your response.
Hope it helped a little. I recommend a South End Press book edited by Pat Walker, Between Labor and Capital -- and another by a guy named Don stabile, that may be out of print...as good reads on related matters.