Of course class doesn't explain everything.
Of course the U.S. working class is huge and complicated and unorganized.
Neither of those facts alter the reality that some people can live off the economic surplus without working, the majority has virtually no claim on the economic surplus, and there is an appreciable "middle" that has to work but gets enough surplus to be very, very comfortable, and that all three of these life-situations have profound influences on individual and group activity.
And Skocpol is wrong. "Machine politics" are dead. The only machine now operating is Big Money, a.k.a., the ruling class, the vested interests, absentee ownership.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Wojtek Sokolowski
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:05 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Class (Was ReWhy Jews Hate Republicans, Part XVIV)
>
> Justin charges, inter alia:
> > What Woj and all the other anti-class theorists miss
> > is (a) even mere objective class structure is still
> > primarily determinative of more about society than
> > anything else (and explains a lot), and (b) those
> > other factors do become effective now and then,
> > resulting in vast social mobilizations.
>
>
> Justin, I am not an anti class theorist. You know better than that. In
> fact, class features prominently in my academic work.
>
> All I am objecting to is one-size-fits-all explanations. Any concept,
> class
> including, can have a good explanatory power in one set of circumstances,
> but not necessarily in others. For example, trying to explain European
> industrialization or welfare policy without taking into account class is
> crap science, purse and simple. But class does not have such a good
> explanatory power in the US in this respect, and for good reason, as Theda
> Skocpol (_Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social
> Policy in the United States_) convincingly argued. In a nutshell, her
> argument is that machine politics and gender politics in the US cut across
> class lines, rendering class-based actions (a powerful factor in Europe)
> ineffective. I would also add race, ethnicity and religion to this mix.
>
> Another point is what is it exactly that we want to explain with the
> concept
> of class? Wages and occupational mobility? Or political preferences and
> voting patterns? It is true that class explains a lot - as you say
> (albeit
> I would rather have it expressed as an R square) - but that is a bit
> tautological, no? After all, class is defined by occupational status and
> wages.
>
> But explanatory power of class in US politics is not that great, to say
> the
> least. People who work for a living (i.e. the working class) - have a
> wide
> gamut of political opinions, voting patterns, socio-cultural preferences
> and
> so on. Even the wealthy elites are split in their political preferences.
> Even the whole concept of "working class" is awfully murky and tainted
> with
> cultural identities - a truck driving and deer hunting autoworker is
> "working class" whereas a lexus driving and coffee sipping computer
> technician is a "yuppie." This is not social science in any true sense,
> but
> identity politics of the worst kind.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk