Messages in this set:
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: working class?
* Re: [lbo-talk] RE: working class?
=== Message 1: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: working cla ========================
At around 17/10/05 8:30 pm, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> At 10:21 AM -0400 17/10/05, ravi wrote:
>
>> I know this comes up every now and then, but I still am not satisifed
>> with any attempted answers. So, I ask: What is the working class? Does
>> it include white collar workers? How about $150,000/month senior
>> engineers? Is wealth an issue? A recent immigrant software engineer
>> might make $80,000/year but (s)he may be building his/her life in the US
>> from nothing, while a $40,000/year worker might have a family home and
>> future inheritance (of parental savings) that could amount to say half a
>> million or more.
>>
>> In an earlier thread, someone criticized my questions as "trial
>> lawyer"ing or some such. I will try to preempt such dismissal, once
>> again, by reinforcing that these are genuine questions, not rhetorical
>> or sarcastic ones.
>
> Why aren't you satisfied with the previous answers?
>
Because thy don't help answer the questions I raise above.
> To simply ask the
> questions again, implicitly dismissing the answers already given, is
> indeed a rhetorical device.
But I didn't simply ask the question again. I added test case scenario questions for possible answers. Further, it need not be a rhetorical device even if repeated, but merely a demonstration of my dim-wittedness.
--ravi
=== Message 2: Re: [lbo-talk] RE: working cla ========================
At around 17/10/05 2:43 pm, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> I think Ravi is looking for a concrete definition for a term that
> simply doesn't have one.
>
I am not looking for a concrete definition, but rather a usable one in terms of consistency.
The "crossing the picket line" debate (where it was argued by some, IIRC, that no special cases were to be considered), the threads on vegetarianism and animal rights, the arguments about the Sep 24 DC march (its review by Kos, and Nathan Newman's contrasting it with the [at that time] upcoming MMM) pose some questions to me (personally) about left solidarity. The notion of "working class" (thus far) has failed to provide a suitable answer for me, both in theory (my primary question) and in practice (the secondary considerations in my additional queries).
Wojtek, in his disquietingly "direct" manner, addresses some of this in his response. I think the practical issues and questions, which he articulates in his post, are significant. I could be entirely ignorant here, and hence my point that my questions are not rhetorical.
To move forward with the descriptions/definitions offered by B.Bartlett and Mike Ballard, it seems that Wojtek and I are indeed part of the working class since we are obliged to offer our skills in order to survive (following those before us, such as Patrick Ewing, erstwhile power forward for the Knicks and player's union leader, who argued that salary bargaining was an issue of putting food on the table for his children, and Homeland Security ex-chief Tom Ridge who had to flee a $250k/year job in order to make ends meet by slaving in the corporate world ;-)).
But surely that is necessary but insufficient for us to be a voice of and within the working class and "the left"? If Wojtek is correct (and at least some of my anecdotal experience suggests he might be) then there is further analysis required (yes?). To paraphrase Rumsfeld, its a messy place in the gutter, and not for the thin-skinned, but there is more to it than that, when it comes to agreeing on what the working class is, especially with the intention of then building solidarity.
Michael Albert defended, many years ago in Z Mag, the idea that no particular left issue or movement (class, gender, race, etc) trumps the other in foundational value. Would listmembers agree? Does class analysis subsume/define/reinterpret effectively other injustices? And as a sort of corrollary: Even if we arrive at a description of the 'working class' that sticks, is it of use if members of this broad group identify more strongly with stronger sub-groups (religion, skin colour, gender, national origin, consumption choices, etc)?
This could post could benefit from Wojtek's eloquence, since I think we are wondering/talking about the same sort of thing. Too bad that IMHO he chooses to expend his skills at venting ;-).
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!