> 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?
This is precisely the language I would avoid altogether while talking about inequalities and other "messy" social issues. This is lefty "speaking in tongues" - gobbledygook that only the inititiated can understand (or so they say), but nobody else can make any sense out of it.
Conceptual clarity and precision is the necessary starting point of any serious analysis - an battle cries from the street are anything but that. One man's injustice is another man's belly laugh. What is injustice anyway? Claims can be multiplied ad infinitum and ad absurdum - all you need is a loudmouth. But that does not mean that demagoguery can be the basis of a serious social analysis, even though it may sound like music to our ears. Mucho freebies to sociologists of Eastern European descent? Sure, keep sending them in.
The original purpose of the concept of class was to cast a social problem of inequality as an ethical problem of justice and do so in a rational way. Marx was quite explicitly opposed to moralistic claims of demagogues of his times that workers are somewhat "cheated" i.e. paying less than the full value of their work by their bosses. He countered that with his theory of value showing that their are being paid the full (exchange) value of their work, and thus no cheating of that sort was involved. From that point of view, low wages per se were insufficient to form an ethical claim that workers deserved more. A horse can work the whole day for food and basic upkeep, so why can't a worker?
However, Marx was able to cast this social problem in ethical terms by introducing the notion of the ownership of the means of production. The process of production involves both labor and machinery (means of production) - but the division of the ownership of thee two allows the capitalist to keep the entire product of the process of work and pay only the value of labor, which is basically the socially necessary cost of worker' upkeep. This is the trick that reduces the role of a worker to that of a work horse.
However, the ownership of the means of production is also what defines class membership - albeit as I previously argued this is not what created the working class - feudalism did, capitalist merely found a use for it. So this is where a mere statement of inequality becomes an ethical claim - membership in a class robs people of the fruits of their labor, because what defines class membership and what expropriates all product of labor is one and the same thing.
Regardless of the merits of this argument (which have been extensively debated) this is a very clear, rational statement that is also plain to understand by anyone - not just those well versed in countercultural gobbledygook. We may say that the argument no longer holds on empirical grounds, but we cannot say that it is not self evident to anyone who accepts its empirical premise. That is to say, in the times of Marx, ownership of the means of production was for the most part inheritance - capitalists contributed very little to the production process other than the title, at best some of them might have managed their firms, but even those management tasks were relegated to skilled workers. Therefore it was pretty much a matter of fact that a British aristocrat turned capitalist was nothing more than a useless parasite contributing nothing to the production process but skimming off all the benefits. Since nobody liked useless parasites, it was only rational to demand removing them from the production process and divvying up their loot among those who actually produced it.
In sum, for Marx the notion of class was the basic of social analysis that was both empirically accurate (at least at that that time) and formed a rational foundation for a normative claim (expropriate the expropriators). But today, such a claim can be no longer made. First of all, the contribution to the labor process is no longer limited to manual labor and operating machinery, but involve a whole bunch of cognitive and social skills. Second, the latter are being contributed by all people involved in the production process - from the CEO to a janitor - so every claim to "justice" hinges on the value assigned to that contribution.
It is moreover clear that, even by Marx own analysis, that workers are typically paid the actual value of their work (it is the supply and demand thing!) thus software engineers are paid more than janitors because they have the skills that are in high demand and those skills are not abundant in the population like janitorial skills are. We may point out that CEOs are overpaid - but that would be a rather ignorant of the fact that what that most CEO salaries (i.e. remuneration for work) are not that high, last time I checked Bill Gate's salary was less than half a million dollars - which does not seem exorbitant for someone with that level of skill and responsibility. The overpayment part comes from his position as a rentier i.e. company stock ownership - which is a different story. However, unlike in the 18th century England, everyone in the United States can own the means of production in the form of stock, not just aristocratic idlers.
So that the ownership of the means of production and relations of production itself are not only far more complex, thanks to industrialization, but they do not as easily lend themselves to to normative claims for justice. Not long ago, I cited an article by Sasha Abriamsky in the Nation suggesting public fuel subsidies to working class families and asked why is such subsidy warranted? Just because they need? So does everyone else. Unlike the British peasants turned working class, nobody locked these folks in the life styles that they cannot afford to continue anymore. So why should the public subsidize them?
Nobody on this list cared, or perhaps was able, to address that question. The only response I received was that we should pay them because they will riot. That shows the utter povery of left thinking nowadays - all they are capable is speaking in tongues about "injustices" that are evident only to the initiated.
So to summarize, the concept of class has no intrinsic value in itself. Its usefulness comes mainly from the fact that at certain time in history it formed the basis of an empirically adequate analysis of social problems, and a rational basis of normative claims based on that analysis. But it does not anymore - and mindless repetition of that old discourse only testified to the extent of intellectual poverty. So far, the left is not able to offer a rational alternative to the normative claim offered by neo-liberals re. self-regulating markets.
The market mantra is attractive because it offers a rational basis - equality of opportunity, meritocracy, and efficiency - to normative claim for social inequality. We may question the empirical specifics, but the claim itself is no less rational than that of communism bringing justice and happiness to all. But what alternative does the left have to offer? The "injustice" gobbledygook and demands for welfare handouts without even being able to justify them in clear and generally understandable way. No wonder that nobody takes the left seriously anymore and prefers the neo-liberal mantra.
My suggestion is to stop parroting the battle cries from the previous eras, regurgitating old shibboleths that nobody but a handful of the initiated cares about anymore, and instead come up with a brand new progressive and rational world view that speaks to the mainstream (not just the marginalized dropouts and exotic experience seeking upper class radicals), justifies social organization that is based on principles of social solidarity, equality and meritocracy, and offers are compelling alternative to the neo-liberal market mantra.
Wojtek