If class is so abstract that it has no conceivable practical use, then why have it at all? The theoretical value of class is in its use as: 1. The fundamental concept of the universal link between production and social organization - The material basis of social organization. 2. An abstract representation of the fundamental division of labour that provides the kernel for the rational derivation of more complex systems of organization of production - the political-economic basis of social life 3. The abstract description of the conflict of needs and differential means for their realization of the classes comprising a universal system of production (capitalism of course) - the dialectics of the historical development of the organization of production. The testing of these abstract relations can only be done by examining history in huge chunks or by carrying out highly restricted simulations either with people in structured research environments or on the computer (as in game theory).
*********************************************************************** I tend to see it like this, Victor:I
In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. These are not working class people.
The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.
In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth. These are not working class people, although, I suspect, quite a few are landlords and highly paid professionals e.g. corporate & tax lawyers.
******************************************************************************** The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings. These people are in the lower strata of the working class. These people are obliged to sell their skills and time for a wage or salary to make a living.
A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000.
These people are in the middle to upper strata of the working class. They generally do not have a enough wealth to live on unless they sell their time and skills to an employer.
******************************************************************************* The top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million. These people do not have to sell their skills and time to an employer to make a living. They are not working class. The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth. These people constitute the ruling class in the capitalist system. Most of them have wealth because they own companies (through stocks and other means) which employ the working class producers of wealth.
The people (class) who own the wealth of a nation buy the politicians (the political managers) of their State. This is not to say that they have a consensus about which politicians to support--Republican or Democrat. However, there is bi-partisan support for control of the State by one of these two parties.
In short, a lack of ownership/control over the wealth created by the working class, leads to a dependency structure which puts producers into the servants' quarters and consumers of wage-labour into the driver's seat. "The masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools."--a good old, pre '67 Dylan lyric for ya.
Best, Mike B)
Read "The Perthian Brickburner": http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com