ok. well now I'm more confused. I'd asked for an example of a class identity or subjectivity. I was using your words, but they didn't make sense to me. so I was trying to understand through examples. So, if on your view, people have a class identity or subjectivity, what is that? Similarly, you used the phrase "class as a structure". I'm still unclear as to what makes class structural - on your view. I know how i'd explain it; I'm trying to find out how you illustrate an example of "class as a structure."
I'm also confused by this sentence where you write:
>"Of course this
>then influences the workers and later workers chances to move out of this
>position, so it is not a unidirectional process but a fluid
>relationship."
I assume "this" is a reference to marx's critique of religion. I pasted the quote below. What I am not clear about is how this influences current and future workers' "chances" to "move out of this position".
if anyone else is still reading, what do you suppose Marx meant by this sentence in the quote below? It's metaphorical, not literal but I'm not sure what "ad hominem" is standing for here:
>Theory is capable of gripping the masses when it demonstrates ad hominem,
>and it demonstrates ad hominem when it becomes radical.
>Religious misery is in one way the expression of real misery, and in
>another a protest against real misery. Religion is the sigh of the
>afflicted creature, the soul of a heartless world, as it is also the
>spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The
>abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the world is the demand
>for their real happiness. The demand to abandon the illusions about their
>condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusions.
>Hence criticism of religion is in embryo a criticism of this vale of tears
>whose halo is religion.
>
>Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not for the
>purpose of enabling man to wear the existing chain without fantasy or
>consolation, but to make him cast off the chain and cull the living
>flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man so that he thinks,
>acts, and shapes his reality like a disillusioned man who has come to his
>senses, so that he revolves around himself and thereby around his real
>sun. Religion is only the illusory sun that revolves around man so long as
>he does not revolve around himself.
>
>It is, therefore, the task of history, after the otherworldly truth has
>disappeared, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate
>task of philosophy, which stands in the service of history, to expose
>human self-alienation in its unholy form after it has been unmasked in its
>holy form. Criticism of heaven thus is transformed into criticism of
>earth, criticism of religion into criticism of law, and criticism of
>theology into criticism of politics.
>
>The weapon of criticism, to be sure, cannot replace the criticism of
>weapons; material force must be overthrown by material force, but theory
>itself becomes a material force as soon as the masses grip it. Theory is
>capable of gripping the masses when it demonstrates ad hominem, and it
>demonstrates ad hominem when it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp
>things by the root. But for man, the root is man himself. The clear proof
>of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is
>that it issues from the decisive, positive suspension of religion. The
>criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the highest being
>for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions
>in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being
>
>"Toward the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law. Introduction"
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)