>Yes. This is correct. And can be affirmed and developed without an
>implicit conception of "working class" as identity. That conception of
>class was useful for almost two centuries in fueling the class struggle
>(i.e., the struggle for abhstract bourgeois equality). For the most part
>that abstract equality (as abstract citizens) has been achieved. But the
>struggle for freedom has hardly begun. (See Tamas.) And that struggle
>cannot be grounded in He-Man Working-Class consciousness.
i'm finding the use of terms confusing but i think it might be the sluggish effects of too much food yesterday. :)
what is class?
what is identity?
what is a politics based on identity?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think the terms aren't be used in entirely the same way here.
I think you've long held that people should discuss social strata differences -- socioeconomic status differences because it was obfuscating the fact that everyone who has to earn a living is a member of the working class. so I'm not really sure how you are using the terms here. orif you still hold that view.
shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)