[lbo-talk] What is the working class? was Re: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1056, Issue 2

[shag carpet bomb]

At 04:45 PM 11/28/2009, brad bauerly wrote:
>Maybe I am starting to see the issue here.  The working class as I define it
>is not merely the 'working class' of popular discourse but the sum of all
>who don't own the means of production, or better yet, everyone who has
>surplus extracted from them because of specific property relationships. I am
>usually the guy at the party arguing that we need to figure out how to
>organize the investment bank traders and middle management types, not the
>person claiming that auto workers are the key to any prols movement.  Maybe
>that is why I simply did not get this label of 'manly-man politics'.  That
>being said, I still don't think of class as an identity or subject
>position.  It is a structurally defined relationship of exploitation that
>cannot be whisked away by the mere removal of an ideology but requires
>material transformation and social reorganization accordingly.  Is this the
>manly-man politics that you and others disparage?

heh. the manly man might have to do with the two "non" manly man 
occupations you say should be part of any prols movement?

but no, that isn't the "manly man" politics I'm necessarily talking about. 
well, wait yeah. i guess it is: i don't think "ideology" is "merely" 
removed. i don't think that it can be whisked away in a way that the 
"structurally defined relationship of exploitation" cannot be.

big he-man must do hard dirty work of smashing strucutres. structures like 
big big building. smash structures. smash smash. smash big building. look 
at culture? see ideology disintegrate into mere dust. smash smash. *chest 
pounding* *tarzan yell*

shag

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)