AUT: What notion of class? An appeal to re-open the discussion with a lot of questions

["Chris Wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0566B.CFD66E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In the process of the last week of discussion with a number of people =
(who devoted a lot of time and energy to discussing with me and offering =
to the list their ideas and criticisms), I feel rather dissatisfied.  I =
am dissatisfied with the responses I have received, but even more so =
with my own responses and comments.  I suppose I am bothered by my =
retention of a 'definitional' approach to class (for example, 'those who =
sell their labor power for a wage').  I feel the need to start with the =
idea of class not as a classificatory idea (an objectivist approach), =
but one in which anatagonism (a subject-object approach) is the source =
of class.

John Holloway makes work and alienation his central starting point by =
pointing out that capitalist 'society is based on an antagonism in the =
way that the distinctive character of humanity, namely creative activity =
(work in its broadest sense) is organised.  In capitalist society, work =
is turned against itself, alieanated from itself; we lose control over =
our creative activity.' (Common Sense 22, Dignity's Revolt')  This =
contradiction/anatagonism between creativity and its alienation is the =
anatagonism between labor and capital.

In a later article (Common Sense 24, a reply to Wildcat's (Germany) =
reading of Holloway), he adds that the antagonism created by creative =
activity alienated from itself as something outside and over us =
(commodities, things), what we call exploitation, requires the =
subordination of insubordinate humanity into labor.  This subordination =
encompasses every aspect of life and takes class struggle out of the =
workplace and into every aspect of human life, exactly because we =
understand class as the alienation of our creative practice, of =
practical (social) life.  At the same time, Wildcat asks us to consider =
more deeply the way this specifically takes place in the 'immediate =
process of production'.  In other words, what makes this process =
capitalist, rather than a blanket description of all class societies.  =
Their answer is that "the essential character of this mode of production =
consists in the fact that it is possible only as social production, as =
the working together of millions of people."  They then complicate it by =
saying "But since this socialization appears as cooperation, division of =
labour and machinery, which are forced upon us and pre-given,it appears =
as an alien power."

I could keep quoting because the exchange is very rich, but I want to =
stop here because I have very speific purposes in raising this.  Bill =
Bartlett posed the question in this way: "Class is not a moral category, =
but a classification according to one's relationship to the means of =
production (capital). In capitalist society there are two possible =
relationships - one can own sufficient capital to free one from the need =
to work, or else one needs to serve someone who does."  He also =
addressed this question to me, which is in the same line: "I gather you =
believe that the particular work one is hired to perform is somehow =
relevant to class definition, but I challenge you to justify that."  I =
think these are very succinct ways of posing the question.

One conclusion is that doctors, lawyers, priests and ministers, prison =
guards and prison wardens, office and factory managers (in fact all of =
lower and middle management and some of upper management), cops, =
politicians, military officers below the rank of general, and so on are =
all workers.  Bill drew part of that conclusion in relation to cops and =
professors and teachers.  And I am using Bill's argument as an example, =
as I said, because he is so explicit, consistent and succinct.  I am not =
talking about just Bill Bartlett, but the notion of cass he poses.

So I have a few questions I would be interested in seeing anyone =
address. =20
1.  Do John Holloway and Bill Bartlett share the same conception of =
class?  (I don;t think so, but I am willing to be very wrong here.)
2.  If they don't, what are the differences?  (I think John Holloway's =
approach leaves open the idea that some people in society, esp. those in =
the repressive apparatus of the state, are not in an antagonistic =
relation with capital.  Again, i could be wrong.)
3.  If they do coincide, then what political conclusions do we draw from =
this?  Do we try to make revolutionaries out of cops, politicians, etc?  =
(Leaving aside that we would encourage any human being to become a =
revolutionary, aren't some 'occupations' singularly at odds with the =
overthrow of capital?)
4.  What about small business owners, who must work, but who also =
employ/exploit human labor?  Aren't they worthy of being called a middle =
class or petit bourgeoisie, to use Marx's phrase?
5.  Doesn't the relation to production also include the role one plays =
in maintaining and protecting the relations of exploitation?  What is =
the significance of the massive expansion of this section of the =
population in the 1980's and 1990's (the so-called Yuppie)?  Is there a =
value in concretizing the role of certain 'occupations' in relation to =
the process of subordinating labor, since, after all, capitalists rarely =
do the actual subordinating themselves, but depend on professionals to =
do that work for them (cops, lawyers, professors, politicians, managers, =
etc.)?  (Obviously, I think there is.  The question is slanted that way =
and I want everyone to know I am asking a question that is both pointed =
and explicitly asking to be interrogated at the same time.)
6.  Drawing on Holloway, Bonefeld and Gunn's notion of mediation =
analysis, and Marx's ideas on mediation, as he especially makes clear in =
the Grundrisse, do we not also have to think about a class or at least a =
shifting, indeterminate, but real mediating social layer between capital =
and labor?  And given the unstable, mediatory role of that layer, would =
we not have to expect that they can often act in defense of the working =
class, but in a way that takes the limits of the system as the limits of =
their intervention on our behalf?  Or that some individuals in this =
layer can even break with that mediating role politically, but only at =
the risk of exiting that layer?
7.  In light of these different ideas on class, can we rethink race, =
gender, sexuality, etc. as different forms of alienated human existence =
arising from the inhumanity required to subordinate humanity to the role =
of exploitable labor?  And what would notions of race, gender, etc. =
begin to look like from that view?  And would we not then have to =
understand the racialization, gendering, etc. of class, and =
revolutionary pursuit of the class struggle as involving the undermining =
of those processes?  I will only mention the problem that those =
processes also work asymmetrically, so that white racialization does not =
have the same effects as Black racialization, or male gendering as =
female gendering, and so on.
8.  What do the different notions of class say to our conception of =
organizing and organization?  For example, i think that once we take the =
antagonism approach and resituate the working class as subject, rather =
than the definitional approach that makes working class an 'objective' =
categorization, we eliminiate the logic of Leninism, which treats the =
working class as an object to be acted upon, rather than as a =
self-determining, self-liberating subject.  But can we say more than =
that?

I hope this takes the last week's worth of discussions, often very =
abstract, sometimes more concrete, and makes for a discussion everyone =
can engage with.  I especially look forward to responses from the =
anarchists on the list because they may have perspectives totally =
outside this essentially Marxian discussion, which could be very =
enriching.


Chris Wright

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies =
and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search =
out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the =
side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, =
that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns =
without a rival.  -- Frederick Douglass

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0566B.CFD66E80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In the process of the last week of discussion with a =
number of=20
people (who devoted a lot of time and energy to discussing with me and =
offering=20
to the list their ideas and criticisms), I feel rather =
dissatisfied.&nbsp; I am=20
dissatisfied with the responses I have received, but even more so with =
my own=20
responses and comments.&nbsp; I suppose I am bothered by my retention =
of&nbsp;a=20
'definitional' approach to class (for example, 'those who sell their =
labor power=20
for a wage').&nbsp; I feel the need to start with the idea of class not =
as a=20
classificatory idea (an objectivist approach), but one in which =
anatagonism (a=20
subject-object approach)&nbsp;is the source of class.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>John Holloway makes work and alienation&nbsp;his =
central=20
starting point by pointing out that capitalist 'society is based on an=20
antagonism in the way that the distinctive character of humanity, namely =

creative activity (work in its broadest sense) is organised.&nbsp; In =
capitalist=20
society, work is turned against itself, alieanated from itself; we lose =
control=20
over our creative activity.' (Common Sense 22, Dignity's Revolt')&nbsp; =
This=20
contradiction/anatagonism between creativity and its alienation is the=20
anatagonism between labor and capital.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In a later article (Common Sense 24, a reply to =
Wildcat's=20
(Germany) reading of Holloway), he adds that the antagonism created=20
by&nbsp;creative activity alienated from itself as something outside and =
over us=20
(commodities, things), what we call exploitation, requires the =
subordination of=20
insubordinate humanity into labor.&nbsp; This subordination encompasses =
every=20
aspect of life and takes class struggle out of the workplace and into =
every=20
aspect of human life, exactly because we understand class as the =
alienation of=20
our creative practice, of practical (social) life.&nbsp; At the same =
time,=20
Wildcat asks us to consider more deeply the way this specifically takes =
place in=20
the 'immediate process of production'.&nbsp; In other words, what makes =
this=20
process capitalist, rather than a blanket description of all class=20
societies.&nbsp; Their answer is that "the essential character of this =
mode of=20
production consists in the fact that it is possible only as social =
production,=20
as the working together of millions of people."&nbsp; They then =
complicate it by=20
saying "But since this socialization appears as cooperation, division of =
labour=20
and machinery, which are forced upon us and pre-given,it appears as an =
alien=20
power."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I could keep quoting because the exchange is very =
rich, but I=20
want to stop here because I have very speific purposes in raising =
this.&nbsp;=20
Bill Bartlett posed the question in this way: "Class is not a moral =
category,=20
but a classification according to one's relationship to the means of =
production=20
(capital). In capitalist society there are two possible relationships - =
one can=20
own sufficient capital to free one from the need to work, or else one =
needs to=20
serve someone who does."&nbsp; He also addressed this question to me, =
which is=20
in the same line: "</FONT><FONT size=3D2>I gather you believe that the =
particular=20
work one is hired to perform is somehow relevant to class definition, =
but I=20
challenge you to justify that."&nbsp; I think these are very succinct =
ways of=20
posing the question.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>One conclusion is that doctors, lawyers, priests and =

ministers, prison guards and prison wardens, office and factory managers =
(in=20
fact all of lower and middle management and some of upper management), =
cops,=20
politicians, military officers below the rank of general, and so on are =
all=20
workers.&nbsp; Bill drew&nbsp;part of&nbsp;that conclusion in relation =
to cops=20
and professors and teachers.&nbsp; And I am using Bill's argument as an =
example,=20
as I said, because he is so explicit, consistent and succinct.&nbsp; I =
am not=20
talking about just Bill Bartlett, but the notion of cass he =
poses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>So I have a few questions I would be interested in =
seeing=20
anyone address.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1.&nbsp; Do John Holloway and Bill Bartlett share =
the same=20
conception of class?&nbsp; (I don;t think so, but I am willing to be =
very wrong=20
here.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2.&nbsp; If they don't, what are the =
differences?&nbsp; (I=20
think John Holloway's approach leaves open the idea that some people in =
society,=20
esp. those in the repressive apparatus of the state, are not in an =
antagonistic=20
relation with capital.&nbsp; Again, i could be wrong.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3.&nbsp; If they do coincide, then what political =
conclusions=20
do we draw from this?&nbsp; Do we try to make revolutionaries out of =
cops,=20
politicians, etc?&nbsp; (Leaving aside that we would encourage any human =
being=20
to become a revolutionary, aren't some 'occupations' singularly at odds =
with the=20
overthrow of capital?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>4.&nbsp; What about small business owners, who must =
work, but=20
who also employ/exploit human labor?&nbsp; Aren't they worthy of being =
called a=20
middle class or petit bourgeoisie, to use Marx's phrase?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>5.&nbsp; Doesn't the relation to production also =
include the=20
role one plays in maintaining and protecting the relations of=20
exploitation?&nbsp; What is the significance of the massive expansion of =
this=20
section of the population in the 1980's and 1990's (the so-called =
Yuppie)?&nbsp;=20
Is there a value in concretizing the role of certain 'occupations' in =
relation=20
to the process of subordinating labor, since, after all, capitalists =
rarely do=20
the actual subordinating themselves, but&nbsp;depend on professionals to =
do that=20
work for them (cops, lawyers, professors, politicians, managers, =
etc.)?&nbsp;=20
(Obviously, I think there is.&nbsp; The question is slanted that way and =
I want=20
everyone to know I am asking a question that is both pointed and =
explicitly=20
asking to be interrogated at the same time.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>6.&nbsp; Drawing on Holloway, Bonefeld and Gunn's =
notion of=20
mediation analysis, and Marx's ideas on mediation, as he especially =
makes clear=20
in the Grundrisse, do we not also have to think about a class or at =
least a=20
shifting, indeterminate, but real mediating social layer between capital =
and=20
labor?&nbsp; And given the unstable, mediatory role of that layer, would =
we not=20
have to expect that they can often act <EM>in defense</EM> of the =
working class,=20
but in a way that takes the limits of the system as the limits of their=20
intervention on our behalf?&nbsp; Or that some&nbsp;individuals in this =
layer=20
can even break with that mediating role politically, but only at the =
risk of=20
exiting that layer?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>7.&nbsp; In light of these different ideas on class, =
can we=20
rethink race, gender, sexuality, etc. as different forms of alienated =
human=20
existence arising from the inhumanity required to subordinate humanity =
to the=20
role of exploitable labor?&nbsp; And what would notions of race, gender, =
etc.=20
begin to look like from that view?&nbsp; And would we not then have to=20
understand the racialization, gendering, etc. of class, =
and&nbsp;revolutionary=20
pursuit of the&nbsp;class struggle as involving the undermining of those =

processes?&nbsp; I will only mention the problem that those processes =
also work=20
asymmetrically, so that white racialization does not have the same =
effects as=20
Black racialization, or male gendering as female gendering, and so=20
on.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>8.&nbsp; What do the different notions of class say =
to our=20
conception of organizing and organization?&nbsp; For example, i think =
that once=20
we take the antagonism approach and resituate the working class as =
subject,=20
rather than the definitional approach that makes working class an =
'objective'=20
categorization, we eliminiate the logic of Leninism, which treats the =
working=20
class as an object to be acted upon, rather than as a self-determining,=20
self-liberating subject.&nbsp; But can we say more than =
that?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I hope this takes the last week's worth of =
discussions, often=20
very abstract, sometimes more concrete, and makes for a discussion =
everyone can=20
engage with.&nbsp; I especially look forward to responses from the =
anarchists on=20
the list because they may have perspectives totally outside this =
essentially=20
Marxian discussion,&nbsp;which could be very enriching.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chris Wright</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Go where you may, search where you will, roam =
through all the=20
monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South =
America, search=20
out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the =
side of=20
the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, =
for=20
revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a=20
rival.&nbsp; -- Frederick Douglass</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0566B.CFD66E80--



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---