Re: more middle class Re: ruling class subjectivity, was: Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist

[commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

yeah, in many ways this is what i've been trying to
say. but to expand...

> This area includes the concerns that Chris in
> particular was raising about
> the social power that certain people have over
> others. Is this accurate to
> define as w/c and middle class or is it the creation
> of a division of labour
> that keeps us all divided?

see... the basic problem, as i see it, with the
division of class based on social power is the problem
of things which are obviously inter-class power
issues: men over wimmin, white over black, etc. esp
since these power relations serve the interests of
capital as well, but one would be hard-pressed to
argue that white-racist workers aren't workers...

and i think that the overt ideological crap that
(some, but by far not even all -- prollie not even the
majority) profs do is less damaging that these
things... and the ideological crap that is done
whether the profs like it or not is very close to the
kind of reproduction that everyone is (unfortunately)
engaged in...

> So perhaps with this latter strand there has been
> less concern with where
> the class comes from and more concern with what
> attacks capital and creates
> something other than capital.

and the majority of people engage in these kinda of
activity, whether they are concious of it or not. even
cops and middle management... but this would be
streching the problem, because then we do get into
power issues too large to contain within the working
class...

cops obviously are in a position that (whether they
know it and like it or not) makes them the front line
defense force of capital and the ruling class. middle
level managers are obviously in this position as well,
in a different way. so are some small business owners
(whose power resembles that of middle managers, in the
grand scheme of things, methinks), etc. but this is
still blurry... and this is part of what makes the
middle layer the middle layer (and also what makes
them not a class): they have a confused class
position, with objective sympathies on both sides (and
obviously the lines blur the when they touch one side
or the other).

((another dangerous aspect of the notion of middle
class is the way it is used... such as: i have been
told by many people that because i like art and write
poems i have "middle class values"... but the root of
my love of these things comes from my mother and i
talking about them when i was very young... as we
searched thru dumpsters for food. and another ironic
aspect of it is that people i have worked with (in
facotries and workshops [in addition to convinience
stors and other such things]) have often expressed
similar interests as me once they felt safe doing so.
etc. etc. not sure where i'm going with this, other
than it pisses me off... the reason these things are
seen as "middle class" is because they are alienated
from the working class, i think on purpose. one of the
most liberating moments of my life happened while
looking at the first mark rothko i saw. standing next
to me was a fella who had been working construction on
another part of the museum... he was crying in front
of the same painting. etc. etc. anyway... off my rant,
i suppose...))

> Incidentally Bill, where I was heading with my
> interpretation of Negris
> take on class  not denying class conflict at all,
> but recognising that it
> happens everywhere. Capital is not under the control
> of the capitalists
> society (including the capitalist) is under the
> control of the logic of
> capital. The problem with capitalism is that we
> allow it to control us. I
> dont see that Im serving anyONE  I am serving a
> social relation, where
> some have power over others in the division of
> labour, but all serve the
> system that requires us to sell our labour. It is
> capital that rules, not
> capitalists  if we got rid of figures that we might
> identify as
> capitalists, capital would still remain.

but only because more of such figures would rise. see,
there is also a problem in your view... that is: it
neglects that there are people who know what is
happening, and go on with it anyway. in actuallity,
methinks: capital is a social relation mediated by a
number of things, AND it is the conscious activity of
the ruling class.

organizations such as the imf, wb, tabd, wto, etc. are
solid examples of capitalists organizing and operating
conciously in their interests, and thus in the
interests of capital. and, again, as negri and hardt
pointed out in empire, and with which i agree: the
state is, and has always been, the collective
interests of the ruling class. sometimes this
collective interest is in conflict with indivudual
capitalists... but this does not change it's role and
function.

to try to reduce power problems to the social division
of labour is dangerous because it removes the
understanding that there is a class enemy, and they
know what they are doing.

but in another way: you are right. as i said, capital
is also a social relation. and as a social relation it
controls it's controlers. capital is both under the
control of the ruling class AND controls them. etc.

> The
> difference between us Bill is
> that you see capitalism as human masters to human
> slaves. I see it PRIMARILY
> as: labouring activity slave to the reifying force
> of capital, which, as a
> byproduct, creates human slaves to human masters.

but this confuses the historical movement of capital.
and in a very real sense, puts the cart before the
horse... human masters created capital in their effort
to maintain and consolidate their control, etc.

the master/slave dialectic existed prior to capital.
it has existed thru all class societies... capital is
merely the most recent, and probabaly the penultimate,
class society. and itself is the result of class
struggle. the result of the conscious movement of the
ruling class in opposition to the (at the time) lower
classes.

and while, i would agree that all manifestations of
class society social relations have also
simultaneously controled their ruling class, there is
a danger in allowing this to turn into an
anthropromorication, which only serves (methinks) to
mystify class relations and class struggle... same as
above...

a quick note on marx: while harald is quite right in
pointing out what he did... he neglects that marx also
discussed (i'm not sure where off the top of my
head... but i'm sure there's a scholar on board who
can help) how, as capital grows and expands, the
remaining middle classes would become proletarianized.
i'd say we've seen this in the last 100 years...
formally middle class professions (such as doctors,
professors, lower management, very-small business
owners, etc. etc.) have become more and more
proletarianized for many reasons, and the process
continues.

i've always felt that this (primarily) is what negri,
et al., have been analyizing: the proletarianization
of formally middle class people, and how & why it is
happening.


=====
commie00
---------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/commie00
---------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


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