Re: AUT: Re: Proletariatization of the "professional" fields...

["Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all

commie zero zero wrote:

>i can kinda see what you're saying... but again: i
>don't think that mediation makes a class analysis,
>since everyone mediates for everyone. and if you want
>to take it to the level of "institutionalized
>mediation", then all parents mediate for all children.
>does this mean that all parents are "middle class".

no. i can kinda see what you're saying and yet i would insist on the
existence of a middle class. obviously this has to be properly defined and
not used in the typical lefty way of being an insult directed at one's
opponents. however given last year's long debate on the subject i think i'll
pass for now.

>this is one of my major problems with the entire
>concept of middle class. an element of domination /
>power to dominate, i think, has to come in there
>somewhere. which is why it makes sense to me to see
>cops and small business owners as part of the ruling
>class, while non-partner lawyers don't have this
>capacity.

don't parents have the power to dominate? does this then make the ruling
class? or should it be modified to say that those who derive their income
from domination are ruling class? where would that leave people paid welfare
by the state to raise kids?
>
>as to the ability to make partner, you're talking
>about an incredibly small number of lawyers who can
>even think of this as a future possibility with any
>seriousness.

i'm not too sure about that. maybe in the US with its million plus lawyers
it's a tiny fraction. i seem to recall that there are around 30-60000
lawyers in australia. there are 6 big australian law firms with several
hundred partners each plus a bunch of smaller ones. so it might not be
unreasonable to suggest that 5-10% of lawyers are currently partners and
even more can reasonably assume they will become partners.

that leaves the bulk of lawyers in a
>different place entirely. to me this points to the
>dangers of make a generalized statement about lawyers'
>class position. it seems to me that most are working
>class, while a very small percentage are not.

i agree that lawyers is not a terribly useful category of class analysis but
i've at least offered examples of lawyers who aren't proles. and the fact
that lawyers who work for the big firms can expect to make partner means
that they are very unlikely to develop a proletarian consciousness. so can
you tell me what sorts of lawyers are proles?

i find these endless debates about class very boring so i'll say no more. my
general take on the subject is that the proletariat will reveal itself in
struggle. if lawyers join future prole revolts en masse in a non-dominating
way then i'll accept they're proles.

peter


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



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