Re: [Marxism] what is 'working class' (was Skewering...)

[" Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack F. Vogel" <jfv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:47 PM
Subject: [Marxism] what is 'working class' (was Skewering...)


> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:59:23PM -0400, Scotlive@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> Carrol writes:
> > > We are not sorting laundry into baskets.
> > >
> >
> > I agree. But this also applies to lumping people into a certain class,
with
> > the same interests and outlook merely according to their position in the
> > process of wealth creation. To me a member of the working class is
someone who
> > identifies him or herself as such. Most workers in the US, for example,
consider
> > themselves middle class, because they've been socially conditioned to
think by a
> > conscious ruling class that the indiviualism implicit in a middle class
> > outlook on life is more desirable than the collective aspirations of a
conscious
> > working class outlook.
>
> 'middle class' is a made-up term that is not particularly helpful in a
> Marxist analysis, except maybe to understand ruling class ideology in this
> country.

It is useful (for reasons you mention below), and means something different
from Marx's bourgeoisie as the ruling class.
>
> Marxism is materialist, often this is misunderstood... In this case it
> means 'what you are', your class, precedes "what you consider yourself to
> be". Even if you never develop class consciousness, it doesnt alter the
> fact of what class you are...

Absolutely, which is why the development of class consciousness is the most
important ideological process that we as Marxists must engage in.
>
> > Consciousness CAN take place in struggle. That doesn't mean that it
> > necessarily will.
>
> Ya, and so what?
>
> > Economic conditions today differ enormously from those which existed 100
> > years ago. Of course you know that. It's therefore crucial that our
understanding
> > and application of Marx's method is adapted to meet these changes. This
> > involves our conception of class. Objectively, a worker is anyone who
survives by
> > selling their labour power. Where do professionals fall into this? I
spoke with
> > a socialist the other night at an event who claimed to be working class,
even
> > though he's a teacher. Then there are workers who, by trade, are
organically
> > linked to the ruling class and their interests. Security guards, I've
> > mentioned. Also soldiers, cops, workers who produce munitions and
armaments, who work
> > for the Federal Government.
>
> Much is different today than 100 years ago, true, but much more is
> fundamentally unchanged. I was just reading Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or
> Revolution", written 104 years ago, and its amazing just how relevant
> and useful it still is. I suggest you not dismiss the past too quickly.
>
> I dont see why you feel the need to be confused... I am a 'professional',
yet
> I am a wage slave. What you can say about the upper 'priveleged' sector of
> the working class is, like the house slaves of the past, they often will
be
> strongly disposed to align with and defend their slave masters.. :)

Very much so indeed (and in one sense one might define many of the working
class in the developed countries as such, more disposed to defend their
slave masters than their counterparts in the third world).  But capitalism
is able to sustain itself precisely because of such a large number of
traitors (whose ideology is liberalism).  That is why the middle classes are
important to any discussion of today, in a way that wasn't so pronouncedly
the case in the mid-19th century.
>
> > If you apply such an objective analysis you only end up confused. Much
> > better, I think, to be subjective. Every one has the potential to join
the working
> > class. Consciousness is the determining and deciding factor. Inductive
> > reasoning does not apply.
>
> One might say that anyone has the potential to join the struggle (although
> in practice this isnt true), however this is not the same as joining
> "the working class", joining 'with' them to fight for socialism, yes.
>
> The whole thing about a materialist marxist analysis is it DOESN'T depend
> on the consciousness of some random 'joe sixpack', just the opposite of
> what you seem to say.
>
Ultimately it depends on class allegiance.  Some of those who defend ruling
class interests (police, army, security guards, even some in financial
services, etc.) need to be 'turned', as Lenin pointed out, for any
revolutionary movement to be successful.  But the 'working classes' as a
whole need to be persuaded that their interests are best served by
allegiance to the revolutionary proletariat. This is fundamentally what the
process of heightening class consciousness is about. For the most part, we
DO need to develop the consciousness of "some random 'joe sixpack' (or
josephine sixpack)".  Imperialism makes the internationalism of this
struggle paramount, though, for the reasons of the relative positions in
terms of wealth of those in the first and third world, as mentioned above.
A random joe/josephine sixpack who benefits in some ways from the sufferings
of third-world workers is not easily going to be converted to the cause of
revolutionary socialism unless the capitalist system as a whole is in
crisis.  However, maybe that may happen sooner rather than later :)

Solidarity,
Ian



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism