Re: [Marxism] Petty Bourgeois--the consciousness yardstick

[Lou Paulsen <loupaulsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lause <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lou concedes the shortcomings of the term, but prefers to hang onto the
term because it "reminds you that the people you are talking about have
a dual character, part of which is to share part of the class position
of the bourgeoisie." I'd suggest that internal contradictions in groups
and individuals is implicit in the dialectical method, and that
bourgeois values are going to permeate the working class in capitalist
society.

Indeed, attitudes and values becomes an important part of Tom's case
where a presumably salaried manager "supervises 30 people, describes
part of the workforce they supervise as 'dead wood', earns a salary well
above average, pays someone to clean their house, invests in property
and shares, opposes the union, believes in neo-liberal economics and has
plans to become a consultant". This is class identification by values
and attitude.



Me:

Wait, Mark, when I say "class position" I don't mean "attitudes and values", I 
mean actual economic role.  If there is a central principle of Marxism, surely 
it is that "being determines consciousness" - at least on the level of classes. 
 (Which is why I have to take issue with Scot.  If we are start defining 
classes on the basis of attitudes and ideology, we are cutting ourselves adrift 
from Marxism's whole material base.)



There is of course a lot of room for individual variation, and anyone who uses 
the language of class analysis to make statements about individuals will make a 
lot of mistakes.  But in Tom's example of an individual, the material factors 
are that this person is a highly paid manager, a supervisor of 30 people in a 
union firm, who has the money to hire household labor and invest in shares, and 
the material and social capital to make plans to become a consultant (that is, 
a small businessman).  On the attitude side, this individual describes workers 
as 'dead wood', opposes the union, and believes in neoliberal economics.  These 
attitudes are NOT INDEPENDENT of the material factors.  You can say that being 
a highly paid manager, etc., conditions a person to have these attitudes, or at 
any rate winnows out people with contrary attitudes; you could also say that 
companies recruit for these positions having these attitudes as criteria.



Actually, you might even argue that a person with contempt for the working 
class is going to work particularly hard to become a manager and future 
consultant.  That might even be the important process on an individual level.  
On the class level, though, what is happening is that there is a need for a 
stratum of managers to oppress the workers, and this stratum of people is going 
to have a certain set of concerns and attitudes and values.



This managerial stratum is not the classical petty bourgeoisie, but it has a 
lot in common with them in terms of their position between the big bourgeoisie 
(here, their employers) and the workers whom the manage.  In fact, managers 
like this are often (rightly) distrustful of their own employers, who can turn 
them out in the next restructuring, and attempt to turn their own departments 
into independent private enterprises, competing with other departments for 
items in the corporate budget and for "indispensible" responsibilities that 
will protect them against extinction.



Lou Paulsen

member, WWP, Chicago

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