Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[Marxism] RE: Class and Institutions
Hi,
I would not tend to attribute 'ideas in people's heads directly and
immediately to class factors'. But the capacity of people to think about the
world in different ways (scientifically, culturally, ideologically,
prejudicially, dogmatically, spitefully, or whatever) is directly
attributable to class factors. People who have their existiential origins in
a particular class, or rather a particular occupation, and whose lives are
lived within the confines of a particular class structure (whether at a
local, national, or international) level are, I think, much more likely to
engage in one form of thinking than another. The bare fact is that most
people will tend to develop consciousness that most accords with their means
of existence. Much of the time, excepting those individual members of
particular classes who are either upwardly mobile or can indulge themselves
in a myriad of different productive options, a person's means of existence
is more or less strictly determined by their occupation. I assume that the
reason people are by no means class conscious all the time is because the
conditions of their existence does not necessitate, practically develop, or
allow for an understanding of their position within a wider and systematised
class structure. Where the conditions of people's existence do develop to
the point where it is more or less clear that systematic class oppression is
taking place, then the individuals or groups involved decidedly *do* develop
class consciousness.
As for reducing class conflict to economic conflict- I am not sure if there
is any such thing as a 'non-economic' class. Thus by definition when and
where class conflcit does occur it is fundamentally economic. I am not sure
exactly what you mean by 'issues that touch a nerve with workers but have
nothing to do with economic problems'. I can't immediately think of any such
issues. Obviously, issues that touch a nerve with workers might not be
articulated or thought about by those workers or their representatives as
relating to the the economy; but that does not mean that there are not
economic roots to those issues that touch people's 'raw nerves'.
I definitely appreciate and agree with your comments about there being 'no
royal road to science' and about purely theoretical generalities being
somewhat worse than useless.
I do not at all claim that people's class inevitably fixes the state of
their consciousness once and for all. Of course people from middle class or
upperclass backgrounds can develop sophisticated analyses of the capitalist
system not necessarily in the direct interests of their class. Moreover,
middle class individuals can be some of the most compassionate and dedicated
defenders of the proletariat there are. Nevertheless, the conditions wherein
middle class socialist consciousness is developed are radically different
from the conditions wherein working class socialist consciousness develops,
and for that reason, there is likely to be some divergance in terms of
strategy, tactics, and analysis between a middle class socialist who has not
sufficiently looked out from beyond his class-conditioned , perspective and
one who has looked towards the working-class socialist perspective.
Finally, it is not generally 'the oppressed' that tell me to f*** off with
my Marxist verbiage. The conditions of my existence ensure otherwise.
cheers.
JURRIAAN WROTE:
I did not say that it is economistic reductionism to "place class at the
centre of sociological analysis". You're welcome to do that.
My argument is that it is reductionist to (1) attribute ideas in people's
heads directly and immediately to class factors, outside of episodes of
intense class conflict, and (2) reduce class conflict to economic conflict.
That is not setting up a straw man, it is an antidote to waffle about
"class".
As regards the idea that "it is a crude 'economistic' Marxism that does not
engage with non-class based oppression", that is very true. People who
really are oppressed aren't helped by doctrinal verities about the "ultimate
class basis" of their oppression. They are more likely to say "**** off with
your Marxist verbiage".
Jurriaan
_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
- Thread context:
- [Marxism] Re: THE MWM < A TENTATIVE STEP FORWARD, (continued)
- [Marxism] AGITPROP NEWS: 8.27.4,
Mike Alewitz Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:21 GMT
- [Marxism] New emperor: may a barbarian have a saying?,
Nestor Gorojovsky Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:12 GMT
- [Marxism] RE: Class and Institutions,
Calvin Broadbent Thu 28 Oct 2004, 10:46 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [Marxism] RE: Class and Institutions,
Calvin Broadbent Thu 28 Oct 2004, 14:39 GMT
- [Marxism] Re: Class and institutions,
Jeff Rubard Thu 28 Oct 2004, 17:46 GMT
- [Marxism] Re: Class and institutions,
Gavin Walker Thu 28 Oct 2004, 19:47 GMT
- Re: [Marxism] Re: Class and institutions,
Octob1917 Thu 28 Oct 2004, 21:31 GMT
- [Marxism] RE: Class and Institutions,
Calvin Broadbent Fri 29 Oct 2004, 11:37 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]