[PEN-L:2003] Re: Something completely different

[V600A8E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Shwagi wrote:
>
> > Jerry, what Louis is saying is truer than what you are saying.  I think
> > you are confusing bourgeois stratificational analysis with Marxiam class
> > analysis.  Yes, we know there exist differences between professors and
> > farmers but at the greatest level of abstraction they, like teachers,
> > for example, are not and cannot be bona fide big capitalists.  They are
> > merely circulators of capital who are subjectively capitalist-minded but
> > objectively non-bourgeois.
> --------
> At issue is whether "college professors" and teachers are part of the
> petty-bourgeoisie or the working class. I believe it is Shwagi who is
> confusing "bourgeois stratificational analysis with Marxiam (sic) class
> analysis."

Any sociologist of education worth his/her grain in salt knows that most,
if not all, teachers come from the working class.  You don't really see
people from the ruling class entering the teacher quasi-profession.
As for college professors, they are overwhelmingly petty-bourgeois minded
and have very very far to go before they can become bona fide big
capitalists.   You must know that even the most well-paid professors are
always 2-3 paychecks away from poverty.  Look, if you have to sell your
labor-power to exist/survive, then you are a worker/laborer.

> What is the most important characteristic that distinguishes one class
> from another under capitalism according to Marx?
>
> Farmers own land and means of production. What do faculty own? Are they
> self-employed?

But neither are or can be bona fide big capiatlists.  Besides, the number
of farmers is rapidly diminishing.  Further, both have to live in a
capitalist society; both are at the mercy of big capitalists.  Also,
while their objective relations to the means of production may differ,
their subjective identities are not radically different.  As the social
base changes, both become increasingly proletarinized.  But, their
petty-bourgeois-mindedness lingers on long after the social base for their
objective existence has withered away.  Both basically lack theoretical
consciousness of their socio-economic conditions.

> Are college faculty and teachers merely circulators of capital? I think
> not.

While they may not be "merely" circulators of capital, they embody
petty-bourgeois ways of thinking and acting paralleling those of, say,
farmers.  But they (e.g., small and medium-sized petty-bourgeios
merchants) definitely faciltate the circulation of capital.  They
(specifically merchants) serve this essential function for a specific
reason: to deal with as much of the surplus as possible.  In fact, this
is why they sometimes (often?) stand in an antagonistic position to big
capitalists.  Big capitalists, when they can't profit as much as they
would like, pass on the responsibility of their efforts to the small
capitalis wannabes.  As for teachers and college professors, to a great
extent they facilitate the reproduction, both ideological and practical,
of future laborers.  This is a capitalist mandate which in the long run
undermines the objective position of teachers and college professors.

> For example, at Pratt Institute I produce ... surplus value.

No. You FACILITATE the production of surplus value.  You do not produce
it.  I suggested Peter Meiksins article on this very issue of who is and
is not a producer of surplus (you know, the reference you did not include
when reproducing my originnal post).

> In any
> event, I think you confuse the question of productive vs. unproductive
> labor with class. From my perspective, most wage earners who work for the
> state are *clearly* part of the working class.

Yes. Objectively, yes.  We may even say: all wage-workers, not just most.

> To say otherwise, BTW, has
> important political implications regarding "working class unity."
>
> You say that faculty are "subjectively capitalist-minded." It is true
> that many faculty identify frequently with the interests of an alien
> class -- an example of false consciousness. Are most wage earners in this
> country class conscious? I think not. False consciousness is prevalent for
> *most* workers in this country (and perhaps internationally as well).

Yes, collective delusion is a pervasive problem.  But false political
consciousness is not a blanket phenomenon.  It is not absolute.  This is
why "members" of, say, the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie can and
do defect to the working class.  It is easy to go to the library and find
all kinds of surveys "demonstrating" the stupidity, intellectual
corruptness or otherwise of the working class, but this is all bourgeois
business as usual dogshit.  The working class is full of people who are
conscious of political, social and economic conditions.  The problem is
an organizational one, a task difficult to achieve in a pool full of
anti-Communist sharks.  The objective conditions for qualitative change
are in fact over-ripe.  There is the subjective side that now needs to be
further cultivated.

> I am at least pleased that you didn't give us references this time from
> the works of Josef Stalin or Enver Hoxfa.
>
> I would advise that you re-read _The Communist Manifesto_. After you
> understand that pamphlet, then you can go on to more rigorous works by
> Marx (e.g. _Capital_).
>
> Jerry

Stop with the diversionary shit.  This is weak baiting from another person
who thinks anyone who mentions Stalin is drinking a pint of parrot urine
daily.  Haven't you read anything?


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
V600A8E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx