[PEN-L:3781] Re: Bourdieu, etc.

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Of course, there are only two main classes in capitalism, but there are middle strata, a scientifically correct and Marxist category. See, for example, _Contemporary Capitalism and the Middle Classes_ by S.N. Nadel (Progressive Publishers/International 1982; well you might have to borrow my copy), a book thoroughly based in the authentic Marxist paradigm. The petit bourgeoisie exist and are a middle stratum technically, but "class" is defined by relationship to the means of production; and detailed scientific analysis includes differentiation between owners of very small amounts of means of production , owners of giant amounts of means of production and owners of no means of production but only their own labor power.

Petit bourgeois reformism is an actually existing thing, as well. This phrase connotes opportunism, whether among middle strata or working class.

Charles Brown

>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> 02/23/99 03:52PM >>>


Louis Proyect wrote:

>
> My problem is with the middle-class reformism t

I'm not going to argue this, since I've argued it so frequently
in the past, but I can't let it go by without at least a squeak.

One of the core songs of "middle-class reformism" is the use
of the term "middle-class" as though it had any marxist content --
or any content at all for that matter, other than an antiquarian
one of naming a big bourgeoisie in a social order where an
old landed aristocracy still wields hegemony.

Carrol