Re: The Teixeira thesis

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> >Oh.  They like to define things with numbers.
>
> So do I, but you've got to have some conceptual scheme if you're
> classifying workers into "working class" and "not working-class."

This finally sank through to me only a couple days ago while reading
some material on class. I haven't got it clear yet, but this is a start.
Why do we _want_ to classify people into classes? Answer: No reason at
all.

Class is a complex and ever changing set of internal and external
relationships, a process. It is _not_ a set of pigeon holes to pop
individuals into. It tells us _nothing_ about Individual X to put her
into this or that convenient little file folder. It is altogether too
static a maneuver.

Whether we are thinking in terms of revolution or mass movements for
reform, or even simply for mass changes in electoral power, we _know_
that a substantial portion of the working class (however defined) will
_not_ be with "us." And we cannot predict in advance which sectors of
the class will be most vigorously in motion, which will be most
backward. Hence mere static classification is of little political or
theoretical use.

Carrol