Hey, by saying that "The Marxian definitions of class are relatively
abstract," I wasn't criticizing them or suggesting that there was a problem
(that was Max). Abstraction is good, helping us to understand the concrete.
At 01:17 AM 01/11/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>THE PROBELM MAY NOT BE SO MUCH WITH THE A MARXIST
>DEFINITION OF A CLASS WHICH IS TOO ABSRTRACT, FOR BY
>DEFINITION A DEFINITION MUST BE ABSTRACT. The probelm
>is in understanding that one is not suppose to look
>for the all homogeneous working class prototype to
>validate a working class. Not even in physics this
>conception of the universal holds. The general "class"
>is the manifestation (mediation) of a socially
>determined and concrete relationship in any historical
>context. Thus it is the relationship that reproduces a
>class, which is the "universal" in a specific mode of
>production. i also prefer, although with some
>reservation the Hegelian differentiation of actual
>from the concrete a la Ilyenkov).
>
>I may be wrong but a word on the manifestation of
>consciousness may invole some distinction between
>knowing the laws that reproduce working class
>conditions and the psychological manifestation of
>capitulation to these conditions.
>
>--- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [was: Re: [PEN-L:6801] RE: Re: Re: Implications of
> > Surplus Tax Cut?]
> >
> > At 08:34 PM 01/09/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >The problem w/the marxist definitions is that,
> > while they may have some
> > >bearing on how economies develop, they don't have
> > much political,
> > >cultural, or sociological meaning. The $20K
> > proprietor, nurse, factory
> > >operative, and even security guard have more in
> > common with each other
> > >than any of them do with a $150K artisan, from any
> > practical political
> > >standpoint, including a socialist or
> > >marxist one.
> >
> > The Marxian definitions of class are relatively
> > abstract, which means that
> > other factors -- such as relations of consumption --
> > can play a role in
> > shaping what kind of concrete experience and thus
> > consciousness people
> > have. (The concrete, empirical, world is always
> > over-determined, i.e.,
> > issues of class aren't the whole story.) For
> > example, if a blue-collar auto
> > worker can afford a car and can commute to the
> > suburbs, that encourages him
> > or her to share concerns and interpretations with
> > others who live in
> > similar suburbs and drive cars because they have
> > similar income, even if
> > they aren't blue-collar workers. (The US United Auto
> > Workers leadership
> > used to be very conscious of the way in which autos
> > affected their members'
> > consciousness. It clearly has an impact here in
> > L.A.)
> >
> > That is, the abstract class category isn't the whole
> > story and so differs
> > from the concrete life-experience that individuals
> > have. However, I'd say
> > that the destruction of much of the "blue-collar
> > middle class" (i.e., the
> > destruction of the "good" or primary labor-market
> > jobs) since the 1970s has
> > led to a homogenization of much of working class
> > experience, so that it's
> > quite likely that there will be a convergence of
> > consciousness. Of course
> > differences of ethnicity, nationality, location, and
> > gender persist. So we
> > aren't going to see the class "in itself" become a
> > class "for itself"
> > automatically.
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> > http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>http://photos.yahoo.com/
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
