Class - One Perspective
A criticism of the "third class" theory ( professional-technical-managerial class or PMC)) comes from Jean Cohen and Dick Howard who cite the work of Jurgen Habermas (Legitimation Crisis) and Clause Offe (Political Authority and Class Structures) . They concur that "all their analyses lead to the following consequence: the partial re-politicization from above (through state intervention) of both economic and socio-cultural life alters the fundamental presupposition on which Marx based his class theory: the separation of the state and civil society."
These thinkers are basing this political alteration on a change in modern capitalism, a change from liberal, laissez- faire, industrial revolution capitalism to "late" or "monopoly" capitalism. Because the state now intervenes in the economy a "political" dimension is opened which did not previously exist. In this scheme, "If the production and appropriation of surplus value and the determination of wages are increasingly dependent on relations of political power rather than market mechanism", classes give way to parties - "various groups struggling for the power to express their needs both within and outside institutions which provide for the public articulation of interests."
I am a believer in politics. But real "articulation of interests" is subverted by the hegemonic nature of capitalist ideology and the social relations it engenders. If we've learned nothing else it's that "democracy" where the system of production is excluded is a managed Spectacle, a commodity manufactured and marketed for mass consumption, like make-up or hamburgers. This then is the danger of identity politics. The black technical worker depending on state intervention (civil rights law, legislation, social spending, etc) to gain "equality" with the white manual laborer. He joins a Party which claims to represent his interests and assumes the state is somehow neutral and simply exists to express the will of the people.
A class is defined by it's oppositional, antagonistic stance to those who stand in it's quest for emancipation. All "contradictory class locations" will be resolved the day of a general strike. As Ken Kesey put it : 'You're either on the bus or off the bus."
We can only return to politics when class struggle has given control of the means of production to the society as a whole. Only then might such "institutions" actually be capable of articulating "public interests" and only then could a state find accomodation with civil society and justice, equality and democracy prevail.

6 Comments:
The third class theory can explain why we have identity politics, or why it's popular. It doesn't explain political economy in a dialectical manner.
Marx will survive this attack.
"We can only return to politics when class struggle has given control of the means of production to the society as a whole."
Problem is "society as a whole" doesn't know how to produce stuff. Individuals know how to produce stuff, and those that know how should control the process.
You're welcome to start a company that makes something and then turn the "means of production" over to "society as a whole," if you so choose, but keep your paws off of other people's stuff. Taking other people's stuff is theft, not democracy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Problem is "society as a whole" doesn't know how to produce stuff. Individuals know how to produce stuff, and those that know how should control the process.
I am trying to think of any sort of knowledge that an individual can develop isolated from society, and I am having trouble. Certainly there are natural talents, but I don't think we should reward someone for winning the genetic lottery.
Problem is "society as a whole" doesn't know how to produce stuff. Individuals know how to produce stuff, and those that know how should control the process.
This means nothing! Absolutely nothing! "Society as a whole" definitely knows how to produce stuff. It reproduces itself with each new generation.
Besides, (and this is embarrassing) those reified "individuals" at whose altar you worships are the very workers Troutsky is speaking about. In other words, you actually agree with him. Billions of workers are those that "know how to produce stuff." Thank you for reinforcing Trout's point that they should be in control of the process.
Now, on to this "other people's stuff" bit. Personal property, private property, etc. is a very weak argument to use...if you're being honest. Historically speaking we human beings have done a very lousy job of "keeping our paws off of other people's stuff." We are perfect hypocrites that want this rule to be applied after we've done a good deal of thieving our selves. It wasn't terribly democratic the way we (US Americans) came by--and continue to come by--our wealth. So let's start with that very dishonest premise.
Therefore, the arbitrary and criminal ways in which wealth has been concentrated in the hands of white men is not a legitimate basis by which companies are started.
Even if one's capital were a gift...say it bubbled up from under your feet in the form of black gold...hmmm...that's troubling. I wonder if that finite "discovery" was intended to be shared by all of humanity. Sort of a natural resource that doesn't belong to any one person, but to everyone.
Alright, let's say you inherited money from grandpa Rockefeller...opps...Grandpappy was a son-of-a-bitch who exploited the shit of "his" workers and gave the order to massacre miners in Ludlow, Colorado. More blood money.
Here we go. You are an amazing athlete that people willingly pay good money to come see. You earn a lot of money from your special physical talents. You are "extra"-ordinary. You deserve that money more than others. Your childhood neighbor was very ordinary, nothing special in the way of physical or intellectual talent to speak about. He is less deserving a the finer things in life, of which you indulge to your heart's content...
(to be continued...)
CheBob brings us to the "moral" argument, (quotation marks because it is also an objective question of justice, equality,)for a social leveling.I think we need to explore the difference between individual autonomy and "individualism", or the fetishistic worship of individual power (a la Ayn Rand etc) "Self interest" all to quickly becomes "dog eat dog". Anonomous thinks the "self made man" is isolated from history.
Post a Comment
<< Home