Re: Neo-conservatism and workers

George --

your post raises an interesting question which I have been pondering for
some time.---

You talk about some kind of subdivision in the working class -- "upper
layer" and the rest, and discuss differences between them, in terms of
ideology and political behaviour. For example, you write:

"Objective developments in the character of capitalism have led
>to changes in the social composition of the working class which has
>essentially thrown up a new section within the upper stratum of the working
>class."
and
." This layer is an upper layer within the working class. It
>is, in some degree, a transitional layer in the sense that some elements
>within  it are in a fluid condition whereby there is a flux back and forth
>between the working and middle class. Consequently there obtains ambiguity
>within this layer as to its social identity --its definition in class
terms.
>This condition provides rich fertile ground for the blossoming of petty
>bourgeois ideas."

If you place that in a world(-)system context, it looks as if the better-off
layer of workers/employees in the rich countries (core, first world) could
be considered as the petit bourgeoisie of the world system -- many workers
here in modern Canada or in Switzerland, etc. have a petit bourgois
lifestyle (house with mortgage, car or two, motorbike or sail boat, etc.) --
no comparison with the wretched working class conditions of 1848 Europe (ten
children, diseases, no food, 16 hour work days) or wretched working class
conditions in other parts of the present world. This stratum of folks has
been called "labour aristocracy", but you may as well call them "global
petit bourgeoisie". What do you think?

Gert Kohler