Re: Neo-conservatism and workers

A working class person with petit-bourgeois ideas is a working class person
with petit-bourgeois ideas. Not a petit-bourgeois person, who presumably is
part of the owning class or who makes his/her income primarily from the
labor of others. Even upper income working class people are being cheated by
the capitalists.


None of my comments are meant to forgive or excuse reactionary,
pro-imperialist, even racist or pro-fascist ideas or actions that such
"upper stratum" workers might carry out. Class analysis tells us about
trends, not about individuals. Individuals must take responsibility for
their acts, good or bad, no matter what class they belong to.

But it "muddies up the water", it confuses the issue to say that such upper
income workers are not workers. It moves towards defining class as based on
attitudes. One can analyze society based on attitudes, of course, and
sometimes it might be useful. But let's not use the rhetoric of class
analysis when we are doing attitude analysis. Attitude analysis leads away
from analyzing the material structures, forces, and processes that make
capitalism-imperialism function in certain ways, and opens the door to a
liberal analysis that can easily slide into a conservative analysis that no
longer blames the workings of capitalism-imperialism and the rich who
benefit, but instead blames those who are supposedly "too ignorant or
corrupt to stop it."

Alan Spector


----- Original Message -----
From: "g kohler" <gkohler@accglobal.net>
To: "George Pennefather" <poseidon@eircom.net>
Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 8:08 PM
Subject: 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
>
>