re: global class analysis / unequal exchange

You mentioned that Wallerstein's dichotomy "world workers vs. world
bourgeoisie" is "problematic", partly, because is does not include a
reference to territorial states. [of course, he doesn't ignore the state,
but it's not in this particular formulation.] This point raises another
question in my mind, namely: What is the purpose of (global or any) class
analysis? Is the primary purpose (a) knowledge (empirical theory,
historiography) or (b) action (praxeology)?
-
In the praxeological mode of reasoning a dichotomy is of great interest,
leading to such dichotomies as "proletariat versus bourgeoisie"
(Marx-Engels), "world's villages vs. world's cities" (Mao), "periphery vs.
centre" (WS school), "military target, yes-no" (NATO), "good plants vs.
weeds" (gardeners), etc. Such dichotomies are used in order to provide a
focus for action and can also be abused, especially, if that action includes
violence. On the other hand, scholarly-empirical theorizing and research
leads away from dichotomies to multi-categorial schemes, e.g., Marx-Engels:
"bourgeoisie" is subdivided into "haute beourgoisie" and "petite
bourgeoisie" (subsequent Marxist scholasticism brings in other
subdivisions); "proletariat" is subdivided in (authentic) "proletariat" and
"Lumpenproletariat", etc. In WS theory, "center" and "periphery" are further
subdivided and refined. In academic biology you have complicated
classification systems of plants and other living things. It appears that
(global) class analysis can legitimately use several alternative and
empirically valid classification schemes, depending on your underlying
intent. My own bias is to start on the praxeological side, leading to a
preference for a dichotomy. Having said that, I find the praxeological
categories "proletariat vs. bourgeoisie" antiquated. The distinguishing
criterion in this dichotomy is "ownership of the means of production,
yes--no". At Marx-Engels time this criterion gave a fairly good
operationalization of the concepts of "haves" vs. "have-nots". Todate, it
doesn't. For example, as Galbraith Sr. pointed out umpteen years ago, modern
CEO's (Chief Executive Officers) of companies and their
"technostructure"/managers are legally "employees", rather than "owners of
the means of production". On the other side, many people for whom various
leftist movements are fighting, are legally "owners of their means of
production", e.g., poor Mayan campesinos in Chiapas or Mozambiquan farm
families who may own a plot of land, a goat and a shovel. I think,
therefore, that the criterion "ownership of the means of production" is
problematic, especially in world(-)system(s) analysis -- it is empirically
less valid than in the Marx-Engels 19th century European environment and it
is praxeologically less useful. Another legal criterion seems more useful --
namely, "person X's economic human rights are realized, yes--no". One
benefit of this criterion is with respect to solidarity. The dichotomy
"worker vs. bourgiosie", if applied in the global center-periphery context,
leads to a praxeological conundrum -- namely, workers of the center are
cursing their Center-bourgeoisie and, at the same time, they are being
cursed for being a "labour aristocracy" on a global scale by fellow-leftists
of the periphery countries. This prevents
global solidarity among center and periphery workers. In my proposed
dichotomy, based on the economic-human rights criterion, there is a
commonolity between anyone whose economic human rights are violated, whether
they live in the core or the periphery, whether they are peasants
("Kartoffelsaecke", Marx),
industrial workers, unemployed academics, single-mothers with babes thrown
out into the street by the landlord because they cannot pay the rent
("Lumpenproletariat", Marx), etc.
Furthermore, existing law (i.e., the human rights code) lends broad
legitimacy to claims stated in terms of economic human rights. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights has tremendous leftist potential for a global
civil rights movement if you interpret it as a leftist document.
--
[Elson and Cakmak, thanks for your interesting comments. It would be nice to
meet you one of these days in real space rather than cyberspace...I am also
keenly interested in the topic of unequal exchange /world technolocal rent ,
but this post is already getting too long...]


gernot kohler
sheridan college
oakville, canada