: As "class" related to "exploitation" and "alienation" are central to your claims I find such a statement astonishing. But you have already glossed over the assumption that the two possess any difference. "Classification" is solely an engagement of the mind and is not "given" to us by either the physical or the evolved social world.No, I mean the class/classification malarky.
: Do I hear a hint of nominalism creeping in here? I hope so. Death to naive essentialism. If you were to replace 'class' with 'fish' and retain the ideas behind what you are attempting to describe I would find it perfectly okay?
No, you hear structuralism. I could replace the sign C-L-A-S-S with J-A-P-O-O-T-Y so long as it didn't bring any referent with it, or otehr associations, it could fulfil the same function within teh system of linguistic differences... I dunno, I would have highlighted the change in the text Class = fish/japooty so you'd have understood, I was just trying to escape teh malicious homophony.
: You are making a dualistic division between your cherished definition of "class" and the "classification" that the mind engages in. In reality, "class" is a subset of "classification" as it is a nominalistic operation of the mind.
No, I don't think so, I beleive that 'class' has its own sedimented meaning as a signifier.
: Assigned? Clearly a teleological phenomenon. What particular Will has 'assigned' them? And furthermore, you're saying taht our mental classifications of "social classes" are completely different from the "other" classifications the mind makes. "Class" is something reality gives us and "classification" is something our minds engage in? No, "class" is an operational subset of "classification". "Capitalist" class and "worker" class are outcomes of the "classification" operation that has occurred in your own mind, as well as the minds of others here. It is no more a priori valid than any other operations of "classification" that either your mind, my mind, or any other mind has ever engaged in. "Classifications" including "class" are continuously upgraded, discarded, improved, and expanded as we obtain new experiences.
Assigned: In the past it has been a willed task, by teh ruling class to direct people into tehir correct role, and to create teh class that served them.
Classification: We've been here before, all you are saying is that 'class' is a word like any other, that I most readilly accept. 'Hat' is a classification, 'dog' is a classification, 'japooty' would be, bnut has no refferent as yet.
: How? Why? What evidence do you have for this? Classifying more complex phenomena may, indeed, present more difficulties. However, there is no possible valid distinction within the "classification" function.
People experience their lives as workers, or as the rich, there is an experience that is 'class-life' such experience is teh referrrent fo the term class...
: This is pure essentialism and is absolutely incorrect. "Class" is an outcome of the mind's "classification" process and only "exists" in a nominal sense as minds conceive of them. The physical existance is mind-independent, but all "classifications" including "class" are nominal and mind-dependent.
I agree, you are now stating teh obvious, and blunting your point, before I thought you were making some serious attempt to suggest that 'class' was simnply an attempt at scientific classification, but now you're trying to tell me its all just language, and how it works, we've covered this ground...
: Cricket is a specific game, with specific objectives, designed by specific people seeking to gain specific pleasure by associating with other specific people in specific manners. The complete nature of the game has been specifically designed and is, thus, of a teleological nature. Society, in any form, throughout history is a continuous process with no specific ends and no specific rules. Methinks your relating of cricket, a specific teleological event, with society demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the non-teleological nature of society.
I don't understand how cricket is teleological, really, it has 'evolved' through play,a nd through life into its modern form, some bits are occaisionally changed here and there. But society was formed in teh same way.
ANd BTW- It wasn't an analogy of society, it was an illustration of 'class' and how its logic can work.
: This is the essentialist method that defines "the underlying essences of things". You are relying on a metaphysical argument about the nature of the wage relationship to define your classes for you. In short, you say: all production, including capital, has been produced by workers but since not all production is owned by workers then the workers have been "alienated". However, this "alienation" and "production" and "capital" are also all "classifications" asserted by your own mind and do not exist independent of them (although the physical states do exist as such). You state earlier that the mind engages in classification and then come back here and contradict yourself by acting as if classes determine themselves for you.
1:Its not a 'platonic' essence, its it an attempt to find the underlying structure.
2:Alienation is caused by our selling our waged labour, by making outr labour power 'alien' to ourselves.
3:Such categories may exist only in my mind, however, they do help illustrate and explain events, an explanatory narrative if you will. Its not an essence
4:I thank you for acknowledging that the material states exist- since this is so, then you are acknowledging that classes do exist, all you are quibling about is what I have chosen to call them.
: No. "Social class" is a portion of the mind's "classification" operation and does not exist outside this function. Your whole classification and, thus, class arguement is based upon ancient Platonic Essentialism.
Plato asserted that ideas existed before the object, I simply assert that teh object exists before teh idea. I realise all language is an attempt to map the world.
You seem to think that we live in some sort of bad solipsism, as I have said before, my words do not exist in my head alone, my 'language' and thus my classifications come from society, and from interaction with an experiential world. I rather think we have reached agreement then- you want me to admit that class exists as my best guess at defining teh relationship? I do. And you now admit that said material states exist. Good. Lets move on. So long as teh material states exist, I don't give a bugger how they're described...
