: No, I mean the class/classification malarky.Which is a bunch of malarky as "class" is a subset of the mind's "classification" operation.
: 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.
Okay, I see your point. You are saying taht I am jumping on the class/classification issue becasue they sound alike. But the whole point is that they are the same function, they are alike, in fact they're identical. You are the one making the false division between the two; they're the same thing.
: , I beleive that 'class' has its own sedimented meaning as a signifier.
Nothing, nothing at all has any "meaning" outside of physical minds that sift through reality and apply classifications to their physical structures. Social "class" is exactly the same and doesn't have its own meaning.
: : 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.
Now you're contradicting your earlier posts where you clearly state that no one is in charge, not even the capitalists. No one has assigned anything.
: 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.
No. 'Class' is not a classification; it is classification. They're the same thing.
: 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...
But there are infinite number of other social classes that often have much more relevance to how we act in relation to our classifications. For instance, the US textile industry and everyone involved in it is a social class. You are making essentialist assumption regarding the objectivity of the rich/worker view of classes. It possesses some validity; just not overarchingly. Other classifications of class are more valid in different situations.
: : "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,
And if you actually lived by the above comment you'd drop the capitalist/worker distinctions and analyze the thousands and thousands of potentially infinite other social class interests. If you actually agreed with my statement you'd drop the static definition of 'class' and begin to expand and improve your social analysis based upon a dynamic and expanding definition of class.
: before I thought you were making some serious attempt to suggest that 'class' was simnply an attempt at scientific classification,
Where does science end? Where does everyday life begin? Young children engage in science by learning language and other forms of communication. Class is a subset of the mind's classification function.
: but now you're trying to tell me its all just language, and how it works,
But you haven't corrected your essentialist references to class, so we obviously haven't come to terms here.
: : 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.
: some bits are occaisionally changed here and there. But society was formed in teh same way.
C'mon. Who laid down the rules? Where was the pre-social man before these specific rules were formed? However, it's interesting that each person in a cricket match can have numerous other 'class' interests outside of the game.
: ANd BTW- It wasn't an analogy of society, it was an illustration of 'class' and how its logic can work.
And it shows the poverty of the static capitalist/worker paradigm. Capitalists and workers are not mind-independent classes. Remember, people voluntarily engage in cricket and learn the game so as to have foreknowledge of the rules. Life and society behave in a completely different manner. No one designed society. Specific people designed cricket.
: : 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.
But 'underlying structures' are pretty much unimportant. What is important is 'how different things interact'. Funny that you use 'underlying structure' as it has strong essentialist overtones. Instead of saying 'what is a politician' a non-essentialist asks 'how do politicians maximize their personal utility'.
: 2:Alienation is caused by our selling our waged labour, by making outr labour power 'alien' to ourselves.
This is related to the metaphyisical definition of value asserted by Marx. I can't disprove it but it's just a metaphysical claim anyways. So, I find it absolutely outside rational discussion.
: 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
Amen. Now you contradict yourself again. If you actually lived by this then you'd drop the static, naive, essentialist classifications of capitalist and worker and analyzy the infinite number of other social class interests.
: 4:I thank you for acknowledging that the material states exist- since this is so, then you are acknowledging that classes do exist
While the physical reality exists, class is only an outcome of the mind's operation and experience. Class is continuously expanded, improved and corrected by futher experiences and experiments. Class is dynamic and ever-changing and not static and set.
:, all you are quibling about is what I have chosen to call them.
I don't care what you call anything as long as you are presenting arguements with idea-content.
: : 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.
But capitalist and worker are ideas as are police, christian, jew, pundit, reporter, miner, unionist, etc.
: I realise all language is an attempt to map the world.
Oh no, here's where we'll differ. The language as 'mirror to reality' does not fit. Language is an active and continuously changing hypothesis about our potential actions in the world.
: my classifications come from society,
And our only contact with society is experiential. But 'classifications' do not come from society. They come from the classifications function of the mind which searches for evidence to test it hypotheses.
: 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.
But you don't. You ignore and gloss over the vastly numerous other describable and analyzable social classes.
: 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...
And I will keep on beating this point into the ground until you realize that social classes transcend the naive essentialist capitalist/worker disctinction.
