: Which is a bunch of malarky as "class" is a subset of the mind's "classification" operation.As all words are, unless, as I at first presumed, you are criticising my process of identifying social class.
Thus, I submit for your agreement or dismissal:
'Social Class is a function of ones relationship to the means of production'- or, the same thing a different way 'Ones social class is a function of one's position in the relations/system of production.'
Because I think this, and this alone is the core of our debate, non of this wanky language stuff, this. Do you agree or disagree?
: 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.
No:
Classification: A system or means of arranging sets.
Social Class: Ones relations to teh means of production.
Social class is a class in and as much as all terms in language are classes.
: 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.
bow,bow,baugh,bow,bow,bowl,bowl.- all the same word, or are they different?
: 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.
No, people are part of the system, no 'one' person is in harge, but each person within the system creates the system, humans make their own history.
: 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.
o, I think you are making a serious category error here- Social CLass is a set of things- like peasant, aristocrat, bourgeoise,artisan, priest (They're roughly teh medieval classes). You ask Any Brazillian peasant if they are a peasant, they will say yes- now some may grow different crops from others, some may work as a blacksmith, but as a class, they are still peasants. Social Class is not the sysyem of identifying people, or of placing them in sets.
: 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.
I agree, in some situations different prioritis overide, approaching each other as male/female, black/white, barber/barbee, whore/whoremaster. in different situations different identities are predominant, however, only relations to teh emans of production has any relation to how we live, how we make a living and continue to do so.
: 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.
The wage relation is teh most common relation, it occurs to millions of people every day, their livces depend upon it, everything they have depend upon it, without it, many of teh otehr classifications cease to operate (if I confront my pupils as teacher, then I am teacher at that time, but only so long as my employer allows me).
: 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.
You're stretching the point and missing the illustration (not analogy, its not an allegory of life or nothing, just a way of showing how many different and varied relationships can rely upon one underlying and fundamental relationship).
: 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.
No, no-one knows who designed cricket. Likewise, class has changed, peasantry ended in England in the Eighteenth century (if not before). no *one* designed society, but a small class has used its immense power to structure it Enclosure changed the face of England, the growth of mills created cities (many built initially by the small band of capitalists). They may not be in total control, just as a batsman cannot totally control the force and direction of his game, circumstances prevail.
But again, you miss my point, it doesn't matter who created cricket, the fact remains, and you have failed to address this, that one relationship can underly and govern many others.
: 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'.
Or a non essentialist could ask 'how do we know politicians?' 'how are politicians constructed?', 'what is the ideological function of politician?'
: 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.
No, its not actually, it may be related to a metaphysical myth of human wholeness, but actually its about how we wrelate to our lived lives- do we feel we have control? Does our work, or life feel like we own it? Do we have a sense of 'self'? etc.
: 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.
Right, but if this relationship I have analysed exists, right, then that means that it has quite wide social ramifications, much greater than those of a consumer/lawyer relationship, that need exploring...yeah? And if wage earners rely on this relationship for their home, their food, and eh well being of their familly, before their specific professional relationships, then doesn't that need exploring?
: But capitalist and worker are ideas as are police, christian, jew, pundit, reporter, miner, unionist, etc.
But the physical actions, or rather, the material possibilities, pre-exist the word, as we have discussed in previous theads...
: 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.
I didn't say mirror, I said 'map' all maps are continuously updated attempts to represent the world.
: And I will keep on beating this point into the ground until you realize that social classes transcend the naive essentialist capitalist/worker disctinction.
Tell that to someone sacked coz their boss didn't like their attitude.
