Present-day Class Distinctions (was: understanding dialectics)

Xxxzx Xyyxyz Xxxzx at
Mon Sep 27 17:48:01 MDT 1999

>Charles: Don't know. Seems to me more and more classes and strata -
>peasants, priests, scientists, >doctors - are falling into the class
>of wage-laborers. The class structure seems to less complex than
>in >previous modes.

  Of course, wage labour is the method of enlisting the productive
forces in capitalism. The point is that classes; i.e. different and
seperate relations to the productive forces, are only partly defined
in this way, and only to the extent that we can say, because they
are, this is capitalism (etc, etc). Class society in capitalism is
extremely more complex than this simplistic and basic definition of
class, being tied only by wage labour! Wage labourers can make
anywhere from 1,000,000 to 100 a year. Both are working for a wage
Charles! Are there no other factors besides the category of
"wage-labour" to determine CLASS differences besides?

>Marx's more and more two great classes seems correct.

Only in the most crude and basic way; Marx was seeing capitalism with
a new born baby's eyes, he was correct in his distinctions, but his
distinctions were limited because capitalism was as yet undeveloped.

  Can you honestly tell me that you see no CLASS historical difference
between the unskilled labourers of the advanced capitalist nations,
and the petty-bourgeois (oops! they don't exist anymore do they!),
the lawyers and the doctors; the skilled labourers, the lumpen
proletariat, etc, etc.

  How is it that when my relation to the means of production reach no
greater than a mop in an ancient records office, when my access to
commodities is extremely minimal; how can it be that I stand in the
same CLASS as those whose access to the means of production is on a
factory floor, whose labour is skilled?

  We share something in common, being in capitalism, no kidding! But
class position? No. Class is based on the divisions to the relations
to the productive forces, and capitalism has an ALLUVION of seperate
and distinct classes that relate to the productive forces.

  This does not usurp Marxism as all the dinosauers so fear; on the
contrary it is entirely correct if you are using the TOOLS of
Marxism, and not the answers, dogmas, etc. One and the only thing I
will ever say about Marx, is that if he saw our understanding
remained the same as his he would puke.

  Airplanes. Automobiles. Nuclear power. Computers.

  But the "good marxists" (did someone say materialists?) still think
just like Marx, someone who  ALWAYS was on the cutting edge of new
technological developments and updating and modifying his theory
tremendously in accordance. But nevermind, Marx saw all the
"important stuff".

  Nonsense. He forged the correct tools, not the correct answers.


More information about the Marxism mailing list