Post by redstar2000GUEST on Apr 5, 2005 20:45:04 GMT -5
flyby wrote: It also does not view class as a sociological label for individuals -- i.e. class analysis is a dynamic way of understanding society and the changes of society. It is not some shortcut way to understand individuals.
(I.e., you can't determine which class a person belongs to, and therefore think you really know something profound about what they think, or will do in any given situation. In fact, reality is not so reductionist!)
I said something very similar to this on the first page of this thread...
So the connection between class and behavior is "tricky" when considering any single individual...but once you have a statistically significant sample, then I think you can make some pretty obvious predictions and be almost always right.
If I were to say Barbara Celebrity is rich, "therefore", she "must" be a "pig"...that would be "stretching it".
But if I were to say that the "set" of people known as celebrities are highly probable to be either reactionary or reformist in their politics due to their material conditions and in defense of their own class interests, that seems to me to be a reasonable summary of the evidence...and still allows for the "rare exception".
flyby wrote: The middle class in the U.S. is a very diverse and complex class (that I won't try to sum up here) -- but many artists, professionals, singers, filmmakers, actors etc. are mainly in that class (some are poorer, and a few have enough money to be above that).
This fact (that there are "enlightened petty bourgeoisie") who have an important role in the revolutionary process, is part of what we are debating here. Since some people think that people who have "made it" must (in a mechanical and determinist and reductionist sense) be assumed to be on the wrong side. (As if people simply do what is in their own immediate interests, as if wealth automatically makes everyone a pig, as if there aren't a million reasons why a wealthy singer might not want radical change or struggle to stay on the side of the people.)
I agree that "assigning class" to particular individuals can very difficult unless you know a great deal about their particular circumstances. We have a tendency to take the "easy way" and just say that anyone who isn't clearly a major capitalist or an employed worker must be "middle class". It's "close enough", "more or less".
But then there's this consideration (which I also raised on the first page of this thread)...
"Celebrity-hood" is capitalism's "highest award" to anyone not born into the ruling class; it's a kind of "knighthood" given to those who've shown that they are willing and eager to successfully divert the masses from their real class interests.
In exchange for entertaining the masses, the celebrity becomes a kind of "demi-god"...the wealth and life-style that is normally available only to the really successful capitalist is made available to the celebrity.
With extremely rare exceptions, the celebrity is not "raised up" to the rank of major capitalist or granted "formal membership" in the ruling class; but s/he is allowed to live as if s/he held such a position.
So when one postulates an "enlightened petty bourgeoisie", then one may fairly be asked from what part of the petty-bourgeoisie is such enlightenment most likely to emerge?
Historically, it has been the "petty-bourgeois intellectuals" who have shown the clearest tendency to "drift" (or be "pulled") towards the side of the working class...with marked inconsistencies and vacillations, of course. Materially speaking, they are not very far above the life of the ordinary worker. And they often possess the training to see "the bigger picture" of society and how it works.
In addition, they express the understandable resentment of being compelled to serve those who are clearly less intelligent or knowledgeable. As a computer engineer put it once, "I became a communist because I got sick and tired of taking orders from stupid people!"
Something of this sort probably happens in the lower ranks of the entertainment industry. It's not out of the question that a Playboy bunny could become an outspoken feminist -- one did, as we know.
But real success...the kind we have been discussing in this thread, makes a huge difference. How likely is it, really, that someone who lives "as if" they were part of the ruling class is just going to toss that aside? Risk "everything" to be "on the side of the workers"?
You say "there are a millions reasons"...but you failed to specify a single one.
I can't think of any reason for them to do that.
![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums
(I.e., you can't determine which class a person belongs to, and therefore think you really know something profound about what they think, or will do in any given situation. In fact, reality is not so reductionist!)
I said something very similar to this on the first page of this thread...
So the connection between class and behavior is "tricky" when considering any single individual...but once you have a statistically significant sample, then I think you can make some pretty obvious predictions and be almost always right.
If I were to say Barbara Celebrity is rich, "therefore", she "must" be a "pig"...that would be "stretching it".
But if I were to say that the "set" of people known as celebrities are highly probable to be either reactionary or reformist in their politics due to their material conditions and in defense of their own class interests, that seems to me to be a reasonable summary of the evidence...and still allows for the "rare exception".
flyby wrote: The middle class in the U.S. is a very diverse and complex class (that I won't try to sum up here) -- but many artists, professionals, singers, filmmakers, actors etc. are mainly in that class (some are poorer, and a few have enough money to be above that).
This fact (that there are "enlightened petty bourgeoisie") who have an important role in the revolutionary process, is part of what we are debating here. Since some people think that people who have "made it" must (in a mechanical and determinist and reductionist sense) be assumed to be on the wrong side. (As if people simply do what is in their own immediate interests, as if wealth automatically makes everyone a pig, as if there aren't a million reasons why a wealthy singer might not want radical change or struggle to stay on the side of the people.)
I agree that "assigning class" to particular individuals can very difficult unless you know a great deal about their particular circumstances. We have a tendency to take the "easy way" and just say that anyone who isn't clearly a major capitalist or an employed worker must be "middle class". It's "close enough", "more or less".
But then there's this consideration (which I also raised on the first page of this thread)...
"Celebrity-hood" is capitalism's "highest award" to anyone not born into the ruling class; it's a kind of "knighthood" given to those who've shown that they are willing and eager to successfully divert the masses from their real class interests.
In exchange for entertaining the masses, the celebrity becomes a kind of "demi-god"...the wealth and life-style that is normally available only to the really successful capitalist is made available to the celebrity.
With extremely rare exceptions, the celebrity is not "raised up" to the rank of major capitalist or granted "formal membership" in the ruling class; but s/he is allowed to live as if s/he held such a position.
So when one postulates an "enlightened petty bourgeoisie", then one may fairly be asked from what part of the petty-bourgeoisie is such enlightenment most likely to emerge?
Historically, it has been the "petty-bourgeois intellectuals" who have shown the clearest tendency to "drift" (or be "pulled") towards the side of the working class...with marked inconsistencies and vacillations, of course. Materially speaking, they are not very far above the life of the ordinary worker. And they often possess the training to see "the bigger picture" of society and how it works.
In addition, they express the understandable resentment of being compelled to serve those who are clearly less intelligent or knowledgeable. As a computer engineer put it once, "I became a communist because I got sick and tired of taking orders from stupid people!"
Something of this sort probably happens in the lower ranks of the entertainment industry. It's not out of the question that a Playboy bunny could become an outspoken feminist -- one did, as we know.
But real success...the kind we have been discussing in this thread, makes a huge difference. How likely is it, really, that someone who lives "as if" they were part of the ruling class is just going to toss that aside? Risk "everything" to be "on the side of the workers"?
You say "there are a millions reasons"...but you failed to specify a single one.
I can't think of any reason for them to do that.
![](http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif)
The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums