NationStates Jolt Archive

It's true. By the economic definition of class, students technically belong to no class because they do not have certain roles and functions based on their relationship to the means of production.

I say this because I would like to call into question the predominant Marxist view of social struggle as being inherently focused around proletarian consciousness and struggle. If you look back to the 1960s New Left, a large number of the members of the movement came from the petty-bourgeois professional backgrounds and families, and still more came from explicitly bourgeois social upbringings.

This brings up an important point. Those these students grew up in environments that conditioned them to the role of their social class, whether it was the industrial proletariat or the professional intelligentsia, a considerable portion of the student population in the 1960s came to reject the idea of social classes. So perhaps the issue is not one of "class struggle" but rather a struggle against class.

Am I thinking clearly here, or did I miss something?

Autonomous Marxism, which IMO is a more honest reading of Marx, especially his earlier works, regards the working class to encompass those like students, the unemployed, housewives, etc.

We Students are our own class!

It's true. By the economic definition of class, students technically belong to no class because they do not have certain roles and functions based on their relationship to the means of production.

Not sure about that...students do have a role...to learn. Their relationship to the means of production is as skilled or professional labour resources...I'd have thought...

Not sure about that...students do have a role...to learn. Their relationship to the means of production is as skilled or professional labour resources...I'd have thought...

An individual student may have a goal as to where they wish to work, but the students as a gestalt do not fit in any social class, and form a "declasse" element.

I could have sworn students were meant to go to classes...


Does this mean they drink and party more than usual? Partying 101?

I could have sworn students were meant to go to classes...


Does this mean they drink and party more than usual? Partying 101?

Like you wouldn't believe. And you are an extreme lurker!

Students are future members of any potential class. Their next position in society is on the dole. ;)

As someone who drinks gin and tonic and occassionally wears a suit jacket when going out, how dare you say I have no class!

class must be decided on a family basis.

the child of the rich man is as much a member of the upper class as is his father no matter that he has never worked a day in his life.

same as the non-employed wife of the rich man.

An individual student may have a goal as to where they wish to work, but the students as a gestalt do not fit in any social class, and form a "declasse" element.

Um.....yeeeees

/Paxman

I'd argue that:

a.) Determining an individuals class is more than merely his or her position in the chain of production, it's a complex mix socio/economic factors wherein a proper evaluation that includes where you've come from, resources available to you, familial associations, etc.

b.) There is a whole plethora of different classes, not merely two, three or even four. Nouveau Riche, old money, ex-rich, upper middle and lower workers, upper middle and lower middle, I mean, it goes on and on and it's phenomenally complex. There is no such thing as "no class", just a more subtle definition is required to fill the gap. Students could fit any of these groups.

c.) The dichotomy of proletarians and bourgeousie is wrong.

I'd argue that:

a.) Determining an individuals class is more than merely his or her position in the chain of production, it's a complex mix socio/economic factors wherein a proper evaluation that includes where you've come from, resources available to you, familial associations, etc.

b.) There is a whole plethora of different classes, not merely two, three or even four. Nouveau Riche, old money, ex-rich, upper middle and lower workers, upper middle and lower middle, I mean, it goes on and on and it's phenomenally complex. There is no such thing as "no class", just a more subtle definition is required to fill the gap. Students could fit any of these groups.

c.) The dichotomy of proletarians and bourgeousie is wrong.

These are all contingent on point A. As such, you haven't proven why your definition of what constitutes a class is better than ours. A small business owner has more in common with a large business owner than he does with wage laborers. Our definition doesn't require the drawing of arbitrary income lines.

For B. Most certainly each class is divided up into subsections that have their own characteristics. But each within the 3 gestaltic classes of worker, coordinator and capitalist is more closely related to fellow subsections of the same class than they are different.

As for C, I feel its more of a trichotomy. The workers are the ones who do the non-management labor in return for a wage. Coordinators, obviously, serve as the middle managers for the capitalist owners of any large enterprise. They earn a salary as their main income, but also get petty-ownership in the enterprise to pull them (artificially) towards the interests of the owners. Obviously, the capitalists are those whose primary income comes from ownership.

they live high on the sweat, blood and death of the developing world.

And cheap noodles.

Students within the modern west are bourgeoisie vultures, like all their countrymen; they live high on the sweat, blood and death of the developing world.

And cheap noodles.
Speak for yourself, lower middle class person. I, for one, eat only the most expensive Ramen, made with fresh noodles and spices flown in from at least 13 different cities within the orient.

a.) Determining an individuals class is more than merely his or her position in the chain of production, it's a complex mix socio/economic factors wherein a proper evaluation that includes where you've come from, resources available to you, familial associations, etc.

That depends entirely on what you are trying to understand.

The Marxist theory of class is not concerned with "economic welfare" broadly conceived (not directly, anyway), but with the economic relations of society and their connection to the system of production. Levels of economic welfare are not defining characteristics of class but simply generalized results of these economic relations.

Just when I thought I had style someone tells me I have no class :(

In other news: No classes tomorrow, yay :D

Oh wait, I misinterpret the thread... again :p

These are all contingent on point A. As such, you haven't proven why your definition of what constitutes a class is better than ours. A small business owner has more in common with a large business owner than he does with wage laborers. Our definition doesn't require the drawing of arbitrary income lines.

I would argue that a class definition best encompasses the multiple stratifications of society, based not only on ownership of the means of production (as increasingly large portions of society can claim at least partial ownership through 401k plans and common stock, which has blurred the lines), but also economic well being. To merely claim the shotgun approach of a dichotomy (or trichotomy) is far too blunt an instrument to provide us with anything truly meaningful.

I would advise undertaking research in the form of a sociological study to find how people associate and how power is distributed.