tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post8253092326481518681..comments2023-12-29T18:13:21.495-06:00Comments on pink scare: What Class Isn'tUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-55121285562723967842011-08-07T10:50:23.203-05:002011-08-07T10:50:23.203-05:00@Anonymous: I agree with you that the "cultur...@Anonymous: I agree with you that the "cultural advantages" are relevant here. In fact I do think that the factors taken into account by "stratification" theories of class matter. Erik Olin Wright had an article on class in New Left Review recently in which he argued that we should have a multifaceted approach to class that includes non-Marxist approaches. But I think we need to keep the big social-theoretic picture in view. I don't think that the "cultural advantages" you mention are sui generis or autonomous phenomena. Nor do I think income and wealth accumulation are merely explained by the cultural preferences, social connections, and so on of one's parents. Sure that stuff matters and the Left shouldn't let it go uncriticized. But production relations -the institutionalized office on occupies in the economic structure of society- are the most important factor in understanding income disparity, and, more importantly, inequalities of political and economic power. <br /><br />@Binh: Fair enough. Yes, we want relations of production which are *social* relations (not simply the relation between an individual and the means of production).thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-33578234979211867972011-08-06T22:22:12.765-05:002011-08-06T22:22:12.765-05:00"A person's class specifies their relatio..."A person's class specifies their relationship to the means of production in their society."<br /><br />Almost. Class is defined both by the relationship to the means of production and by the relationship to other people in the process of production. For example, neither the manager of a Wal Mart nor the workers own the comany, but they are not in the same class because the manager can hire/fire the workers.Binhhttp://www.planetanarchy.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-29364678898777786682011-08-05T09:36:21.908-05:002011-08-05T09:36:21.908-05:00Couldn't someone acknowledge the usefulness an...Couldn't someone acknowledge the usefulness and importance of the Marxist conception of class you push here... and nonetheless criticize you for failing to take seriously the importance of (Weberian) considerations such as opportunity hoarding and other advantages that accrue to those with higher incomes? And what about "cultural advantages" that attach to well-off groups (e.g. knowing the "correct" cultural references and books that a "cultivated" person must have read, what sorts of drinks to order, etc.) which enable them to mark themselves off from other groups? In other words, are the things talked about under the heading of "stratification" (in American sociology, say) of no importance to a critical theory of class? <br /><br />Someone could read your argument and conclude that you don't think that income inequality, wealth inequality and other impediments to fair equality of opportunity are important. Is that a fair interpretation of where you stand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com