Doctors do useful labor. That is enough for them to be working class.
The fact that they have been granted certain privileges in capitalist
society does not change the fact that their labor is useful. Trading
stocks is not useful though.
On 8/27/2016 7:58 PM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Roger and Marx did have a good definition though. In fact working class does not exclude doctors, for example per se. They do labor of a certain sort and do indeed alter nature in healing people through science and skill.
Income in the capitalist schema doesn't matter to Marxists, or other schooled socialists in definitional terms.
In other words doctors would be considerred a part of the working class in a socialist schema.
They probably wouldn't make the average income they do in capitalist society, but they would still be working class.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Alice Dampman Humel <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:49 PM
*Subject:* [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
I do not use the Marxist definition of working class. Not at all.
On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Alice, Roger and Carl use the Marxist definition of working class
with Carl
doing a bit of expanding. If we were on an email list with no
members who
were dedicated to the classic theory of working class, we could
talk about
all the complexities. Given that we're were we are, I'm trying to
avoid the
whole question, entirely.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman
Humel
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 5:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
to expand on my own message and questions:
who gets to decide whether one is working class?
If that surgeon, using his own definition of working class, as
Frank wishes
and claims the right to do, sees himself as working class, does a
third
party, including me, have the right to say he is not?
How much does the life one lives, the choices one makes to do
with the same
wages as the next person, factor into the working class designation?
Does the factory worker who puts every penny he can into buying a
house in
the burbs cease to be working class when he and his family move
out of their
cramped, substandard apartment even though he still works in the same
factory at the same job at the same wage? What about his buddy
who earns the
same money laboring at the same job but blows every paycheck at
the local
bar? Is he more working class? Is one answer, or are both
answers, yes or no
stereotyping and profiling?
If my questions indicate nothing else, they surely indicate quite
clearly
that this is a complex question that can't be left to each
person's personal
preference or to some rigid, two-line definition.
Where does that leave us? ?
That's what I mean when I say that in order to have any kind of
meaningful
conversation that included anything about the working class
On Aug 27, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Alice Dampman Humel
<alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
so if you're working class, you're not permitted to earn a good
living?
. And Bob's arbitrary income and/or educational measuring standards
seem completely irrelevant. I really doubt anyone has
investments that they
live from that give them such a modest return. There wouldn't be
such a
problem with that.but when those returns for no labor at all are
millions
and millions, it's an entirely different matter.
and Carl added the requirement that the working class person must be
working to support the ruling class.
Many people seem to require a certain degree of suffering and
hardship to qualify for the working class.
Roger quotes a definition that the labor must be directly applied to
nature.
So it seems to me that everyone has their own personal spin on it,
and, it also seems to me that many spins include a certain amount of
exclusion of others and inclusion of the self based at least in
part on
those spins
On Aug 27, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Hi all,
No doubt, trying to define what is the working class is not
going to be
easy. One could argue that it means earning less than a
certain income,
let's say $40,000.00. The flaw there is that one could be
earning such
income from investments and not working at all. Also,
picking a number for
the income is problematic at best.
Others might say that it means doing some sort of physical
labor. But some
folks like plumbers and electricians earn a pretty good
living doing
physical labor.
Still others might argue that it is based on one's education
level. But we
all know folks who are relatively well educated who don't
make much money
and we know other less educated types who earn more money.
By the way, I
hesitate to use the word earn because it implies that all
who get money
deserve what they get and that is certainly not true in
these days of
injustice and tremendous income inequality.
Perhaps the best way to look at this is to take the approach
that former
SCOTUS justice Potter took in trying to define what is
obscenity. He said
that he couldn't define it specifically but that he knew
what it was when he
saw it.
Bob Hachey
