Class

[Beef Oven]

But isn't that just a fuzzy, less well-defined version of Marx's definition? and what does "people who are alike" mean in this context? I have to confess that don't know much about Althusser and less about Poulantzas, except that Althusser's work seems to involve a retrenchment into theory, and Poulantzas' work is motivated (and I woud say his class analysis is undermined) by an attempt to reconcile Marxist analysis with liberal democracy, which I don't think can get very far. It could perhaps be said that the subsequent history of European social democracy tends to indicate that Poulantzas' "alliance" is an illusion: you say that Blair achieved such an alliance, but, as we all know, during the Blair years inequality (class inequality) increased, as it continues to do.

I don't think that it's fuzzy, or less well defined than Marx. Poulantzas does not try to reconcile Marxist analysis with liberal democracy (or at least that's not how I read him or was taught), more he looks to explain how the state works in relation to class and the people in society who have power and the extent of that power. If as, as you say, you know little about Poulantzas, you might want to read some of his writings - you would not regret it I think. He writes better than most theoreticians.

[ahinton]

Discussion on class here if anyone wants to continue. Unbelievably stupid insults here.

For the record, discussions are under way as to whose turn it is to get out their chequebook and pay for the next upgrade as we are again in danger of exceeding our bandwidth. I wonder if we should even bother, at £200+ a time and not much in it for FoR3.

Yes, it did all get very silly indeed, did it not? - and I'm at least as much to blame as anyone here. Beef Oven was, I fear, the root cause of much of it, yet here he is now (later in the thread that your post here) actually engaging with the subject seriously and, whatever I might think of what he says, he is being serious and thoughtful. I just wish that he had done so before hand and, if he's still following this thread (which I assume he is), he will appreciate - or at the very least understand - what I have written here.

[ahinton]

I don't think that it's fuzzy, or less well defined than Marx. Poulantzas does not try to reconcile Marxist analysis with liberal democracy (or at least that's not how I read him or was taught), more he looks to explain how the state works in relation to class and the people in society who have power and the extent of that power. If as, as you say, you know little about Poulantzas, you might want to read some of his writings - you would not regret it I think. He writes better than most theoreticians.

Why weren't you writing like this a few hours ago? I don't say that I'm necessarily with you here, but at least you're engaging seriously with the topic, for which many thanks.

[Richard Barrett]

If as, as you say, you know little about Poulantzas, you might want to read some of his writings - you would not regret it I think. He writes better than most theoreticians.

I did read State, Power, Socialism somewhat cursorily some time ago; I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse on it but I did find a couple of snippets online which I think support my impression of his work:

"At no point should changes lead to the actual dismantling of the economic apparatus: such a development would paralyse it and accordingly increase the chances of boycott on the part of the bourgeoisie. (...) the democratic road to socialism refers to a long process. the first phase of which involves a challenge to the hegemony of monopoly capital. but not headlong subversion of the core of the relations of production."

Which would seem to suggest a fairly unambiguous "reformist" outlook, and thus one which must necessarily reject Marx's analysis at a fundamental level. But I'm a bit out of my depth now. My questions would be: (a) in what ways could Poulantzas' analysis be said to improve on Marx's (including as developed through the Marxist tradition), and (b) if it does improve on it, how does that contribute to the class system being superseded by something characterised by equality and justice ("the point however is to change it")?

[Serial_Apologist]

I did read State, Power, Socialism somewhat cursorily some time ago; I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse on it but I did find a couple of snippets online which I think support my impression of his work:

"At no point should changes lead to the actual dismantling of the economic apparatus: such a development would paralyse it and accordingly increase the chances of boycott on the part of the bourgeoisie. (...) the democratic road to socialism refers to a long process. the first phase of which involves a challenge to the hegemony of monopoly capital. but not headlong subversion of the core of the relations of production."

Which would seem to suggest a fairly unambiguous "reformist" outlook, and thus one which must necessarily reject Marx's analysis at a fundamental level. But I'm a bit out of my depth now. My questions would be: (a) in what ways could Poulantzas' analysis be said to improve on Marx's (including as developed through the Marxist tradition), and (b) if it does improve on it, how does that contribute to the class system being superseded by something characterised by equality and justice ("the point however is to change it")?

Geoff Hodgson offered a more coherent turn on Poulantzas' ideas in two books from around 1980: "Parliamentary Democracy and Socialism" and "Trotsky and Fatalistic Marxism". Slightly off topic, however...

[Beef Oven]

I did read State, Power, Socialism somewhat cursorily some time ago; I wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse on it but I did find a couple of snippets online which I think support my impression of his work:

"At no point should changes lead to the actual dismantling of the economic apparatus: such a development would paralyse it and accordingly increase the chances of boycott on the part of the bourgeoisie. (...) the democratic road to socialism refers to a long process. the first phase of which involves a challenge to the hegemony of monopoly capital. but not headlong subversion of the core of the relations of production."

Which would seem to suggest a fairly unambiguous "reformist" outlook, and thus one which must necessarily reject Marx's analysis at a fundamental level. But I'm a bit out of my depth now. My questions would be: (a) in what ways could Poulantzas' analysis be said to improve on Marx's (including as developed through the Marxist tradition), and (b) if it does improve on it, how does that contribute to the class system being superseded by something characterised by equality and justice ("the point however is to change it")?

I understand your point better now, but I don't think that Poulantzas needs to be described as 'reformist'. He and Gramsci always struck me as pragmatists and modernisers. Poulantzas key observation is that cultural hegemony is to be achieved by establishing a connection between different classes. The analytical tool that he uses is highly germane today with the political elite attempting to turn its back on some of its natural supporters and playing to 'up and coming' elements of the underclass.

[Beef Oven]

Geoff Hodgson offered a more coherent turn on Poulantzas' ideas in two books from around 1980: "Parliamentary Democracy and Socialism" and "Trotsky and Fatalistic Marxism". Slightly off topic, however...

I have read 'Trotsky and Fatalistic Marxism' (probably in 1980 although my memory says 1979) and would recommend it. Have not read the other book.

I certainly hope that either book is indeed more coherent than my ramblings!

[Serial_Apologist]

I have read 'Trotsky and Fatalistic Marxism' (probably in 1980 although my memory says 1979) and would recommend it. Have not read the other book.

I certainly hope that either book is indeed more coherent than my ramblings!

Both books provided the push for my break with Trotskyism around 1984, together with crises in my personal and family life at the time.

But unlike yourself (apparently), I never lost "faith" in an enriched "left-wing perspective" possibility; views being expressed from such a pov, here and elsewhere, informed by e.g. environmentalism, and the (sadly) diminishing number of critics of capitalism, in particular David Harvey, are couched far less doctrinairely and dogmatically than I (and probably you) remember in the 1970s.

[Beef Oven]

Both books provided the push for my break with Trotskyism around 1984, together with crises in my personal and family life at the time.

But unlike yourself (apparently), I never lost "faith" in an enriched "left-wing perspective" possibility; views being expressed from such a pov, here and elsewhere, informed by e.g. environmentalism, and the (sadly) diminishing number of critics of capitalism, in particular David Harvey, are couched far less doctrinairely and dogmatically than I (and probably you) remember in the 1970s.

I dropped Trotsky in 1978 when I read Gramsci's Prison Notes. Yes, you are right, I did lose faith in the left wing perspective.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.listenlittleman.com

[Beef Oven]

http://www.listenlittleman.com

I have speed read this excerpt. I fancy reading the full book on my summer holiday. Getting the gist of it, I hope it does not get me to believe what deep down inside I truly believe (if it's socialism), I can't go through all that again!!

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think it's wrong to associate Eurocommunism and Blairism: both seem to me designed to erase the category of the proletariat (the effect of which is to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie).

Indeed.

With regard to "faith in socialism": in the 1970s it would have been important to identify oneself to a greater or lesser extent with a "Trotskyite" strand in order unambiguously to reject Stalinism in all its forms ("neither Washington nor Moscow"), but that's probably a lot less urgent now. What is missing (what gives rise to pessimism) is that, although many can agree that the present state of inequality and injustice in the world is not only intolerable but unsustainable, a way forward no longer seems to be in view. Maybe it never really was; but on the other hand the prevalent pessimism on "the left" could easily be no more than a product of capitalism's engineering of meaning as decribed by Gramsci, but now with more sophisticated and pervasive techniques. Which is one reason I remain an optimist. Some of the time anyway. It isn't clear to me that the "military, police, surveillance capacity" of the ruling class is always going to deliver an inexorable result. It certainly hasn't done so in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Beef Oven]

Althusser's retrenchment into theory is intimately bound up with Althusser's continuing membership of Parti communiste français and the fall-out from de-Stalinisation. Put very crudely Althusser thought the party the only legitimate active expression of the interests of the French proletariat, but he also thought it theoretically inadequate (or wrong). So the separation of theory allowed for a space for theoretical reflection and development without splitting the party and betraying the interests of the proletariat.

Beef Oven's description of Gramsci as a pragmatist (sorry if I've misquoted that) seems to me quite wrong. Gramsci (in a sense this is parallel to Althusser's move, though Gramsci's conclusions are very different) treats of the relationship between the proletariat and the intellectuals (very different, because Gramsci doesn't allow a retrenchment into theory).

I don't think it's wrong to associate Eurocommunism and Blairism: both seem to me designed to erase the category of the proletariat (the effect of which is to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie).

What I'd agree with is it's important (a) to think through what the proletariat means now (b) to recognise this is uneven, discontinuous (in other words Europe and America don't define the proletariat as they did for Marx, and that conditions are historically discontinuous expressed geographically) (c) with the hardening and ubiquity of neoliberalism there is a phenomenon of proletarianisation, and the implications of that for many people need to be considered.

I don't understand what losing faith in socialism means, because I don't understand what faith has to do with it. I'd agree socialism has always been better at analysis of the present than concrete proposal for the future, but I'd see that as potentially a strength: socialism should be responsive to what is, concretely, happening. in practice though it has led to authoritarianism of an absolutely appalling kind. I'm aware of that.

Two things I'd reckon undeniable, or I've yet to see a convincing refutation. One is Harvey's point. Capitalism can certainly regroup, survive any economic crisis: but from now each regrouping will immiserate, impoverish and damage more and more people in the interests of the ruling class. The other is that the neoliberal mantra of continuous growth is environmentally unsustainable. That isn't subject to a regrouping process: the consequences will be inevitable social breakdown in response to disaster and scarcity.

Am I at all optimistic? No, I'm not. That's nothing to do with ideas about human nature or genetic determinism. Rather it's to do with the vast disproportion of force and violence. At local level regimes can be overthrown. But the great powers have such military, police, surveillance capacity at their disposal: and given that, as Agamben shows, modern democracy depends upon an endless suspension of democracy, a permanent state of exception, putting them into disposition would be part of a process or an intensification. Not a break with reality.

To add a suggestion about reading: Ellen Meiksins Wood is a fascinating and always thought provoking writer.

Misquote is too strong, but my statement does not work out of context (and surely discussions aren't about being right or wrong).

I see Gramsci as a pragmatist and a moderniser in the sense that he, to use your words, 'does not allow a retrenchment into theory'. For me, this is the crux. Althusser and Gramsci are key in liberating us from (at first) crude economic determinism. The problem for Marxists, it seems to me, is that they never grasped the 'point is to change it' bit. This would inevitably (no pun) lead us into a practical critique of superstrure. This also reveals much about faith, culture and individual psychology( It also exposes us to the work of Raymond Williams :-) ).

With the greatest respect, and with no intention to offend, I really struggle to understand why, as late as 2013, we are still talking in terms of 'capitalism re-grouping'. People like Althusser, Poulantzas and Gramsci should have moved the analysis on in the minds of Marxists/Socialists/communists.

[Beef Oven]

In that I was contrasting Gramsci with Althusser, who by what he saw as necessity did theorise such a retrenchment. I don't really understand what moderniser means in this context. Any useful socialist thinker is a moderniser to the extent that socialism is nothing if it isn't engaged with change in time (so Rosa Luxemburg is a great socialist thinker. The disaster of the USSR and its related dogmatisms are counter-examples).



Crude economic determinism isn't the same as recognising the importance of economics or the continuing importance of class. With similar respect and no intent to offend I similarly struggle to understand how in the wake of the great financial crises, the bank bailouts, the so-called balancing austerities and the effects they are having on people, the problems of capacity and the issue of growth to do with China and the emerging economies anyone - Marxist or not - wouldn't have started talking in terms of capitalism regrouping.

Anyhow I've got myself over-involved in this excellent forum, so I'll step away from its pages at least for now.

Useful Socialists need to catch up then and move away from the same old theoretical and academic conversations. This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in socialism (at least Rosa Luxemburg was trying).

About re-grouping, we all know this happens on the usual cyclical basis, it's not new. Why do we spend time on the nature of capitalism? We know what it is and how it works. Can't we move on to..............anyway, I too have got involved in this forum more than I expected, so I'll duck out, for the time being.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

shame on you both for ducking out ...you were all getting very interesting .... . as a pragmatist in my own thinking i wonder quite what a 'true' marxist idea might be .... and what claim to epistemological privilege it might entail .....

in contradiction to many posts here i do not think that class as a concept actually is of much use ...whenever empirical studies take ownership of assets as a predictive variable there are few if any strong results; when social status is used as a predictive variable the results are much stronger [especially in studies examining life chances in health, education etc] .... not all the powerful are wealthy eh ... although all the wealthy are powerful ...


strange as it may seem i find the works of William James, John Dewey and Barrington Moore deeply radical .... i am off to re-read Barington Moore on the concept of class ...

on the other hand what the economists call 'agency' problems seem to me to be very critically important to us at present; managers and stewards have captured many organisations and institutions and are running them in their own benefit ..... politicians, bankers, mandarins, corporate executives, BBC, etc ....