"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Pseudo-Marxist class analysis, from the hacker class perspective.

    20210404 original thrown-down during PADLAND🔗divoc-3
    20210405 overview D+L

Ties to:
    _____ on
    XXX🔗gamut ... #gamut #charter
    _____ secondarily
    * 🔗postmarket, 🔗coop — as "hacker class hacking itself into manifold existence"
    * ###

Table of Contents
1 *** Marxist class theory
1.1 [!!**] REREAD/101
1.2 [!!**] Labour aristocracy
2 *** Open questions
2.1 * What do Lenin & Mao change to this?
2.2 * "Other capitals"
2.3 * Seriously, who/what/where is the manual for this "operational class configuration analysis + forming"?
3.1 Q: "What's your plan to put that into place"?
3.2 "But we lost the proletariat"
3.2.1     USSR / Lenin:
3.2.2     China / Mao:
3.2.3     Vietnam, Laos, CambodiaUSSR / Lenin:
3.3 2 aspects to any revolution (in terms of class composition, you have...)
3.3.1     1) Which is the vanguard class
3.3.2     2) Who it aligns with
3.4 "Hackers" as a class
4.1 ____ ALIGNED
4.2 * the scientists (academia, esp younger academia)
4.3 * the dispossesed
4.4 * the opressed 10-15%
4.5 * radical subcultures / vanguard art 5-10%
4.6 * the economic left (=the intelligentsia)
4.7 * the proletariat (=traditional workers & their unions):
4.8 * radical pensioners 1%
4.11 * the 1%
4.12 * the pensioners:
4.13 * petty bourgeois \ pop culture white-collar
4.14 * petty bourgeois \ self employed
4.15 * petty bourgeois \ embedded
4.16 __________
5 ***
5.1 Difference of "class" or "economic class"
5.2 Evaluate strength of "class composition" analysis
5.3 "Hackers are a distinct class, but a class yet to hack itself into existence as itself"
7 ***
7.1 capitalism vs vectorial capitalism
7.2 (re : class composition )
7.3 talking about hackbases / living-environment development
8 *** READ / STUDY
8.1 [!] Missed encounter? Hackers <> The Left
8.2 [!!] Wark & "vectorialist class"
8.3 Derek R. Ford — Marxism, Pedagogy, and the General Intellect: Beyond the Knowledge Economy
9 *** PAD
9.1 social/cultural capital?
9.2 is it about ownership? giving control? getting control?
9.3 Peasant revolutions
9.4 [RAW] +rok.plavcak @ 20210527
9.5 [RAW] another 101 attempt
9.6 [!!**] define entry point
9.7 [!!**] World Systems & Dependency Theory
9.8 Orwell / Trostky
9.9 [!!] TOTAG/RECLASS— Zabala/Zizek: »communism is not an eternal set of rules that are present in every epoch of history to be applied rapidly, but simply a movement that has to be reinvented in each new historical situation.«
9.10 [!!**] POLEMICS— "But Elon Musk is also getting his wealth from work, actually, I mean, who could do, what he does?"
9.11 (Dmytri Kleiner on classes, 20220828)
9.12 (D:) "EU/west/core people are not really proletariat, the majority of real value is not a product of labour, but of being integrated in the haul of colonial expropriation"
9.13 Lenin: revolutionary intelligentsia (petty bourgeois class traitors?!) → proletariat → (other aligned classes) → Revolution ?
9.14 USA class composition / demographics
9.15 Erik Olin Wright work on class analysis
9.16 (CRO— is China capitalist or socialist? what are some differen
9.17 (debate ~20230901 on CHT/T Telegram group)
9.18 [!!*] PMC (professional-managerial class)
9.19 [!] Class consciousness; False consciousness
9.20 (Marx in 18th Luminaire ...)
9.21 How do (or, "can") wages become capital?
9.22 "Capitalists work too": Active capitalists (~"managers") vs Passive capitalists (~"rentiers")
9.23 [!!**] LA/CONSOLIDATION/GOALS/TACTICS— Given LA's aristocracy interest in "national unity", what are possible (and desirable) outcomes?
9.24 [m!!!*] LA— The proletarian fork: Aristocratic vs non-aristocratic labour
9.25 LA— Titoism 
9.26 [m!!] LA/PEOPLE.CATEGORIES— Actually "comprador proletariat" are the 3→2, etc
9.27 LA— Tiger Woods making 1 billion per year, Messi being offered 1.5 billion
9.28 LA/EXAMPLE— "You cannot make billion in profits in half a year and expect members to take a mediocre contract"
9.29 [!] LA/ECOLOGY/DOOMSDAY— From "proletariat" to "poplaviat"
9.30 LA— Maoism-Third Worldism
9.31 Non-geoterritorial party / Hacker class party
9.32 Pre-marxist "class" configurations & analysis (castes, etc)
9.33 [s!] SOURCE— (reading Richard Barbrook)

*** Marxist class theory

[!!**] REREAD/101

Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. From this, Marx states "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other"
Marx's Theory of Social Class and Class Structure
For Marx, the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures are key to understanding capitalism and other social systems or modes of production. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels comment that
the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Bottomore, p. 75).
Analysis of class divisions and struggles is especially important in developing an understanding of the nature of capitalism.
For Marx, classes are defined and structured by the relations concerning:
    (i) work and labour and
    (ii) ownership or possession of property and the means of production.
These economic factors more fully govern social relationships in capitalism than they did in earlier societies. While earlier societies contained various strata or groupings which might be considered classes, these may have been strata or elites that were not based solely on economic factors – e.g. priesthood, knights, or military elite.
Marx did not complete the manuscript that would have presented his overall view of social class. Many of his writings concern the class structures of capitalism, the relationship among classes the dynamics of class struggle, political power and classes, and the development of a classless society, and from these a Marxian approach to class can be developed. Note that Hadden does not discuss class in any detail, although the class structure of capitalism is implicit in the labour theory of value and can be derived from this theory.

[!!**] Labour aristocracy
"Is it a class?"

published @

I've seen this term (labour aristocracy) used in various meanings, I'm most interested in the transnational sense of it.
In advanced capitalism, a Western worker benefits from resources & goods looted from the peripheric worker — either directly as consumer, or just by using the basic infrastructure & enjoying the security of geostrategic dominance maintained in tandem with the bourgeoisie.
In my opinion, this constitutes a distinct class. A class is primarily an economic category based on the relationship to the means of production, distribution of surplus, and resulting relations with other classes (exploitation→antagonism).
As a native revolution would upend their territory's imperial status, a significant part of the working class in the core (but not all of it) have a stake in preserving the existing system.
Effectively I think this case is terminologically at the same level as the "comprador/national bourgeoisie" distinction (of the Chinese revolution), and just as important towards understanding and pursuing a functional revolutionary configuration in contemporary core. I've seen those called "sections" of the bourgeois "class". I was never sure what to call them formally, but believe that (within specific historic situations) insofar as these groups have distinct economic and so revolutionary interests, they should just be called classes.

__ __ __ __ __ __ (to use elsewhere) [!!→]
I see identities are a kind of a workers capital, as ability to produce in capitalist societies is influenced by them, and participation in results of production, are correlated.

__ __ __ __ __ __ (copy-paste in)
"Marxism emphasizes the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as a driving force behind historical and social change"
"Certainly, in a Marxist sense, a class is defined not only by its members' relationship to the means of production but also by the inherent antagonism and exploitation within this relationship, with the bourgeoisie benefiting from the surplus labor of the proletariat."

_____________ more ("be more concrete")
"""Teško je ovako copy paste čitati. Treba mi kontekst, primjeri, itd. Apstraktno mi je malo. Tipa Čovjek živi u hrvatskoj, radi online u sale departmentu remote za firmu u Britaniji, ima plaću 3000 eura. Koja je njegova veza s proizvodnjom?"""


Level 1: He's proletarian, as he makes his income by wage labour (in contrast to the capitalists, which make the majority of income not via labour, but expropriating the surplus of people that they employ)

Level 2: (per my schema) He's labour aristocracy, as the majority of the share of distribution he receives is not made via participation in the pool of labour he contributes to (by wage labour), but via the pool of imperialist spoils.
These pools are mediated by imperialist states (he's a citizen of, or integrated with), or transnational corporations, often in several levels ob obfuscation, for example:
—— any Croatian citizen "by using the basic infrastructure & enjoying the security of geostrategic dominance maintained in tandem with the bourgeoisie", so specifically, just by being in Croatia, he enjoys electricity via expropriated uranium from African mines (and workers there); he enjoys the territorial security of NATO; and so on
—— he either directly works for a transnational corporation that directly works in tandem with peripheric comprador bourgeoisie (like: primary or secondary industries related to mineral extract or industrial assembly, employing dramatically less compensated labour), so extracting so called "superprofits"
—— or he works in a company that does business with other clients in the local business environment, so is any number of levels removed from the source of wealth (periphery-extracted superprofits). For example, selling insurance to companies extracting from the periphery (1 level removed), or making sandwhiches to people who sell insurance to ... (2 levels removed).
—— when he is sacked and receives unemployment benefits, the source of share-of-production is via taxes, which are in turn paid via superprofits; (same when he quits his job and goes to work in public-funded academia)

In all of these cases, the extracted superprofits (periphery→core) trickle not just to the capitalist, but also to to core workers, aka labour aristocracy. In other words, for workers in core territories, whether they want it or not, or are aware of it or not, to a large part, their share of production comes not only from what their boss happens to leave on the table from their own labour, but also as a beneficiary from an advanced and much more complex system that is expropriating the peripheric workers. They are exploited, but also receive spoils from a scheme that exploits others.
And in the west, I think this imperialist mode is more dominant. Sure, your boss might steal 60% of the value you produce making fixie bikes / designing pop-up store art mugs / delivering pizzas through the capitalist mode of production, but through the imperialist one, even as a meager "precarious" worker, you probably extract the work of a full 3 other people.


Jameson Cognitive Maps: ???

*** Open questions

* What do Lenin & Mao change to this?

* Seriously, who/what/where is the manual for this "operational class configuration analysis + forming"?


Q: "What's your plan to put that into place"?

There is several aspects to achieving change:

1) hot to get "exactly what needs to be done" together:
    aka THE PLAN

2) how to represent that in a way that establishes an avantagarde movement:
    aka (convincing) REPRESENTATION + (popular) VANGUARD PARTY + ETC

____ too often, even "radical left" cuts off here, however:

3) how to resist the reaction towards implementing this:

"But we lost the proletariat"

Sure, but socialist revolutions, in the M/L sense, have never only been revolutions of only proletariat.

    USSR / Lenin:
    proletariat + peasants + students
    "still semi-feudal"
    this was the point of the "bolshevik" strategy
    (famously and controversially at the time)

    China / Mao:
    "still semi-feudal & semi-imperial"
    mostly peasants
    2% proletariat
    national bourgeoise
        * comprador bourgies (aligned with imperialist)
        * old imperial government
        * [...]

    Vietnam, Laos, CambodiaUSSR / Lenin:

2 aspects to any revolution (in terms of class composition, you have...)

    1) Which is the vanguard class
### there's no vanguard class, only "vanguard party" (?)

I propose the hackers:
    might be ~1%
    should grow both organically, but also with acute "explosions" to ~5-10%

It's not unusual for the kernel of vanguard to be at this scale.

    2) Who it aligns with


"Hackers" as a class

Hackers are a distinct class because they have distinct potentials within any modality of economic participation.


### this needs work


* the scientists (academia, esp younger academia)
    → 🔗postuni

* the dispossesed
    war refugees, migrants, etc ~1%
    the bankrupt (thrown out of their flats by banks) ... 2%
    prison ... 1%

* the opressed 10-15%
    BLM, progressive women, LBGTQ, ghetto
    ### not a class, more of "identity"
    ### clear up how "identity" MAKES "class" in advanced capitalism:
        "identity" is a designation that will shape personal *experience*
        "class" will shape specifically the part (of that experience) in how it results (via absolute and relative/dynamic limitations) to a field of possibility to exert material outcomes (economic, governmental, etc)
    ### (even liberal "pinkish" capitalisms)
    ### ... distinction between DEFINING IDENTITY
    ### ... taking into account per-segment/per-industry
    ### ... and intersectional analysis

* radical subcultures / vanguard art 5-10%
    ### is this a class? ... yes, but this needs a vectorial capitalism understanding & some more specific refs 
    = Killer Mike for Bernie,
    = Grime Ldn for Corbyn
    = NBA "Black Lives Matter" (LeBron James)
    ### can't you just say that "grime" fans are proletarians and Killer Mike is just a proletarian agitator?
    ### ... i think specifically NO, because these "radical stars" have a *specific economic output* that is different that workers ... and as such specific potential 
    ### (might connect with above?)
    does this include:
        * zoomers?
        * people like Greta

* the economic left (=the intelligentsia)
    can be called "new left"
    or "green-red"
    does not include Wagenknecht-style "let's get back to economic style left and union struggles"

* the proletariat (=traditional workers & their unions):
    yeah sure

* radical pensioners 1%
people who hackers pull into our sphere
with demonstrating & enabling instant material improvement



might be an important category, as:
    * the complexification of classes
    * military-grade propaganda and misinformation
    * difficulty in assesing self-interest, esp if variable-term arithmetic
... makes it difficult to determine 



* the 1%
* the financiers
* self-interested crypto traders
* (..)

* the pensioners:

* petty bourgeois \ pop culture white-collar
10% people / majority of youth

* petty bourgeois \ self employed

* petty bourgeois \ embedded
especially public employed


* "Where does Greta really belong?"

* Peasants

<-------------------- (new) CLASS COMPOSITION ↑


Difference of "class" or "economic class"

What might work against the Marxist sociological conception of "class", is cynically saying "well, can you really just class people into these kind of abrupt categories? Why not do it another way?"

Of course, you can "classify" things in any way you like.

This is specifically about "societal class", but even this does not adequately and distinctively capture what it means.
What might, though is:
### what happened here???

Evaluate strength of "class composition" analysis

    "Did people consistently use these analysis to create uprisings?"

Yes, they did.

"Hackers are a distinct class, but a class yet to hack itself into existence as itself"

via Wark's Manifesto:
    "the hacker manifesto" ~2004/2007:


as response to:
    "But before you said hacker class also includs scientists and people who produce abstractions"
    "So wtf"

Yes and no:
    * (read title)
    * means:
        yeah some of these classes will bleed into the hacker class as it formulates
        so it will swell at the expense of other aligned classes
        insofar as it establishes itself as more "incluive" actually
        in this sense, it opens the doors to "a new economic capacity"


(also, as applied to hackers)
### find this done properly elsewhere


    now: financial capitalism, banks, elon musk
    directly establishing (relevant, basic) production capacity (decision)
    * "3D-printing"
    * precious plastic
    * hackbases
    * 🔗real-hacks

    ... indirectly #A (as execution)
    * GNU/Linux
    * p2p file sharing, torrents, etc.
    space for improvement:
         * focus on provisioning (vectorial!) of real goods and services:
            blablacar (bad, capitalized) vs mitfahrgelenheit (
            bad: amazon ; good: ... fairmondo??? ###
        * ###



    influencing guiding production (as for example, elections/non-decision guiding influence of other type)
    * pirate party
    * Liquid Democracy tools
    * Leaks
    * [...]

    * we can pre-figure
    * we can critically support TRANSITION movements:

        * as critical knowledge production, specific to what "hackers":
                academic touch, many are scientist-trained, or half-trained, during engineering ... capacity for "academic knowledge work"
                advanced knowledge representation
                practical and disobedient engineering ("cracking protections", "fighting for right to repair" on the edge of what's done)
                critical thinking but specifically molded within network-culture age (we *understand* effects of technology naturally, beyond just our field)
                relative street-cred / politics-cred / diversity-cred


            fefe :D
                "pointing out the bullshit"
                ### idea: guerilla translate fefe

        * opsec

        * organization capacity

        * ###

    == sabotage (including with power of "strike", meaning discontinuing existing role within the production system)

    == military OR militia, "AK 47"
    militant revolutionary power

    can we somehow (and this also applies to non-EU/western theatres) effectively borker external forces
    * shopping and reselling stuff via aliexpress ?!
    * critical support of progressive regimes (cybersyn/salvador allende early 70's)
    * technology transfer


capitalism vs vectorial capitalism

But "you're putting hackers as the masters of abstraction, isn't that scientists?"

Yeah sure, or maybe philosophers? ;-)
Could be, but, Wark was establishing this class-sketch, and assigned a label to it.

The label was not "form-fitting", more an apropos to develop the form itself.

Maybe "the hacker class" could benefit from a name change, though, just to get this out of the way.

(re : class composition )
"do you see activists as a class"
    (taking into account ofc we say "economic class in the marxist sense")

talking about hackbases / living-environment development



[!] Missed encounter? Hackers <> The Left

"Forces of Chaos and Anarchy: Rock Music, the New Left and Social Movements, 1964 to 1972"
#TOREAD (full dissertation PDF)
I am making in my cognitive mapping of the cultural production of the long sixties. From this projects standpoint, it was the Left that missed an encounter with the counterculture, not the counterculture that missed an encounter with the Left.
To continue this engagement, I have deployed what I have called a theory of the missed encounter. I engage what could have taken place, that is to say, if the implicit metaphysical and practical connection between rock music culture and the Left had been consummated, by examining why this could not have taken place, why there was a missed encounter

Derek R. Ford — Marxism, Pedagogy, and the General Intellect: Beyond the Knowledge Economy

Ties to:

Against "learning"
He finds that the right wing pays the most explicit attention to education and the pedagogy of learning, which he links with the colonial grasping drive that positions every opacity as new potential knowledge to animate the accumulation of capital. Documenting the oppressive results of such a drive—including the perpetuation of ableism and colonialism—he shows that left projects ultimately rest upon the same pedagogical logic. He shows how contemporary marxist theorists naturalize learning and even locate it as an innate feature of “human nature,” such as in the conception of cognitive capitalism, which exploits the “desire… for learning.”

<------------------------- (new) READ ↑

*** PAD

is it about ownership? giving control? getting control?

good example of petty bourgeois "independence" here:
But that is the only arrangement that works like that. After industrialization, everyone is producing for others, even self-employed small business owners who have no formal bosses but are ultimately jerked around by their clients and customers.

other examples:
    * middle managers ... "carrying down orders", acting in the spirit of the higher ones, the priest class of capitalism
    * idea of laboursome volatility of capital ... "it needs to be taken care of it, so you build on it, so this is labour, otherwise you lose it"
    * ###

so ultimately:
    what's the real measure of *holding capital*?
    are there any suggestions of "capital" or "capital-ist" developed beyond a binary?

[RAW] +rok.plavcak @ 20210527
Hej Rok, trenutno se zanimam za razredno stratifikacijo, tako klasične kot kakšne bolj sodobne poskuse. Omenil si Goričarja (nisem poznal), vemo da se je Wark ukvarjala s tem ("hekerski razred", "vektorialisti"), pojavlja se "prekariat", čeprav ne vem, koliko v relaciji do bolj tipičnih razredov. Lenin in Mao se o tem dosti razpišeta, - oba sta se strateško odlikovala ravno v jasni stratifikaciji, risanju nujnih zavezništev, itn. Nerazumevanje pred-revolucionarne Kitajske kot semi-imperialne je še mnogo bolj pogosto (in danes problematično) kot nerazumevanje Rusije kot semi-fevdalne.

I'm a simple man, rad bi imel en pregleden seznam razslojitev (stratifikacij?), klasične in sodobne teorije, ki se s tem ukvarja, manjkajo pa mi tudi taktična navodila, ki bi mi pomagala pri soočanju z ljudmi, ki me obkrožajo

Leninova "delovna aristokracija" je pomojem premalo poznana med najinimi zahodnimi kolegi/fellow travellerji, pomojem redkokateri skoraj/volilka Levice jasno razume "a je proletarka ali kapitalistka", kar se nakako ponuja kot dihotomija, onkraj tega pa hitro zmeša štrene idpol/intersectional (slo?) analiza. Ravno sta se okrog tega sprla Dmytri Kleiner in Leo He Zhao, ki jima v mojem balončku skoraj najbolj zaupam.

... To se povezuje z — Hkrati ne poznam misli, ki bi to elegantno zvezala s, poljudno, "kulturnim/socialnim kapitalom", ki po občutku gotovo ima (samo delno konvertibilen) vpliv na vzpostavljanje in upravljanje s produkcijskimi  sredstvi, in neke oblike nadzora nad delovno močjo drugih
(UNSENT): "Če bi hotel bluzit bi rekel temu meta-kapital." 

[RAW] another 101 attempt
20220228 +zima

zato ne moremo met razredne revolucije, ker je večina kapital dedovanega
in tud reprodukcija skozi "mezdno delo" je sam smokescreen
niti marx niti dediči sploh ne vem, kje so se dotikal
* penzije
* socialne države
* itn

za to vprašanje dobro mojega kolega janeza stebleta vprašat
sem ga povabil v društvo... on je hardcore marksist, bere samo marxa v angleščin

da sploh ne govorimo o tem da so vse resne revolucije ble narejene po leninističnem kopitu
plus upgrejdi lokalne specifike
torej izrazito v nekem okolju
... hkrati pa vsaj jaz ne poznam nobenega postopka, kako ta ključen del - torej specifiko - analizirat v splošnem in sestavit skupi recepturo

problem ki si ga že enkrat dolgo nazaj izpostavil je da je bla boljševiška rusija zaostala

You sent
s tem se ukvarjam, pač nek metamarksizrem

Marsilius Ficinus
in lenin je hotel ownat kapitalizem

You sent
fora je da niti tuki nimamo terminologije

Marsilius Ficinus
ne morš tko, no... na kitajskem lahko 😃

You sent
razreda sta samo dva
po drugi strani pa lenin govori o ene petih, mao pa še parih več

Marsilius Ficinus
ja glede na specifike takratne "buržoazne" družbe

You sent
nisem še srečal marksista, ki bi mi dal terminološko razliko med "razred"(2) in "razred"👎
Marsilius Ficinus
gre torej bolj za sociologijo kot pa "filozofijo"

You sent
komunizem je itak resnično svoja stvar
razred ( n ) bi moralo bit zgoraj

lenin in mao sta oba govorila o kompoziciji neki sil
kmetje, pol-kmetje, študentje, kompradorji, itn
in sta jih naslavljala kot razredi
ja ampak to ni isto kot razredi(2)
tuki je pač srčika problema
da nimamo niti termina za razlikovat nek najbolj abstrakten nivo

ja problem je ker je marksizem izšel iz nemške klasične
epistemološka razlika
in potem to kontekstu primerno analizo, ki je uporabna za delat revolucijo
mi smo še vedno dediči eu filozofije, medtem ko je mao na osnovi kitajske "filozofije" to motril
mao je bil po "poklicu" učitelj zgodovine
je zelo dobro poznal "fevdalno" kitajsko

kar mi rabimo je definirat
1) metamarksizem, praktično strategijo analize teh družbenih vektorjev
2) aplicirat to na zahod, oziroma celo na manjše enote (slovenija npr)
in zato rabmo nova orodja

fora je da ta koncept "vektorja" nadomesti idejo "sur-razreda" kot agensa revolucije


[!!**] define entry point

what are mao's "comprador",  lenin's "student", "semi-peasant" etc?
ok but what are classes(2)
—uuh also classes
is that a problem

→ solve the problem, clear up terminology
→ collect other (para-)marxist class-making attempts
→ common framework
→ "metamarxism" in this sense

[!!**] World Systems & Dependency Theory


Orwell / Trostky

"Ignorance is Strength" details the perpetual class struggle characteristic of human societies;[8] beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers. 
#toread [!*]
The book has been described as a parody and critique of The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and Where is it Going? (1937), by Leon Trotsky;[17] and The Managerial Revolution (1941), by James Burnham, a former Trotskyist.[18][19]

[!!] TOTAG/RECLASS— Zabala/Zizek: »communism is not an eternal set of rules that are present in every epoch of history to be applied rapidly, but simply a movement that has to be reinvented in each new historical situation.«


___________ TOREAD
“After all, politics is not supposed to be simply at the service of everyday administrative life, but also to provide a reliable guide for everyone to fully exercise existence. But when these and other obligations are not met, philosophers tend to become existentialist, that is, to question and propose alternatives.”—Santiago Zabala
 The Los Angeles Review of Books recently featured Hermeneutic Communism: From Heidegger to Marx, by Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala. In his review, Eduardo Mendieta wrote that the book, “teaches us that we not only have to interpret the inheritance of communism in ever more generative and creative ways, but also fashion a more ecumenical and humane ‘we,’ through the new stories we tell about how we got where we are today and where we should be going in the near future.”
The LARoB also published a wide-ranging interview with Santiago Zabala about the book and the resurgence of communism in political practice and theory. In the interview, Zabala also placed his and Vattimo’s views of communism and philosophy in the context of the works of a range of other thinkers, including Badiou, Heidegger, Derrida, Searle, and Fukuyama. For Zabala and Vattimo, the failure of the Soviet State or communist political parties has ultimately:
[D]isclosed its unrealized potentialities that must be endorsed in order to modify, as Slavoj Žižek puts it, the “coordinates of what appears as possible and give birth to something new.” Hence communism is not an eternal set of rules that are present in every epoch of history to be applied rapidly, but simply a movement that “has to be reinvented in each new historical situation.”
To quote Zizek, ‘communism is not an eternal set of rules that are present in every epoch of history to be applied rapidly, but simply a movement that has to be reinvented in each new historical situation.’ This beautifully fluid understanding of communism with its implicit focus on the “being-in-common” and communal desire – rather than the dogmatic and pathetically romantic ideology that popular culture usually ascribes to communism – does contain within it an amazing potential to actually help form a feasible alternative to capitalism.

[!!**] POLEMICS— "But Elon Musk is also getting his wealth from work, actually, I mean, who could do, what he does?"
(a dweeb 20220516 @švicerija)


(Dmytri Kleiner on classes, 20220828)

also, class is an aggregate concept, like all socioeconomic categories, for the most part, it's not useful to apply to individuals, whether you like them or not.

Polona Drobnič Class is an aggregate, I don't find it hepfull to apply to individuals, who can have aspects of more than one classe, especially if you take family and background into account, and that can change over the course of their lives. To understand the material basis of class consciousness for a class, I find it useful to to look at relationship to the means of production, do they directly produce value that is approriated for sale by the capitalist for more than what they are paid for producing it? Do they produce surplus value?


Wouldn't that make it "useless"?
If you can't...:
    * self-recognize → organize
    * recognize friend/foe
Aka, to develop "class consciousness"!

Jonathan Maddox
For individuals who straddle class boundaries (and there are many such individuals -- perhaps most in a fluid late capitalist society/economy) the class struggle is internalised, repression is internalised.  It's why we're all neurotic.


For sure, everyone who works to survive is an extension of capitalism, but yet:
    some groups of people within capitalism are more likely to organize and fight the capitalists, form unions, do strikes, etc,
    understanding that is what I'm exploring here.


    "above//below the API" (<DK)

(D:) "EU/west/core people are not really proletariat, the majority of real value is not a product of labour, but of being integrated in the haul of colonial expropriation"

mogoče se strinjam, ker po mojem smo vsi rojeni v slo buržuji, če malo polumpamo ... na račun tega da smo v jedru, periferije, itak
ko gledam fotra, ki strojno veze logote od podjetij na kape in majice, si ne morem mislit, da je to dejansko delavec "ki živi od svojega dela", čeprav si kao s tem kešom kao plačuje hrano. večja realna vrednost te hrane, najema, itn je pač v integraciji naše ekonomije v bero kolonialne eksproprietacije

Lenin: revolutionary intelligentsia (petty bourgeois class traitors?!) → proletariat → (other aligned classes) → Revolution ?

Reflecting on the wave of strikes in late 19th century Russia, Lenin writes that "the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness"; that is, combining into trade unions and so on. However, socialist theory in Russia, as elsewhere in Europe, was the product of the "educated representatives of the propertied classes", the intellectuals or "revolutionary socialist intellectuals". Lenin states that Karl Marx and Engels themselves, the very founders of modern scientific socialism, belonged to this bourgeois intelligentsia.[6]

USA class composition / demographics
"Diversity of the middle class broadly matches diversity of the country"
about 20% are receiving pensions (I see with other general google query)
soon 1/3 will be 60+

Erik Olin Wright work on class analysis

(CRO— is China capitalist or socialist? what are some differen

Znači (ovo te pitam ozbiljno da mi objasniš, jer sada mi više nije jasno) - kada "zapad" premiješta proizvodnju u kinu radi jeftinijeg i lošijeg materijala i jeftinije radne snage, to nije kapitalistički način proizvodnje/eksploatacije?

mislim da ima nivela  A) neka zapadna firma ukine proizvodnjo ... ohrani samo brend, i radi white-label proizvod iz Kine  B) ... investira v Kino i tako ima tamo kapital, ali ta kapital ima puno ograničenja, i v realnosti je samo neka oblka "technology transferja" na chinese state-controlled companies  C) zapadne firme izginjajo i so nadomeščene direktno s produkti iz Kine, ki konkurirajo zapadnim proizvodom (tako da se forma produkta prilagođava zapadnim)  D) kitajske firme imajo primat/monopol, i diktirajo razvoj/formo produkta
kitajske firme, i kitajsko gospodarstvo v generalnom, nije potpuno ali v večini, i još važnije v jasnom trendu, je socialistično

(debate ~20230901 on CHT/T Telegram group)


[!!*] PMC (professional-managerial class)
The term professional–managerial class (PMC) refers to a social class within capitalism that, by controlling production processes through occupying a superior management position, is neither proletarian nor bourgeoisie. Conceived as "The New Class" by social scientists and critics such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1970s, this group of middle class professionals is distinguished from other social classes by their training and education, typically business qualifications and university degrees,[1] with occupations thought to offer influence on society that would otherwise be available only to capital owners.[2] The professional–managerial class tend to have incomes above the average for their country, with major exceptions being academia and print journalism.[3]
The Ehrenreichs defined the PMC as educated professionals who historically did not work in corporate environments, such as scientists, lawyers, academics, artists, and journalists.[6] In a 2013 follow-up, they estimated that in the 1930s, PMC occupations made up less than 1% of total U.S. employment, but the share had risen to 24% by 1972, and 35% by 2006.[
Yes, and this is due to globalising-outsourcing production. So you cannot speak sensibly of proletariat-led local revolutions any more in any of those territories. As they have in themselves became fortresses of the middle class.

<ricardo.sousa (CHT/T group)
My interpretation is similar to the bourgeoisie of the 1800 it is proletarian in nature and will align with the proletarian in many issues. But, as it aspires to be something else, will switch sides as soon as its material interest is challenged. To me, labour aristocracy, PMC or bourgeoisie function in much of the same way. I don't dispute the existence of the imperial core privilege, but I don't see it as an useful category.
I mean Professional/Managerial Class, lawyers, doctors, architects, middle managers who aren't bourgeoisie exactly but behave as such. My meaning is that these 3 categories (PMC/labour aristocrats/bourgeois) are in terms of class analysis the same even If their social relations are a bit different (such as between a middle manager and a programmer).
I guess that today a lawyer or a medical doctor for instance is no longer a category by it self, as you can have a level of precarious employment that reduces the professional privilege to very little

_________ my reply

oh! I see now for PMC :) I'm not sure I agree about being "same in terms of class analysis", if I understand you correctly.
Since of course in those terms, PMC is petite bourgeois, capitalists are capitalists, and LA (in the transnational sense as I described, not in the more common as "labour organizers") would appear to be proletarian.
They don't have means-of-production control, will consider themselves as proletarian (a sort of "false consciousness" in reverse?), and most problematically, I think will be considered as such by organizers.
I think what I've been trying to develop here would be useful as it would correctly identify LA, to differentiate them from common proletariat.

For example:
* A factory worker in Denmark → typical class analysis would say proletarian, might even vote left and unionize, but will never be proletarian, as majority of wealth doesn't come from labour, but exploiting periphery

___________ continue! merge in my writeups from 20230903 tg group [!!**] 

[!] Class consciousness; False consciousness

My idea: false consciousness "in reverse"
Labour Aristocracy people think they're prols,
commies treat them as prols,
but they not prols.

(Marx in 18th Luminaire ...)
<zima @ teren

Kolikor žive /.../ v enakih ekonomskih eksistenčnih razmerah, ki ločijo njihov način življenja, njihove interese in njihovo izobrazbo od načina življenja, interesov in izobrazbe drugih razredov in jim jih postavljajo sovražno nasproti, so razred.
Kolikor /.../ enakost njihovih interesov ne ustvarja med njimi nobene skupnosti /.../ niso nikakršen razred.
Karl Marx, Osemnajsti brumaire Ludvika Bonaparta

How do (or, "can") wages become capital?

A) Of course, especially in the core-periphery:
    * easy for UK worker to retire in Spain and rent out houses
    * ... for Slovenian to come to Cuba, "marry for love", start production
    * ###

B) Within territory, as well, especially for PMC:
    and especially for *active capitalists*


"Capitalists work too": Active capitalists (~"managers") vs Passive capitalists (~"rentiers")

Examples of active:
    * yes for sure "Elon Musk works 12 hours per day", ofc this does not make him a worker
    * or TAB Mežica owns (due to 90s transition machinations) 15% of the company he "actively manages" as board president

... vs passive:
    * typical rentier capitalists, pure owners

Why do they do it?:
    * societal "justification"
    * societal "recognition"
    * actual passion for the work
    * (perceived) lack of secure management for their investment portfolio
    * expanding their capital:
        preparing company for foreign takeover (like TAB)
    * ###

[!!**] LA/CONSOLIDATION/GOALS/TACTICS— Given LA's aristocracy interest in "national unity", what are possible (and desirable) outcomes?

### merge ~20230906 talk @insta +alexx

A) "let them starve":
    the drive for $42 ph wage ("if they'd rise like bonuses") is illegitimate
    it's both unfair and represents nothing else than a 
    national socialism (NS) is basically *a function* of class peace & alliance of the two classes, to expropriate an Other
    basically, *we are already in "national socialism"*, it is just COVERT vs OVERT.
    it only becomes overt when:
        * there is no other way to maintain it, AND/OR
        * when conditions changed so extensively and rapidly that there needs to be a new enemy:
            so, not an expansion of QUANTITY but of QUALITY of other

B) "spiritual revolution":
    inform & convince them of the situation & how it's just plain wrong
    (ofc, stop with leftlib pushes for "$20 wages now" and "3-day workweeks" etc)
    even if it works for 20%, it will significantly destabilize the system
    it will either need to:
        B1) seek foreign reactionary migration:
            (which would destabilize its less/more shadow superiority myths)
        B2) resort to automation:
            a dystopic #endofwork

C) "alliance with the foreign":
    the resolution for ypipo will come from outside

D) ###

[m!!!*] LA— The proletarian fork: Aristocratic vs non-aristocratic labour

_____ 1) the name

* national proletariat // comprador proletariat?
National Proletariat: Conversely, the "national proletariat" could refer to those workers who are more aligned with the interests of their own nation and may be actively involved in anti-imperialist or nationalist movements. They might prioritize the development and autonomy of their own country and resist external exploitation. This term highlights their commitment to national sovereignty and the betterment of their own nation.
aka Titoists!

* non-imperialist proletariat // imperialist proletariat
Tujega nočemo, svojega ne damo
We Shall Not Take Foreigner's, and Not Give Ours
Again, this is exactly #Titoism!

* ###

_____ 2) the factors

Examples to consider:
    * UK coal miners:
        (primary extraction & work; purely local sales; local concentration)
    * Slovenian winemakers:
        (primary extraction & work; employs non-specialied labour; local sales, increasingly export)
        —) export-oriented, profit-maximizing, marketing and deals-heavy, expanding, "family cellar"
        +) traditional cooperative; non-export
    * Slovenian seamstress:
        (craft; mostly B2C; carbon—,  
    * Slovenian philosophy professor
    * Belgian visual artist
    * ###

    __________________________________________ specific to production "enmeshment"
    * inputs:
        // primary, or from local inputs & means
        // need imports
    * outcomes:
        // consumed local, generally ("coal", "Spanish wine")
        // consumed mostly local, as premium
        // exported mostly as premium, to core ("pralines")
        // exported as basic product, generally ("american corn")
    * outcome target:
        // B2C (food, housing, consumer goods)
        // B2B+ (enablers of clearly positive industry, like medicine/ecology/infrastructure | carbon positive)
        // B2B- (enablers of clearly negative industry, like financial/legalitarian/marketing | carbon negative)
    __________________________________________ specific to labour traditions
    * union & traditional industrial allegiance:
        +) revolutionary & integrated cross-segment
        —) non-revolutionary & non-integrated
    __________________________________________ specific to nature of labour
    * needed education
    * needed connections:
        —) example: government bureaucracy
    * intellectualism:
    __________________________________________ specific to ###
    * compensation (indicates foreign purchasing-power):
        low // high
        ### due to: ?
    __________________________________________ specific to country
    * traditional education:
        +) basics of history, socialism, class struggle, etc
        —) propagandized
    * national basics mix:
        +) high % of food soverignty
        +) high % of real-estate ownership
    * tax composition: general national industry character:
        —) imperialist-exporting (core) // imperialist-national (core) // semi-peripheric (export to core, aka "comprador proletariat")
        +) peripheric (exploited from abroad)
    * welfare system: (social democracy aka national socialism?):
        —)  you're fired (or might feel likely to be) → you receive tax-funded welfare from spoils
    __________________________________________ possibly/develop
    * race, gender representation (skewed? why?)
    * national trade relations:
        +) victim of blockades
        —) perpertrator of treaties / exclusive neocolonialist "alliances"
        +) economic diplomacy (70s Yugoslavia, contemporary China)
    * ###

LA— Titoism 
merge more ~20230908 0155 @CHT/T telegram

1) It is not in LA's economic interest to commit to non-imperialist socialism. (Only to national socialism, a pacification of proletarians with the bourgeoisie at the expense of an Other.) So doing better "social engineering" or "public relations" could only try to lie to the prols better, as the right is actually telling them *the truth*, they're just mytholigizing it. In other words. You can spend a ton of energy explaining (to Amerikans) that mexicans are not "rapists and murders". But the fact is that they are The Other and that we must exploit them. All of the bullshit around that is just making the reality of imperialism covert.

2) The language of "alliance" is very important here, because as I said Hitler's definition of national socialism is exactly a pacification of struggle, so an alliance of the two classes (bourgeois + imperialist proletarians), to a national unity. I am convinced that basically what we have right now in the core, the social democracies of Europe and so on, are already a form of "national socialism", just a covert one. Every citizen of the core already uses the apparatus of the state to systematically exploit The Others.

I used the term "imperialist proletarians" as synonymous with "labour aristocracy", I think it better captures the reality. It also offers its antonym, "non-imperialist proletarians", as at least something to consider a possibility of within the core.
Coincidentally, as I think I mentioned above, the central point of Titoism was exactly "We Shall Not Take Foreigner's, and Not Give Ours" ("Tujega nočemo, svojega ne damo"), a kind of protectionism, that is definitely one way to implement a "non-imperialist proletariat", and indeed resulted in something like that in Yugoslavia.  I'm interested it's possible to imagine other ways

[m!!] LA/PEOPLE.CATEGORIES— Actually "comprador proletariat" are the 3→2, etc

Comprador Proletariat: This term could be used to describe a segment of the working class in a post-colonial or neocolonial context who are closely aligned with the interests of foreign imperialist powers or multinational corporations. They may benefit economically from their collaboration with these external forces and might be seen as facilitating the exploitation of their own nation by outside interests. This concept emphasizes their complicity in serving foreign interests.

LA— Tiger Woods making 1 billion per year, Messi being offered 1.5 billion
"They [Saudis] Will Buy The NBA And Nothing Can Stop Them"

Are these people "workers"? 

LA/EXAMPLE— "You cannot make $21 billion in profits in half a year and expect members to take a mediocre contract"

* obviously, a considerable part of labour participation here (at the final point of profit) is from peripheric workers
* so when asking for "share of profits", you are asking for "share of superprofits"

action [!!**s]:
#) where is at least an attempt to:
    * in messaging:
        properly characterize the international character of the struggle
    * in analysis:
        calculate and represent the international labour cost of those superprofits
    * in theory:
        develop & educate the neccessary vocabulary

    * american LA is complicit in
    * does american LA simply want more "of the pie" for itself, while coopting the language of "just distribution" etc?
    * given the super-subhuman conditions of peripheric labour:
        a redistribution of those would likely result in somewhat-subhuman (by core standards) conditions accross the board
        are LA ready to accept that,
        if not, on what grounds?

[!] LA/ECOLOGY/DOOMSDAY— From "proletariat" to "poplaviat"

Core → Structural support
Semi-periphery → Solidarity
Periphery → Climate refugee camps

LA— Maoism-Third Worldism


Non-geoterritorial party / Hacker class party

no, my idea is not to bring parties together, but to have a non-geoterritorial party.
    not a second-level federation/union of parties,
    but a first-level entity in a different kind of territory.

This party develops:
    specific tools of/for operation
    understanding of its territory, its power schemes and logic, and affecting them
    and then a strategy and tactics

Pre-marxist "class" configurations & analysis (castes, etc)
The Stinking Old Ninth (Chinese: 臭老九; pinyin: chòu lǎo jiǔ) is a Chinese dysphemism for intellectuals used at two major points.[1]
The term originated during the Yuan dynasty where the Mongol conquerors identified ten "castes" of Chinese:
    bureaucrats, officials, Buddhist monks, Taoist priests, physicians, workers, hunters, prostitutes, (ninth) Confucian scholars and finally beggars, with only beggars at a status below the intellectuals.[2]
The Yuan dynasty believed that Confucian scholars did not bring productivity to society and even hindered the development of the economy, so it was classified as the ninth social class at that time. In the 1960s and 1970s, the term "Stinking Old Ninth" was often used as a synonym for intellectuals, and it expressed society's disgust at the time. Intellectuals were distrusted during the revolution and pushed to undergo self-transformation.[3]

______________ during Cultural revolution

During the Cultural Revolution the "Nine Black Categories" were:
    landlords, rich farmers, anti-revolutionaries, bad influences, right-wingers, traitors, spies, capitalist roaders and (ninth) intellectuals.
While often attributed to Mao Zedong, in 1977 Deng Xiaoping argued that it was the Gang of Four who came up with the phrase and that Mao himself saw intellectuals as having some value in society.[4]

The "Five Black Categories" (Chinese: 黑五类; pinyin: Hēiwǔlèi) were classifications of political identity defined during the period of the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) in the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong, who ordained that people in these groups should be considered enemies of the Revolution. 
The groups were:[1][2][3]
  • Landlords (地主; dìzhǔ)
  • Rich farmers (富农; fùnóng)
  • Counter-revolutionaries (反革命; fǎngémìng)
  • Bad influencers ["bad elements"] (坏分子; huàifènzǐ)
  • Right-wingers (右派; yòupài)
On the other hand
  • Poor and lower-middle peasants (Chinese: 贫下中农)
  • Workers (Chinese: 工人)
  • Revolutionary soldiers (Chinese: 革命军人) within the People's Liberation Army
  • Revolutionary cadres (Chinese: 革命干部)[1][2] who are active members of the CCP in good standing
  • Revolutionary martyrs (Chinese: 革命烈士), including immediate family members, children, grandchildren (if any) and relatives of deceased CCP members and PLA service personnel killed in action[1][3]

[s!] SOURCE— (reading Richard Barbrook)

12 | Arthur Kroker and Michael A. Weinstein, Data Trash: The Theory of the Virtual Class, Montreal: New World Perspectives, 1994, p. 15. This analysis follows that of those futurologists who thought that ‘knowledge workers’ were the embryo of a new ruling class, see Bell, The Com- ing of the Post-Industrial Society; and economists who believe that ‘symbolic analysts’ will be the dominant section of the workforce under globalised capitalism, see Robert Reich, The Work of Nations: A Blueprint for the Future, London: Simon & Schuster, 1991. In contrast, back in the 1960s, some New Left theorists believed that these scientific-technical workers were leading the struggle for social liberation through their factory occupations and demands for self-management, see Serge Mallet, The New Working Class, Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1975. 

<----------------------------------- (new)+((new))
In the last century’s fourth quarter, disappointed Marxist academics tried to solve the mystery of the missing revolution. Back at the drawing board, these scholars concluded workers in the West had been bamboozled by capital, through mass entertainment and other forces, into losing track of their shared interests, while moderate prosperity had turned a particular set of workers into class hybrids. Concepts like the “professional-managerial class” (Barbara and John Ehrenreich), “cultural capital” (Pierre Bourdieu), and “contradictory class location” (Erik Olin Wright) abounded. Focused on questions of ideology and consciousness, the result was a cohort of self-described Marxists who were more interested in Buffy the Vampire Slayer than the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
pretty good writeup
#reread [!!]