Jerry, what Louis is saying is truer than what you are saying. I think you are confusing bourgeois stratificational analysis with Marxiam class analysis. Yes, we know there exist differences between professors and farmers but at the greatest level of abstraction they, like teachers, for example, are not and cannot be bona fide big capitalists. They are merely circulators of capital who are subjectively capitalist-minded but objectively non-bourgeois. People like E.O. Wright have spent their entire life unnecessarily dissecting the petty-bourgeois. While this may be intellectually gratifying for some, it is not key. Peter Meiksins has a good piece on all this. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Louis N Proyect wrote: > > > Louis: I regard university professors as a petty-bourgeois layer that is > > coming under the assault from the ruling-class. This often happens. For > > example, the Populist movement of the 1890's was a radical struggle by > > farmers who were being bled dry by the railroads and banks. These farmers > > mounted a profound anticapitalist struggle, but this did not change their > > class character. > > > Except for > > circumstances of severe crisis, such as pre-revolutionary situations, the > > role of a professor is to transmit the ideas of the ruling class in > > society. They function like priests, journalists and other members of the > > intelligentsia. From time to time, some of them rebel against their class > > and become socialists, but this is the exception and not the rule. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Petty bourgeois", like "fascism", is a word that is often used > imprecisely by "Marxists" who should know better -- Like Louis. The petit > bourgeois, in Marx's sense, represents a social layer and class in > between the capitalist class and the working class and includes small > shopkeepers and farmers. The distinguishing characteristic of the > petty-bourgeois, such as a farmer, is that these individuals own their > own means of production and do not therefore have to alienate their labor > to capitalists in exchange for a wage. > > Louis's comparison of "college professors" to farmers is therefore > blatantly misleading and inaccurate. One could argue, though, that there > are others in society (such as managers) that perform a function for > capital or the state that places them outside of the working class even > though they are not capitalists or petty-bourgeois in the traditional > sense. A manager, though, supervises the labor of wage earners and > thereby assists capitalist efforts to increase surplus value and profit > (for example, by assisting an increase in the intensity of labor). Here > again, the analogy fails. Faculty, most professional staff, support > staff. etc. are all workers who are supervised *by* management -- whether > the school is private or public. > > Using Louis's distinction above concerning the function of professors, > one could just as easily make the argument that elementary or high school > teachers are "petty bourgeois." > > As a sidebar, I should add that many such teachers receive > significantly higher wages and benefits than *most* college faculty (at > least, in the US). This is readily apparent by comparing , for instance, > average salaries that faculty make in practice to salaries for teachers > (e.g. look at the UFT salaries in NYC). I *particularly* resent it when Mr. > Bugs Bunny, a computer programmer employed by Columbia University, tells us > about how "petty bourgeois" and "privaleged" we are, when I *know* that > he must make at least 2-3 times the salary that I do and receive *many* > more benefits than I do. I don't need such a lecture from such a bunny. > Do I resent Mr. Bunny's salary? No. I believe, though, that faculty > salaries should be raised to such a level. > > Jerry >
