Ours to Master

[Capitalist Pig]

thanks for posting this it is very interesting!

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I was wondering if any examples exist to show that tax cuts for the working class lead to direct wage reductions. Examples of this would be very helpful in explaining this idea, as simply saying it without any examples proves little.

The situation is complicated by the fact that, with inflation, nominal wages are rising along with other prices while income tax levels remain fixed. These are eventually raised, allowing the government to claim that it has reduced taxes whereas in fact it is merely restoring a previous position. Also, the changes in tax levels are not nearly as high as those mentioned in the article you are quoted from (high figures being used to simplify the maths).So, what we're talking about is not so much a cut in nominal wages but these still rising but not as much as the general price level.For instance, I got an email from my local LibDem candidate a couple of days ago, which says:

Quote:

An £825 tax cut for 53,100 local people because the Lib Dems have raised the 'personal allowance'This week, the personal allowance went up again to £10,600. This is £4000 higher than under Labour in 2010, representing a tax cut since then of £825 for 53,100 tax payers in Richmond Park (and 27 million people across the country). In addition, the 3,800 lowest paid workers in our constituency have been taken out of paying income tax altogether thanks to this Lib Dem change to our tax system.A month from now, the country goes to the polls again. And the Lib Dems have a clear message on tax cuts for working people: we want to go further. We want to raise the personal allowance again, this time to £12,500. This is a significant level because it would mean that no one on the minimum wage would pay income tax.

What they are saying is that if the personal allowance had remained at its 2010 level of £6400 people would be paying £825 more tax today.  Not quite the same thing as an actual cut in tax paid. What they don't say either is that the general price level has risen almost 12% since then, so £825 today is not the same in real terms as £825 in 2010. In any event, it is unlikely that the level would have remained at £6400.Talking of the minumum wage, the Labour Party has promised to increase it to £8 an hour by 2020.from its present £6.50 an hour. With a continually rising general price level over the next 5 years it will probably be near that level by then anyway. It certainly won't amount to a real increase of  23%.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Yeah, the Marxian perspective on 'class' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'placing every individual' in an 'individualist schema' of society.It is an approach to understanding, describing, criticising and analysing a society, at the level of a society.A society is not a collection of individuals. It is more than the sum of its parts.Marxian 'class' is nothing to do with individuals, their pay, their income level, their accents, their clothes, their habits, their education, or their cultural views. It is nothing to do with 'appearances', that can be easily seen.'Class' is a social relationship, a relationship of exploitation.

 Society is indeed more than the sum of its parts but that does not mean that thereby the parts have somehow mysteriously disappeared from view by virtue of simply saying "class is a social relationship".  There is no such thing as a "class" or a "society" without the individuals that comprise it – even if those classes and individuals are socially constituted What that means is that of course you can in principle "place" individuals according to their class.  Or are you seriously denying that we can confidently claim Bill Gates is a capitalist?  That would be ludicrous! Of course, we are not saying he is a capitalist because of his habits, his clothes, his accent etc etc but rather because of his significant  ownership of capital.  That is what counts in the Marxian class schema and on that basis you can certainly differentiate between individuals. In fact. if you think about it,  if you could not do this then the whole concept of class would be rendered meaningless.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

What that means is that of course you can in principle "place" individuals according to their class.

Why would one want to do this? Only if one is more interested in 'placing individuals' (a concern of liberals, rather than Marxists), would one do this, in 'principle' or in 'practice'.

robbo203 wrote:

Of course, we are not saying he is a capitalist because of his habits, his clothes, his accent etc etc but rather because of his significant  ownership of capital.

No.Not 'he'; capitalists can be female.And not 'significant'.The exploitative relationship is the key, not amounts. Relatively poor individuals can be capitalists, because they exploit even poorer workers.

robbo203 wrote:

That is what counts in the Marxian class schema and on that basis you can certainly differentiate between individuals. In fact. if you think about it,  if you could not do this then the whole concept of class would be rendered meaningless.

[my bold]'Differentiating between individuals' is not a concern of class analysis.It's a concern of yours, robbo, because, as other threads have shown, you employ an individualist perspective, regarding both society and your place in it in the future.

[robbo203]

So answer the question LBird – is Bill Gates a capitalist or not? The fact that he is he and not a she is irrelevant. Melinda Gates is equally and demonstrably a capitalist. And you misunderstand my point. I am not suggesting that the task we need to set ourselves is to differentiate between individuals one by one on the basis of class.  All I am saying is that in principle we can  broadly make such a differentiation since such differences clearly exist.  There are manifestly individuals in the world we live in who own very significant amounts of capital and others who own little or no capital at all Or would you deny this and continue to call yourself a Marxist with a straight face? If so, your ideas would have more in common with certain anarcho capitalists who argue that "we are all capitalists now" (because we have a post office savings account or whatever) or that there is "no such thing as a working class"

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks ALB,Had a feeling it wouldn't be simple issue, but I was aware the figures used in the article were for "display purposes only".The example you give about the LibDem tax cut claim is a good one and you help to explain much about such claims. Under the rules of the current political game the LibDems need to "sex up" tax cut claims as much as they can.

[Richard]

LBird wrote:

One thing you should bear in mind, Richard, is that ‘class analysis’ (ie., including the identification of ‘workers’ and ‘capitalists’) is not concerned with placing every individual in a ‘perfect category’. In the sense meant by non-Marxists, this will appear ‘fairly arbitrary’, because non-Marxists tend to have an ‘individualist’ perspective, and so are far more concerned with identifying the ‘cut off point’ between which every individual can be placed….The best way that I’ve thought of explaining this is by analogy to a colour spectrum. No rainbow has clearly defined ‘cut off points’ between its various colours: there are zones of blurring of adjacent colours. If one is concerned to accurately specify every particle of colour, then one has a problem, because there are numerous ‘mixed colours’ outside of the seven core colours, which we regard as making up a rainbow. But if one is merely concerned, for one’s purposes, to identify the seven colours, to teach what a rainbow is, then this is sufficient….The placing of individuals within the categories of ‘working class and capitalists’ is not an important concern, rather the understanding of the relationship between these two ‘colours’ is our concern.As I’ve said, you can disagree that this is acceptable in helping to analyse society, but you can still come to understand the difference in these two approaches, the ‘individualist/pointillist’ versus the ‘society/spectrumist’, in understanding ‘classes/colours’.

 LBird,This helped a lot, thanks. I guess I've always looked at society as an organic entity but one made up of individuals. But for the purpose of understanding the Marxist perspective, I like the analogy of colours blending into each other. It works for me!Karl Marx had a very unique way of looking at society and I've never really taken the time to seriously study his work – maybe I should.As for me, I tend to be very detail oriented and so I naturally gravitate to the individualist approach; I try to pigeonhole people. But I am open to new ideas.One thing that does bother me about viewing society strictly in terms of classes is the potential for collective punishment based on classes. If socialism is to be attained by the general consensus of society how will the capitalist class be treated during the transition from capitalism to socialism? Will people lose their sense of decency and humanity by viewing their neighbours, their fellow creatures, as "a worker" or "a capitalist" and not as a human being? Experience has taught me that brutality lies just beneath the surface of many people. Thinking of people as individuals often helps to rein in our more violent impulses.The Bolsheviks abused the idea of class identification in their brutal collectivization efforts; the kulaks didn't fair too well under Bolshevik rule.I'm not saying that using class divisions is necessarily wrong nor am I equating the SPGB in any way whatsoever with the Bolsheviks. However I do believe that classification by class could open the door to potentially inhumane behaviour down the road. History has lessons for us and we'd be foolish to ignore them!Just thinking out loud,Richard

[Richard]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. For now, I agree with robbo203 that society is made up of individuals. On the other hand, I agree with LBird that exploitation is the key to understanding capitalism. The way I see it is that classes of individuals exploit other classes of individuals and the individuals within each class feel a certain class loyalty. Membership in a given class can't be fixed since a person could lose their ability to exploit others or they could gain the ability to exploit others.I think I understand the concept of classes in the Marxist sense yet I also feel that to give up our innate sense of individuality would be a mistake. Human beings are individuals who are either born into a class or develop a class identity based on their role in society.

[LBird]

Richard wrote:

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. For now, I agree with robbo203 that society is made up of individuals. On the other hand, I agree with LBird that exploitation is the key to understanding capitalism.

The problem is, Richard, is that no-one argues that society is not made up of individuals.The issue is the structure within which individuals find themselves, a structure which pre-exists them, and which they are fitted into from birth.The 'key to understanding capitalism' is precisely that: that it is a structure which embodies exploitation. This cannot be found by examining individuals, so looking at individuals does not tell us anything about exploitation, because exploitation is a structural characteristic. So, your 'classes of individuals' concept is meaningless. Of course, classes consist of 'individuals', but that is not what explains 'exploitation' (ie. it is not 'individual greed' or 'individual genes'). The explanation lies in understanding the characteristics of the structure of capitalism, not in 'understanding the individuals'.Perhaps an analogy will help you to grasp this difference in approach.A wall, quite clearly, consists of 'individual bricks'. No-one says it doesn't.But, a jumbled pile of bricks scattered on the ground consists, too, of 'individual bricks'.If we focus on 'individual bricks', we learn nothing more than the individual characteristics of bricks: size, shape, colour, hardness, etc.But if we want to understand the protection that a load of bricks, precisely structured together into a wall, gives to us from attackers (savage dogs outside our house, or attacking enemies outside our castle), we have to examine the wall, not the individual bricks.The structural qualities of a wall are not present in its constituent bricks. Try hiding from a rabid  wolf behind a pile of bricks: it won't help; the wolf will simply go over or around the pile of bricks, and bob's your uncle, your arse is its meal. After you get out of hospital, going back to the pile of bricks, and picking them up, each individuallly, and asking why the individual brick didn't protect you, is a fool's errand.No, the wall, just as society does, has qualities that are produced by its structure, and which are not to be found in its bricks, just as not in individuals, but are to be found in an examination of the structure. That is, the wall, or capitalism.So, the lesson is, Richard, don't be fooled by bourgeois ideologists who harp on about 'individuals', and instead focus your attention upon the structure of capitalist society, and its structural inequalities (which are not individual qualities) and its structural purpose of exploitation (which is nothing to do with individual greed or genes).If you turn your attention to individuals, you're losing focus on our real problem. And beware of ruling class ideas, about concerns for  'individuals'. That's precisely what they want you to look at, and thus to ignore the exploitative structure of society.

[robbo203]

Richard wrote:

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. For now, I agree with robbo203 that society is made up of individuals. On the other hand, I agree with LBird that exploitation is the key to understanding capitalism.

 Both these points are valid and do not contradict each other, Richard. You cannot have a society without individuals  but equally these individuals are, from the word go, socially constituted.  In that respect, as I have told him often enough, LBird is quite wrong to characterise my position as an "individualist" one.  An individualist perspective is fundamentally an atomistic one  which sees individuals as primary and society as a derivative phenomenon (the so called "social contract" idea). That is not my position but LBird cannot seem to get his head around that In any case, the argument is not about  this but about whether one identify such a thing as individual capitalists in this capitalist world we live in.  I assert that indeed we can.  A capitalist is defined as someone who possesses significant capital – sufficient to enable him or her not to have to work.  Bill and Melinda Gates are demonstrably "capitalists" by this criterion but LBird seems to take exception to my saying this. He seems to think this makes my position an "individualist" one because I can point to and identify such individual capitalists.  What he fails to understand is that just because one can identify  such individuals as capitalists does not in the least make the process by which they came to be capitalists a social one. Exploitation is indeed a social process but if you cannot identity a subset within society – a class of individuals – that exploits another much larger class – then notion of capitalism being an "exploitative society" becomes meaningless ("exploitation" is after all a relationship between people organised into classes).  It is meaningful precisely because we are able to identify a class of individuals – the capitalists – who are the beneficiaries of this social process of exploitation

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…as I have told him often enough, LBird is quite wrong to characterise my position as an "individualist" one.  An individualist perspective is fundamentally an atomistic one  which sees individuals as primary and society as a derivative phenomenon (the so called "social contract" idea). That is not my position but LBird cannot seem to get his head around that

Hmmm… OK, let's read robbo further…

robbo203 wrote:

In any case, the argument is not about  this but about whether one identify such a thing as individual capitalists in this capitalist world we live in.  I assert that indeed we can.

But, why would we want to 'identify individual capitalists'?Surely, it's their social role that is the key to understanding them as 'individuals'? In fact, not their individualness, but their exploitative role within a society. Their class position within a society. Not them as biological entities.

robbo203 wrote:

He seems to think this makes my position an "individualist" one because I can point to and identify such individual capitalists.

Yes, why the hell are you so concerned with 'individuals'? Well, I ask rhetorically, because I know your view of future "workers' power" requires it, because you think, like anarchists do, that 'communism' equals 'free individuals', rather than a social power, a structural role for democracy.

robbo203 wrote:

Exploitation is indeed a social process but if you cannot identity a subset within society – a class of individuals – that exploits another much larger class – then notion of capitalism being an "exploitative society" becomes meaningless…

We're back to examining 'individual bricks', after our encounter with the rabid wolf, to see if the big tear in our arse can be explained by the 'individual brick'.'A class of individuals'. A concept guaranteed to shift focus from 'class' to 'individuals'. In fact, ideologically, it's doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them.Unless workers can start to get past their bourgeois-implanted fascination with 'individuals', and start to examine how the structure works, outside of looking at the individuals who make it up, then we'll remain static in this society.I think that the real ideological issue, between robbo and me, is in our ideological identification of ourselves.robbo regards himself as an 'individual'.I don't. I'm not an individual. That is a concept that emerged historically with bourgeois society. It suits the purposes of the bourgeoisie for everybody to regard themselves, as does robbo, as an 'individual'.I'm a 'worker'. This is a structural concept, which implies its exploitative opposite, a 'boss'. My understanding of my birth, family background, education, socialisation, development and future, is linked, not to my biology, my physical existence as an 'individual' being, but to my class position within the social structure in which I live. Thus, the tug of conflicting ideologies, ruling class ideas and exploited class ideas, has played the key part in my life. I used to think that I was an 'individual', as we are all told we are, but now I know better.But whilst the majority of workers continue to examine themselves through the prism of 'individuality', and view society similarly, and worry about 'individuals' or 'classes of individuals', we'll remain slaves of an ideology not of our own making.I'm a 'wallist', robbo, not a 'brickist', as you are. That's why you continue to talk about bricks. You can't even bring yourself to just say 'wall', but have to stress a 'wall of bricks'. And when I insist on discussing the structure of 'walls', you immediately shout 'What about the bricks? LBird says bricks don't exist!' And Richard is confused. He thinks 'wallists' deny the existence of 'bricks'.With your 'help', robbo, workers asking questions about capitalism will continue to be confused, by talk of individuals.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

But, why would we want to 'identify individual capitalists'?Surely, it's their social role that is the key to understanding them as 'individuals'? In fact, not their individualness, but their exploitative role within a society. Their class position within a society. Not them as biological entities.

Once again, LBird, and for the umpteenth time – such individuals are socially constituted. Why would we want to identity individual  capitalists? I would have thought that was fairly obvious, don't you? Because if there is no such thing as individual capitalists that we can point to then how can you meaningfully talk of there being a capitalist class? I have news for you, LBird.  A class consists of a group of individuals who in Marxian terms all have the same relation to the means of production in contradistinction to some other class.  If you cannot identify  a capitalist class because you cannot, or don't want to identify, the individuals who comprise such a class then how can you even meaningfully talk of capitalism being a system of class exploitation? So to answer your question, to identify individual capitalists is to put flesh on the bones of a theory of exploitation that might otherwise comes across as purely abstract , totally unconvincing and frankly meaningless

LBird wrote:

Yes, why the hell are you so concerned with 'individuals'? Well, I ask rhetorically, because I know your view of future "workers' power" requires it, because you think, like anarchists do, that 'communism' equals 'free individuals', rather than a social power, a structural role for democracy..

 Why I am "concerned with individuals"? Because without acknowledging the existence of individuals you cannot begin to understand the social roles they play or the social entities they make up like classes.  The concept of exploitation is meaningless without the idea of some individuals exploiting others.  Individuals organised as classes are implied in the very premiss of exploitation itself. Exploitation doesnt just mysteriously "happen"; it takes individuals to make it happen. Even you must surely understand this point LBird.  To use your metaphor you cannot build a wall without bricks,.  Why are you constantly trying to ignore or deny the existence of these bricks? I do indeed believe  in the concept of "free individuals" in a communist society and unlike you take up a Marxist position on this matter that the "free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"  (Communist Manifesto). Of course I recognise that individual freedom has to be constrained or balanced against the needs of others and that, in communism, democracy  will have an important role to play, much more so than the case today.  But you don't seems to have any idea whatsoever within your black-or-white , all-or-nothing worldbview of a sense of balance or complementarity .  There is no individual freedom in your world,  only what you claim would be "democracy". That is why I considered your position to be a form of holistic totalitarianism 

LBird wrote:

'A class of individuals'. A concept guaranteed to shift focus from 'class' to 'individuals'. In fact, ideologically, it's doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them.

 Thats rubbish. How does pointing to individuals as representatives of a class of capitalists do the work of the bourgeoisie for them? I would have thought the very opposite was the case.  The bourgeoisie don't want to have themselves seen as a separate class who live off the fruits of their exploitation of the working class. 

LBird wrote:

Unless workers can start to get past their bourgeois-implanted fascination with 'individuals', and start to examine how the structure works, outside of looking at the individuals who make it up, then we'll remain static in this society.

 But you cannot "examine how the structure works, outside of looking at the individuals who make it up". It is just not possible.  As I keep on tell you the two things go together.  You cannot examine how a wall works without acknowledging the existence of the bricks.  You are in effect arguing that society can exist without individuals though you strenuously deny it. Your view of "society" is a completely reified one and you are wading unwittingly into the same theoretical quagmire that people like Durkheim found themselves and tried to extricate themselves from

LBird wrote:

I think that the real ideological issue, between robbo and me, is in our ideological identification of ourselves.robbo regards himself as an 'individual'.I don't. I'm not an individual. That is a concept that emerged historically with bourgeois society. It suits the purposes of the bourgeoisie for everybody to regard themselves, as does robbo, as an 'individual'.

Again this is absolute nonsense.  Of course you are an "individual" – unless, perhaps, I happen to have been exchanging ideas with a computer generated hologram which I think is unlikely. You are confusing the fact of your own subjectivity which marks you out as  an "individual" with the fact that you have been shaped by the process of social interaction with others.And it is complete poppycock to argue that the concept of the individual only "emerged historically with bourgeois society". As was pointed out to you in the "hunter gatherer violence" thread,  hunter gather society was characterised by an extreme degree of individuality and independent mindedness. Conflict resolution was typically radically decentralised involving only the  immediate parties concerned.  If anything there is much more individuality in a hunter gatherer society than a capitalist society.  Another reason incidentally why the phenomenon of warfare was absent in such a society; the very individuality of hunter gatherers made it well nigh impossible to organise or muster a largish body of individuals to inflict violence on some other group

LBird wrote:

I'm a 'wallist', robbo, not a 'brickist', as you are. That's why you continue to talk about bricks. You can't even bring yourself to just say 'wall', but have to stress a 'wall of bricks'. And when I insist on discussing the structure of 'walls', you immediately shout 'What about the bricks? LBird says bricks don't exist!' And Richard is confused. He thinks 'wallists' deny the existence of 'bricks'.With your 'help', robbo, workers asking questions about capitalism will continue to be confused, by talk of individuals.

 But there is no wall without bricks is there LBird so what  on earth are you griping about? A "wall of bricks" acknowledges the existence of both.  You don't .  You just talk  airily about "the wall" as if the wall can exist with the bricks.  Laughably you seem to be implying that a "wallist" like you does not deny the existence of bricks but in that case how would you affirm the existence of those bricks except by talking of a "wall of bricks" exactly as I have done!?!If anyone is doing the confusing here LBird it is your good self,   But then conveniently you don't exist, you are not an "individual". So I really don't have anyone against whom I can level that accusation, I suppose. LOL

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

But then conveniently you don't exist, you are not an "individual".

I predicted to Richard that you'd say this.As long as Richard, and any other comrades trying to get to grips with 'class' and why it should be used for analysis of our society, and want to find a better way of explaining it to other workers, so that we can help develop our consciousness, I'm happy.You stick to 'individuals', robbo. And you keep helping to explain to others, whilst using a bourgeois concept.Ooooo… I know what comes next: "LBird says individuals aren't real, He says we're all just a concept!"

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But then conveniently you don't exist, you are not an "individual".

I predicted to Richard that you'd say this.As long as Richard, and any other comrades trying to get to grips with 'class' and why it should be used for analysis of our society, and want to find a better way of explaining it to other workers, so that we can help develop our consciousness, I'm happy.You stick to 'individuals', robbo. And you keep helping to explain to others, whilst using a bourgeois concept.Ooooo… I know what comes next: "LBird says individuals aren't real, He says we're all just a concept!"

 To my tongue in cheek comment that you are "not an individual", you respond by saying that you "predicted" I would say this.  Meaning of course that you think  that my predicted interpretation of your position would be false and that you are, as it turns out, an individual after all.  This is reinforced  by your latest  "prediction" – that I'm going to say "LBird says individuals aren't real; He says we're all just a concept!" by which you really mean to say that you think individuals are real and do exist.But hang on LBird,   you have only got yourself  to blame for the muddle you have created.  You did say did you not, that:I think that the real ideological issue, between robbo and me, is in our ideological identification of ourselves. robbo regards himself as an 'individual'. I don't. I'm not an individual. That is a concept that emerged historically with bourgeois society.So according to you in your previous post, individuals don't exist in that you and I are not individuals but merely "workers" (talk about reinforcing bourgeois instrumentalism!). Now you seem to be complaining when I point out that is what you are saying!  You seem to be complaining now that I am saying  that your position is that individuals are just a concept when oddly enough you yourself earlier said that the "individual " is a concept" that  "emerged historically with bourgeois society",  You have so completely tied yourself up in knots that you've forgotten half the things you earlier said! I note, incidentally,  that you have nothing to say about  my refutation of your ridiculous claim that individuality was something that only emerged historically with bourgeois society and that our hunter gatherer forbears exhibited a high degree of individuality.  Why the silence on this point  LBird? Lastly of course, I don't "stick with individuals" , I  fully recognise also the existence of classes.  There two different kinds of entities can coexist , you know. but you with your totally simplistic black-or-white view of the world just cant seem to get your head around that one, can you?

[LBird]

One fine day, robbo, you'll actually read what I write.Meanwhile, I hope Richard is getting some benefit from all this, and has grown in his understanding of the relational aspect of 'class'.It's not 'individuals' but the relationship between them, that is the focus of 'class'.If one stresses the 'individual' existence, and think that enquiring closely into that reveals what we want to know, then we will miss the most important factor: not the individuals, but the nature of their relationship.Think of a vampire and its victim: of course, both exist in a biological sense, but to talk of their 'individuality' (which exists, of course), is to miss their exploitative relationship.One is a individual vampire, and sucks blood from the individual victim. The fact that two individuals are involved is not only the least important aspect of what there is to know about them, but focussing upon them as individuals actually detracts from an examination of their relationship.The key is, one is a vampire, and the other is a victim, and they have opposed interests. The vampire cannot exist without the victim, but the victim can exist without the vampire. So, their relationship is an exploitative one, and the vampire inescapably exploits (the individual vampire can't choose to stop sucking blood), whilst the victim is told that the vampire actually injects 'lifeforce' into the victim, so the victim comes to believe that the victim is also dependent upon this relationship, and that it is mutually beneficial. That is, the vampire takes blood and gives lifeforce, whilst the victim takes lifeforce and gives blood.You'll notice that their is no mention is this explanation of the individual characteristics of either vampire or victim, but the whole explanatory stress is upon the nature of their exploitative/exploited relationship.While we spend our time discussing the individuality of the relationees, we are not discussing the essential factor of their relations.We aren't really concerned with how either dresses or speaks, their hobbies or tastes, their likes or dislikes, the sizes of their houses or income, their nationality or sexuality, their sex.A tall, well-spoken and educated, opera loving, straight male vampire IS IDENTICAL to a small, poorly-spoken and educated, bingo loving, gay female vampire.A small, poorly-spoken and educated, bingo loving, gay male victim IS IDENTICAL to a tall, well-spoken and educated, opera loving straight female victim.Looking at these four as individuals, and focussing on their own personal characteristics, will only obscure the relationships involved.It's the exploitative relationship, comrade!No one is saying that individuals don't have their own characteristics, but that the most important factor in analysing our society is not their various specifics, but that it is their exploitative relationship.The vampires know it, and when necessary, drop all pretence of being 'individuals' and band together to maintain their bloodsucking.The victims don't yet know it, and so far in history have always sided with 'their' vampires, which the vampires have persuaded them that they have a real connection.We need to bring to the fore the relational aspects of society, and not the 'individuality' of all.'Individuality' is a bourgeois ideological concept, which keeps us victims separated into our own little world of one.

[Author]

Posts