Certainly, she is only because the working-class is assumed as if she was pre-subordinate that the question of the definition can be raised. The definition, merely, closes a world even more than it assumes closed. Once defined, the working-class it can be identified then like a particular group of people, feasible of being taken as object from study. For the Socialists, Working-class is treated like a positive concept and its identity like which it must be valued. It exists, by all means, the problem of which to do with those people who do not fall within the definitions of working class or capitalist class, but this is solved through an additional discussion of definitions on like defining these people, if like new small bourgeoisie, employee, middle-class or as it is. This process of definition or classification is the origin of interminable discussions about class movements and from not-class, fights of class and other forms of alliances between the working-class and other groups, etc. From this approach to the class by means of the definition, arise different problems.

In first place, is a question of property : we belong to the working-class those that we worked in the universities? , and Marx and Lenin? They are the rebels of Chiapas or the CRAF divides of the working-class? They are those activists of the homosexual movement part of the working-class. In each case a concept of a predefined working-class exists to whom this people belong or no. One second consequence that is derived to define to the class, is the own definition of fights. From the classification of the people at issue certain conclusions are derived on the fights in which they find integrated. Those that they define to the rebels zapatistas like other people’s to the working-class, extract of this certain conclusions on the nature and the limitations of the rebellion.

Comments are closed.