I am somewhat fascinated by how the discussion of middle class and
intellectual labor turned into an evaluation of Soviet regime and its
experiments in extermination of people. It is also important to notice that
there is a theme on the background of this discussion -- a strive for a
fair world where women will be liberated without extermination of men but
by man happily delegating their privileges to women (or Kosovars delegating
rights to remaining Serbs and Gypsies under a fair US peacekeeping). I
think this turn of the discussion is somewhat logical though, and I will
try to describe why.
In the begging of the discussion there was a strong assumption made that
intelligentsia in Russia is somewhat related to middle class because middle
class is mostly white color (in all meanings, but primarily shirt-wise).
This parallel was somewhat provoked by Eugene's description of how the term
intelligentsia evolved. I have to credit my friend with his historical
knowledge but will suggest that middle class is just the opposite of
intelligentsia and "intellectual labor" has no meaningful relation to
either of them.
I base on the assumption that in the mechanism of American economy middle
class has a special role (interestingly, American in that statement may
mean both US and N.America). This role is to be a consumer. My assumption
is that middle class's function is to consume. Unfortunately for some
people, they have to have money to be able to pay for what they consume.
The balance of American politics is how to maintain middle class as a
vibrant consumer. A very limited number of people are needed to produce
goods with today's high productivity, so producers cannot be sufficient
middle class. So there appears a need for "intellectual labor" --
sufficient amounts of people who follow rules, play a game carefully,
produce nothing but ensure their survival through creating obstacles,
bureaucracy, etc. The most intellectual of their skill is to be able never
to question, feel comfortable in a tie or white blouse, and be serious
about making great deals purchasing more and more services and goods.
Things middle class/intellectual laborees do not need are bookcases because
.. books are contagious. My point is that though middle class wears white
and its labor is called intellectual, their function is to consume, not think.
Intelligentsia, on the contrary, is characterized, in my opinion, by a
nearly sickening strive to think. Hippies seem for me closer to
intelligentsia than a bank manager. By the way, a familiar add of
Ameritrade with this weird guy look into a copy machine, reflects
semantically my point. Many other groups (including wealthy
internet-start-ups-creators and poor artists) are close to intelligentsia.
But hardly middle class.
Unfortunately, the structure of the society doesn't allow too many thinking
people. It needs middle class. Our community, unfortunately, doesn't want
to give thinking up and stubbornly discuss ideas instead of shopping in
malls. Socially, however, most of us are required to identify ourselves as
middle class (let me know if I am wrong). This creates an uncomfortable
conflict that turned the discussion of middle class/intellectual labor into
a history course of concentration camps.
So, what do you think?
Matvey Sokolovsky
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:50 PST