To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Michael Albert's Blog » Class or Multitude

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

1

Michael Albert's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/malbert
Bio: Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine`s web system: ZCom (www.zmag.org). Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His po... (More)

All Albert Blogs

Recent Albert Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Class or Multitude

By Michael Albert at Apr 14, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
I am going to be in New York City this coming weekend for the Left Forum. One of the two panels I am on is about class or multitude. While I will tailor my words for the setting, once I get there, these are the thoughts I had on the topic by way of preparing. Class or Multitude The title of our panel is “Class or Multitude.” I think we need class concepts and while it isn't our topic, I also think we need concepts highlighting race, gender, and power. I don't see the point, however, of the concept multitude. Class concepts point us to the structural features of economies that ensure that some people collectively dominate others. Class concepts focus on the difference between owning factories and selling one's ability to do work. This difference produces capitalists versus everyone else. The source of this difference has to be eliminated if we are to transcend capitalism. I think we all agree on that. Additionally, however, good class concepts should in my view also focus on a second critical economic difference. Some people do work that conveys knowledge, confidence, and control over daily life. Their work is empowering. They give orders. They define what is done, by whom, in what manner, at what pace. Other people do work that is overwhelmingly rote, obedient, and dis-empowering. They follow orders. They do not set schedules or agendas. Their knowledge dissipates. Their confidence erodes. I think this reveals a class difference. On the one side we have what we all call workers – which includes assemblers, buss driver, short order cooks, miners, maids, nurses, and waitresses, the daily implementers of economic dictates. On the other side, we have what I call coordinators - which includes high level lawyers, engineers, doctors, accountants, architects, and managers, the daily designers and administrators of the economy and its protocols. Coordinators benefit at the expense of workers. Coordinators can even rule workers. Institutions that create and preserve this coordinator/worker class hierarchy include corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for output or for power, hierarchical decision making, and markets or central planning for allocation. Sadly, these are the component institutions of what has in the past been called socialism, but which I think we should instead call coordinatorism. With this perspective, we need class concepts to highlight the three class structure of modern economies and to guide efforts to eliminate both ownership and organizational bases for class division. Because economics isn't everything and because people become revolutionary from many starting places and by way of many different agendas, we also need gender concepts, race concepts, and power concepts. So what about the concept multitude? I am not sure I get it, honestly. Being one word, it presumably labels essentially one thing. What? Perhaps multitude refers to everyone who could conceivably become a revolutionary in revolutionary times. But since that could be anyone, population would do as a label for that as well. I doubt that is the intended meaning of multitude though I have heard people will use the term that way. Perhaps multitude refers instead to everyone who is a good prospect to become revolutionary in revolutionary times. But then the word multitude just replaces the two word label, likely revolutionary, and that doesn't seem very innovative or essential either. I doubt that is the intended meaning too, though again, I have heard people will use the term that way. Perhaps multitude means, instead, those who by virtue of their economic position are good prospects to become revolutionary in revolutionary times. Taken in that sense, the concept multitude would replace the old concept proletariat, or even working class. This, I think, is perhaps the intended usage, but also the worst usage. First, if used this way I think there is a high likelihood focusing on multitude would crowd out giving priority attention to kinship, race, and power as being comparably important as economics in people's conditions and consciousnesses, and in igniting or thwarting revolutionary inclinations. We certainly need to highlight that economies affect and are affected by culture, gender, and power. But if our method for incorporating that insight implies not also using central concepts rooted in those other domains, not to mention more detailed economic concepts of class, it will narrow rather than broaden our focus. This trend would mirror the impact of the old use of the term proletariat as revolutionary agent. Despite multitude being defined more broadly and incorporating additional types of work and economic activity in its logic, like the word proletariat, the word multitude - meaning revolutionary agent and conceived on economic foundations - would cause people to think that the only way to become revolutionary was by way of economic concerns and attitudes, which was something I thought we transcended thirty years ago. But second, and I think even more damning, elevating the label multitude pushes us back toward a bi-polar view of economic change. There are potential bad guys - maybe we call them capitalists, or emperors, or whatever, and there are potential good guys, the multitude. This is quite like when it was capitalists and workers, and no other pole. The trouble with this two constituency approach to agents of economic change is that it papers over the existence of the coordinator class and makes it seem like beyond the bad economics we now suffer there can only follow either more of the same or, instead, good economics. Ironically, given its claims to be a highly innovative approach, trumpeting multitude reminds me of the old and the least flexible variants of Marxism Leninism. There is capitalism, or there is socialism, and there is nothing else. In truth, however, there is not only one post capitalist economy. One possible post capitalist economy, which was heretofore called socialism, has had institutions that elevate what I earlier called the coordinator class. I like to call this coordinatorism. I find it abhorrent. A second post capitalist economy would have institutions, instead, that eliminate class division. I think this would be participatory economics, but the jury is still out on that. Classlessness is what I seek. For me, the problem with the concept multitude is that whatever the intentions behind its use might be, I don't see how it can become other than a step back toward both an economism that crowds out priority attention for race, gender, and power, and also toward advancing coordinatorism due to having drawn attention away from the nature of the coordinator/worker division. I know these claims fly in the face of the stated motives of those who use the label multitude. But so too did charges of economism and of favoring an economy that elevated a new ruling class fly in the face of the stated motives of those who in the past advocated Leninist approaches to social change. Yes, advocates of multitude urge its use to broaden economics to account for other dimensions of life. They want to address all forms of domination. But, despite those admirable desires, it is far more probable that shoveling all dimensions of life under a single logic born of economic modes of thought will underplay extra-economic variables and overplay economic ones. Second, trying to hammer the varieties of economic possibility into a bi-polar framework that highlights bad economy that we have as opposed to good economy that a multitude can win, ignores that anti-capitalists can seek a future that is classless or can seek a future that has coordinators dominating workers. Highlighting multitude obscures or even denies the coordinator/worker just as Marxist Leninist concepts obscured and denied that central element in the past. And that, I think, is a devastating debit of elevating the concept multitude. In sum, I think we should use the concepts capitalist, coordinator, and worker for understanding the key dynamics of current economies and also of the two main kinds of post capitalist economy, coordinatorism and classlessness. I think we should use concepts like man, woman, mother, father, black, white, religion, nationality, and others for understanding the key dynamics of current families, cultures, and political structures, and their future improvements as well. It seems to me that instead of that approach, trying to shoehorn diverse social or even just economic reality into a single constituency tied concept like multitude is wildly backward, not forward, in its implications. Finally, one last point. To make a worthy revolution is going to require at least a third of the population being powerful and informed advocates and designers of a better future. That's a hundred million people, or more. If the intellectual tools essential for comprehending and designing a better future, and for getting there, are obscure much less abstruse, wide use of them will be impossible. Instructive theory and inspiring vision need to be in plain language or they aren't good theory and vision because they won't be used by those who need to use it. Talking about democracy, participation, or self management in a language no one who isn't highly privileged can possibly have any familiarity with is not conducive to democracy, participation, or self management. Luckily, I don't think there is any need for such language.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (25)

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Apr 18, 2005 21:51 PM
baby wrote;"To use the label "working class" in the industrialized world is without meaning." Once again linguistic differences are at the root of the debate on znet. when I use the term working class, I am talking about anyone who works for someone else or does not own the means of production. This does not mean that they are poor, only that they do not control their own means of procuring lifes needs. The sell thier "labor", be it computer work, managerial skills, or ditch digging, to the capitalists. The capitalist then skims wealth, or labor value, off the top. This is how I personally distiguish working class from owning class. There is a "parasitic" requirement on the latter and a "selling of" necessity on the former.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Organum, Baby at Apr 18, 2005 13:19 PM
To use the label "working class" in the industrialized world is without meaning. The buying power and car-consumer-craze that even our poor people are a part of makes this a sick joke. The "work" has lost its meaning. Its about controlling resources. How the "work" then is distributed between energyconsuming machinery and man the eater is another question.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Jautter, Mind at Apr 16, 2005 01:38 AM
There used to be only one Coordinator- Nature.Everyone had to follow Her [HI Lucinda]dictates to survive.People smart enough to predict natural cycles [solstices,eclipeses,etc.]were rewarded accordingly;inside work, no heavy lifting. The only thing that doesn't exist in nature, outside of man,is anonimity.When people become anonymous,constraints are thrown asunder-when they become autonomous,we're screwed because we blundered.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Rastrosus, Oncorhynchus at Apr 15, 2005 20:06 PM
(continued from 1200 seconds ago) I disagree with several visitors who suspect that ZNet has imposed the 1200-second rule because it is trying to force us to pony up cash and enlist in the ranks of the "sustainers." It appears to me, rather, that the 1200-second rule should be named the Lucinda Marshall Rule: Cheap thrills and narcissism. The comments section's regression to some infantile stage in which a fixation on the body's sexual organs becomes everything has followed Marshall's lead, and not the other way around. Therefore I find it grossly unfair of the Blogs' sheriff to enact a new, ad hoc piece of legislation designed to CURTAIL open discussion among the VISITORS to the Blogs, among YOU and Me, because the cheap thrills and narcissism originated among the bloggers themselves.(end)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Rastrosus, Oncorhynchus at Apr 15, 2005 19:46 PM
Yes, a new 1200-second rule has been imposed on us. The consequence, as several of my fellow visitors have been observing, is to "sabotage the forum that non-sustainers have to communicate with each other and debate the merits/drawbacks of ideas expressed on this blog" (Big J Max), leading MTbrad to write that he has "pretty much stopped participating in this forum," and urging the rest of us "to find a new outlet for our discussions." I hope ZNet is listening. I disagree with Frederic Christie, however, that "Repeated posts like [his] should be somewhat checked against." Instead they should be encouraged. The fact that as honorable a visitor to these Blogs as Christie ought to be placed in a position of self-censorship is despicable.(to be continued in 1200 seconds)

Reply this comment

Person

By Dunc, Gregorach at Apr 15, 2005 17:20 PM
Oh for pity's sake... Totalitarianism is locking people up or executing them because of their peacefully expressed beliefs / colour / creed / origin / sexual orientation. A 1200 second time limit on multiple postings is a (possibly heavy handed) attempt to discourage people (or bots) from posting multiple-page screeds. The two are so far apart that to liken one to the other is simply obscene. The discussion facilities provided here are not a fundamental human right.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 15, 2005 13:42 PM
This 1200 second rule is a good example of totalitarianism, and a great way to discourage democratic debate.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 15, 2005 11:20 AM
Guys, let's not jump to conclusion yet. The 1200 seconds thing could be just a technical glitch and Brian hasn't had a chance to look into it yet. I find it difficult to believe that the folks at znet would do something so childish to shake down the users. I have noticed there have been technical problems here from time to time. A few weeks ago the clock mysteriously turned back by a couple of hours. So when you responded to someone who posted a message an hour ago your reply ended up on top of the message you replied to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By J, Big at Apr 15, 2005 07:17 AM
MT- I am glad that you too can see the ugly beast of capitalism rearing its head even here, but i am not yet ready to write off znet. It is my hope that the architects of this forum will recognize their mistake and return to the more democratic form before a great deal of intelligent, engaging discourse is lost. I seldom respond to posts because i don't spend a whole lot of time at the computer, and often find that by the time I read something AI disagree with that someone else has countered it with far more eloquence than I can muster, but to me the exchanges that occur in this blog are the lifeblood of the site, and we will all be poorer if we lose it. I have learned a great deal from the responses of bwong, MT, f. christie, graeme and a host of others, but with this new rule a mighty flow of information will soon become a pitiful trickle. As far as other forums MT, i am with you if the "abusive" behavior of the znet hierarchy does not change.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Apr 15, 2005 06:44 AM
"That 1200 seconds garbage is insane- you now have wait 20 minutes between posts! why? I understand that folks at znet want to persuade more people to join the sustainer program to raise money. What this appears to be doing is sabotaging the forum that non sustainers have to communicate with each other and debate the merits / drawbacks of ideas expressed on this blog." I agree completely and have personally pretty much stoped participating in this forum. What the people here at znet will soon find out is there are thousands of left wing blogs to discuss the same stuff. If they think that they can use tools such as the 1200 min. thing to get people to give them money it will back fire. I was getting all set to sign up for the supporters thing when they first "cracked down" on what they called "abusive" language and when they implemented the first time limits. I changed my mind pretty quickly and will no longer be giving them my $. They have destroyed a great thing with huge potential for creating actual change, all out of a desire to make money. The dollar motive once again destroys true forces of positive change and degrades this forum into shit. I urge us all to find a new outlet for our discussions. Are you with me?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By J, Big at Apr 15, 2005 05:02 AM
That 1200 seconds garbage is inane- you now have wait 20 minutes between posts! why? I understand that folks at znet want to persuade more people to join the sustainer program to raise money, but some of us just can't afford it. What this appears to be doing is sabotaging the forum that non sustainers have to communicate with each other and debate the merits / drawbacks of ideas expressed on this blog. While I recognize the need for fundraising I find it quite dishearteniong thatr this type of cynical power move would be att4empted on an leftist/ anarchist blog- just look at the amount of comments the most recent posts have recieved in comparison to other posts of the last couple of months and its easyn to see that voices are being suppressed wheter that is the intent or not. If the motives for this are monetary i can understand but am disgusted- if the motive is to stifle debate concerning various posts then i want nothing more to do with this site- if anyone in control is listening i believe some answers are in order

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 15, 2005 03:22 AM
1200 seconds later: I meant to say ' "class" is a legitimate concept in understanding social, economical and political reality"'

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 15, 2005 03:01 AM
"You want clear and unambiguous categories for "us" vs. "them." "They" are taking over the world and destroying it, "we" are organizing to overthrow "them."" Chill, man. I don't think the notions of "class enemies" and "class warfare" are even brought up in these discussions except by you. "class" is a legitimate concept in social, economical and political reality. It is just like power, gender, etc. The point of contention, at lest to me, is to what degree is "coordinator class" a useful concept in discribing the world. What are its limitations and what kind of fine tuning(if any) may be required. Also, Albert is against orgainizing society into hierachies. He is not against indiviudal members of what he terms the "coordinate class"(at least not from his writings) His seems to be an entirely macro analysis. Suppose someone says that your company can be run without the board of directors and the CEO. You may agree or disagree, but it is a strawman argument to accuse the man of plotting some kind of physical harm against the CEO and the directors.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 15, 2005 02:18 AM
"I do think there is a little more work to be done on defining what the co-ordinator class actually is." You want clear and unambiguous categories for "us" vs. "them." "They" are taking over the world and destroying it, "we" are organizing to overthrow "them." You imagine reality to be like Star Wars, and many other fantasy stories, so that you can be one of the heroes and help save the world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 15, 2005 00:02 AM
"It's a good distinction because if you look at lawyers, doctors, managers, VPs, etc. etc., though they are usually technically "working class" they do not think of themselves as such." It is not unreasonable to argue "class consciouness" is perhaps as relevant as one's actual function in the system. But soon you'll run into another problems if you "classify" people(i.e. assigning class membership)based on what they percieve themselves to be.In that case you probably have a much bigger "upper class" than you can imagine. Robert Graves once argued socialism was not popular in the U.S because most Americans considered themselves capitalists out of luck rather than workers. I think that assesment is not unrealistic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 14, 2005 21:51 PM
The contrast is really between people who are relatively successful and satisfied with their careers, vs. those who are less so. A high-level manager can have a stressful thankless job that gives him ulcers. A carpenter might love his work. Yeah some are lucker and happier than others. You can't pass a law against that. You can't even determine most of the reasons for the inequities. And there is no job on earth than is fun every day.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 14, 2005 20:18 PM
(continued) While I think the "multitude" concept may be a bit too broad,--if I understand it correctly because again it is not clearly defined,-- but it seems to have some merit at least as a descrptive provided we don't push it too far by dogmatically writing off class analysis even when it is appropiate. A "capitalist" is not as glamorous as one may think in the mordern world. Some poor sod who took out a bank loan to open a small business with a few employees is technically a "capitalist", nevermind he may be in debt and in the red. He would probably prefer being a waged labour if he could find a well paid job with full benefit. What is this "you are only allowed to comments every 1200 seconds"??!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 14, 2005 19:58 PM
Albert is a bit unclear what does he mean by "coordinator class". You can obviously describe managers, administrators and lawyers as such.In a broad sense you can even classify a teacher as a member of the coordinator class if you believe indoctrination is a primary function of education(that is controversial) But doctors? what do doctors "coordinate"? (unless he/she is a hospital adminsitrator)It seems that he uses the term just to mean professionals who are paid well and enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy. If that is the case why didn't he just say so? But that would include, for example, a relatively successful writer and a number of self employed professionals who don't "coordinate". On the other hand many middle mnagement types who are obviously "coordinating" do not have a lot of autonomy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Gammon101, Bwong at Apr 14, 2005 19:29 PM
"To my mind, that's the greatest propaganda acheivement of the last century - to wedge off a huge segment of the working class and convince them that they're really middle class just because they wear a suit, sit at desk, and have enourmous debts" I think this may be just a confusion of language. I see no conflict between being a member or the "working class" and the "middle class" at the same time. The latter has to do with living standard, take home income etc. Many unionized workers are quite correctly classified as "middle class". At least that is the way I understand the word "middle class" Perhaps you meant you're not a capitalist? That I would agree.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Dunc, Gregorach at Apr 14, 2005 18:06 PM
Another point I'd like to mention is that I don't think the vast majority of the self-identified middle classes really are middle class. Most people would think I'm middle class - I have a good education, a good, well-paying job, and a mortgage. However, this completely overlooks the fact that I live solely by the rent of my labour (or skills if you prefer - sitting at a desk typing doesn't really seem like "labour" as such). I stop renting my labour, the bank forcloses on my mortgage, and I'm homeless and destitute. Conversly, there's plenty of self-employed blue-collar contractors with more finacial independance than I'm ever likely to have, but nobody calls them middle class... To my mind, that's the greatest propaganda acheivement of the last century - to wedge off a huge segment of the working class and convince them that they're really middle class just because they wear a suit, sit at desk, and have enourmous debts. In most people's minds, class has nothing to do with economic relations, and everything to do with what clothes you wear to work. Stupid, huh?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Dunc, Gregorach at Apr 14, 2005 17:45 PM
I think realpc is misunderstanding Michael's use of the term "co-ordinator". Since we're use software as an example and I'm a software engineer, it might be worth considering how it's supposed to work even in the closed-source proprietary world. Sure, you have "co-ordinators" - project / product managers, senior developers and so on. However, these people aren't necessarily "co-ordinators" in Michael's sense (not if you want to project to work). They're just team members who focus on different aspects of the project. The Microsoft-approved term is "a team of peers" - which means that project management can't just issue orders. They don't outrank developers. Ultimately, if the development team says "No, that can't be done with the available resources in the timescale", then they have to accept it and figure out how to deal with it - that's their role in the team. I'm not saying that this is how it actually works out it practice, but it is how nearly everybody agrees it should be done.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Apr 14, 2005 15:51 PM
"Even open source software projects have coordinators. " There's an open source software called PearPC, emulates Max OS X on an Intel x86. Written by two European hackers completely on their own. Revolutionary software that the biggest companies in the world had never done before (emulating Mac on PC legally, 100% working). Funny thing is, once word got out on the project, all these "coordinator" types started hanging around the project discussion group injecting all their managerial suggestions. The two programmers summarily rejected most of them, and some of these manager types got a little upset. After being told to basically screw-off, one of these managers wished the project and the programmers death. The very next day one of the programmers was hit by a train while driving his car, and died. The two programmers were very close, and nothing much has been done on the project since, since no one else knows how the software works. Just a little anecdote, take it for what its worth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 14, 2005 13:40 PM
He wants to get rid of coordinators. Well then who will coordinate things? Even open source software projects have coordinators. You radicals should try separating reality from fantasy. A very small number of people working on a very simple project might not need a coordinator. But I actually can't think of anything examples.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Jautter, Mind at Apr 14, 2005 03:19 AM
For a meaningful revolution to occur,at least two thirds of a hungry,pissed-off populace need to relegate control to people who are able to sway their shit-for-brains bodies into supporting the next generation of assholes waiting to fuck them over.Parecon will not be on this planet in our lifetime unless Jesus gets the lead out. [or the mercury]

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Class or Multitude

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Apr 14, 2005 02:30 AM
"coordinators - which includes high level lawyers, engineers, doctors, accountants, architects, and managers" Um, you're going to wind up fighting the whole educated middle class, once your list is complete. That might be a problem because there are lots of us. And most of the working class hope their kids will go to college and become "coordinators." And by the way, maybe some people like being waiters, bus drivers, etc. They just might be insulted by your statements. This demonstrates why leftism has never appealed nearly as much to the working class as it has to intellectuals, who despise work they don't consider glamorous and ego-enhancing.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (25)

Loading_border