Wright states, “instead of seeing “classlessness” as the practical normative principle motivating Marxeist theory, this principle might better be though of as “less classness.” This implies a shift from an idealized end state to a variable process. Capitalisms vary in the degree of exploitation and inequality that characterize their class structures and in the extent to which socialist elements have interpenetrated the system of production. 131
This perhaps requires a departure from the traditional model
“First, the explanandum can be shifted from historical trajectory to historical possibility. Instead of trying to ecplain the overall trajectory of human history or even the trajectory of capitalism as more or less determinate sequence of stages, it may be more useful to focus on the ways in which alternative futures are opened up or closed off by particular historical conditions. A theory of historical possibility might develop into a stronger theory of historical trajectories, but it does not presume that sequences follow a single trajectory as opposed to a variety of possible trajectories.
“Second, instead of understanding historical variation in terms of discrete, qualitatively discontinuous modes of production as in classical Marxism, historical variation can be analyzed in terms of more complex patterns of decomposition and recombination of elements of modes or production.
This would mean also that commodity fetishism would have varying degrees as well.
“stepped-up global economic competition, in a context of increasing geographic and cultural differentiation of settings for capital accumulation and management. As a consequence of this general overhauling of the capitalist system, still under way, we have witnessed the global integration of financial markets, the rise of the Asian Pacific as the new dominant, global manufacturing center, the arduous economic unification of Europe the emergence of a North American regional economy, the diversification, then disintegration, of the former Third World, the gradual tansformation of Russia and the ex-Soviet area of influence in market econominies, the incorporation of valuable segments of economies throughout the world into an interdependent system working as a unit in real time. Because of these trends, therd has also ben an accentuation of uneven dvelopment, this time nto only between North and South, but etween the dynamic segments and territories os societies everywhere, and thos others that risk becoming irrelevant from the perspective of the system’s logic.” Pg 2.
Nexus of the production of the exchange value, whose labor itself becomes an exchange value. Constant growth, a world system. Everything is brought into global capitalist market.
New dependencies that develop, it is a bizarre world we live in. “Free dependence” Marxist tradition, simultaneously free from the hold of tradition, free from being bound to the land, or particular social relations. Free to determine who to work for, where to live. But we are dependent, because we no longer have direct access to productive resources. Here we get the idea of division of labor. We no longer have the broad range of skills, to be autonomous. A schizoid, free and dependent. “class”
While neoliberalization may have been about
the restoration of class power, it has not necessarily meant the restoration of economic power to the same people. (Harvey 31)