I think you've got your Marx a bit confused by Bourdieu's sociological managerial idiocy. Class, in Marx, has no positive content, has no "members", and has no identity. Class, existing solely as relation, is a function of the value form. In this sense, the proletariat as such is not merely the movement towards it's own abolition, that is, towards the abolition of bourgeois society and the present order.
>>10 Quite the opposite - in a social order founded upon constant production where each element must correspond to the other (Bataille terms this the general economy) rotting is the site of unfoundational externality, a practice of the active affirmation of negativity. Questions of ``competence'' that you pose are questions of the factory foreman.
>>10 If by rotting you imagine an ascetic life then I would agree that goes against bataille, but that's not the only kind of rotting. As >>11 said there's also an active character to rotting, an active squandering or sacrifice.
That being said don't read me as valorizing NEETs, I'm absolutely not ascribing anything "radical" to this notion, it's not a dialectical opposition. Sure there is this aspect of sovereignty (consumption without production), but NEETs (including myself) are always falling back into the logic of accumulation. Accumulating technology, bishoujo figures, accumulating a "shows completed" number on MAL which cannot be given away, etc. There's an element of sovereignty, but it's not fully realized. "Symbolic exchange is no longer the organising principle of modern society", there's nothing you, as an individual, can do about this, the logic of accumulation will always rear it's head.
>>10
Quite the opposite - in a social order founded upon constant production where each element must correspond to the other (Bataille terms this the general economy) rotting is the site of unfoundational externality, a practice of the active affirmation of negativity. Questions of ``competence'' that you pose are questions of the factory foreman.