# Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

Some gems in this BSA/ LSE paper:



> We would therefore argue that these intergenerational understandings of class origin should also be read as having a _performative_dimension; as deflecting attention away from the structural privilege these individuals enjoy, both in their own eyes but also among those they communicate their ‘origin story’ to in everyday life.





> It is also important to note that such misidentification is notably higher in two of our occupational case studies – acting and television (24 of 36 interviews). This is not coincidental; there is arguably a particular symbolic market for downplaying class privilege in these professions. Not only are these arenas disproportionately dominated by the privileged and class inequality an increasingly fiercely debated topic, but the uncertain and precarious nature of the work itself – often freelance, short-term, poorly paid, extremely competitive and reliant on informal networks – tilts career progression particularly in favour of those insulated by the ‘bank of mum and dad’



Any 'working class' folk got a view?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Some gems in this BSA/ LSE paper:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'working class' or "working class" or working class?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> 'working class' or "working class" or working class?


All are welcome!


----------



## TopCat (Jan 19, 2021)

It was a stupid article designed to yet again deny and demean the existence of the working class in order to drive policy to at best ignore said class in allocating resources.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

TopCat said:


> It was a stupid article designed to yet again deny and demean the existence of the working class in order to drive policy to at best ignore said class in allocating resources.


Interesting take.
What particular aspects of the paper drew you to that view?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Interesting take.
> What particular aspects of the paper drew you to that view?


It's been a consistent theme in the Guardian since the early 80's.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 19, 2021)

Define membership of the  "working class" income?, employment type?, wearing a flat cap and calling everyone luv? having a strong northern accent?


----------



## andysays (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Some gems in this BSA/ LSE paper:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've only read the first few paras, but do the authors actually explain what definition of middle class they are using? Are they equating professional and/or managerial with middle class?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

TopCat said:


> It's been a consistent theme in the Guardian since the early 80's.


Oh, sorry...is there a Guardian piece about the paper, then?
I was alerted to the original (linked) paper by Lisa McKenzie.


----------



## krink (Jan 19, 2021)

It's long and boring. A little bit like life as a poor working class person.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Interesting take.
> What particular aspects of the paper drew you to that view?


I assume he's referring to this article which points at the paper.









						Why do so many professional, middle-class Brits insist they're working class? | Sam Friedman
					

LSE’s new study shows how our fetishisation of meritocracy makes privileged people frame their lives as an uphill struggle, explains academic Sam Friedman




					www.theguardian.com
				




It's an entirely identity-based take on class, with fuck all structural analysis on e.g. a Marxist basis.

Suprisingly, the comments on the Facebook Graun post were actually quite good at pointing this out to people.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

I had no idea that a sociological paper on class would be at all controversial.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

Economic Position versus Cultural Identity and the whole spectrum of possibilities between them.

Various forms of capital and their inheritability.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2021)

If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

TopCat said:


> It's been a consistent theme in the Guardian since the early 80's.


1880s i think


----------



## NoXion (Jan 19, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Define membership of the  "working class" income?, employment type?, wearing a flat cap and calling everyone luv? having a strong northern accent?



This, so much. I never went to Uni and have never worked a "professional" job, but if I go anywhere north of Birmingham I get called "posh" because of my accent. I know that I'm a proletarian in the Marxist sense, but that's not the definition the media uses.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

There's lots of twittering about it. Largely, and superficially, as "identity". Haven't read the paper yet, not the subsequent arguments though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


being an officer makes you automatically not, unless you are richard sharpe


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> There's lots of twittering about it. Largely, and superficially, as "identity". Haven't read the paper yet, not the subsequent arguments though.


I think some of the academic traction is derived from the fairly self-referential (disciplinary) nature of conclusions like this:



> This concept, we have shown, helps us understand that many Britons understand their class origins, and sense of self, as constituted in ways that elide the conventional conceptual lens of sociologists.


----------



## VfromtheG (Jan 19, 2021)

Upper and middle classas are an annoyance within the working class movement.  They are the problem.   seem to spend a lot of time debating what class is in a transparent attempt to muddy waters ...see theory section . 

Also they hate being called out on their privileged  university warped neo-liberal perspective ... which is why I do it consistently.  

Ok bit of a broad brush . As long as they check their obvious privalidge they are ok.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2021)

I've heard various people equate being 'Northern' with being working class. It's very strange.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 19, 2021)

DotCommunist said:


> being an officer makes you automatically not, unless you are richard sharpe



'Fake working class basteds!'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Fake working class basteds!'


damn their eyes


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


Only if you're hanging out with the monkey hangers.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


Mushy peas? We used to dream of mushy peas...


----------



## prunus (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I think some of the academic traction is derived from the fairly self-referential (disciplinary) nature of conclusions like this:
> 
> 
> > This concept, we have shown, helps us understand that many Britons understand their class origins, and sense of self, as constituted in ways that elide the conventional conceptual lens of sociologists.



Do they mean elude?


----------



## tim (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


No, just Northern


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

prunus said:


> Do they mean elude?


tbh i am not sure either word quite works


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

Apparently the categories used are "employers, managers, professionals and higher supervisors (who may be regarded as the middle class), intermediate, small employers, own account workers, lower supervisory and lower technical workers (intermediate class) and routine and semi-routine workers (working class)." There doesn't seem to be much information given about how those categories are defined - is a nurse routine, semi-routine, lower technical or a professional? Oh, and they add that "working class occupations are usually thought to amount nowadays to only around a quarter of the population..., 60% still claim to be ‘working class’ when asked to express a class identity." So it seems like some of this is the study authors complaining that there are still too many people claiming to be working class when it should only be a quarter of the population.
There's a Principal Skinner meme to be had there - "am I so out of touch? No, it's the people identifying as working class who are wrong."
"Those who identify as working class are more likely than those who identify as middle class to say that there is a wide divide between social classes (82% compared with 70%). People who see society as divided between a large disadvantaged group and a small privileged elite feel more working class regardless of their actual class position." is another key finding - seems like them complaining about the fact that some people still have a structural/antagonistic class analysis.

EDIT: Oh wait lol that's what I get for following Guardian links - I was reading and responding to this Evans/Mellon British Social Attitudes study, which is linked in the Guardian article above, but seems to be a totally different piece of research to the Friedman/O'Brien/McDonald LSE study in the OP.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

I remember Grace Dent saying as a kid she was working class by saying _we didn't have any books_


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 19, 2021)

I thought it was quite an interesting paper though not particularly conclusive. As well as the parts mentioned above was some stuff about perceptions of class as a historical, generational thing, as well as connection to perceived regional prejudices. (ETA: To be fair I don't know how much of that would already be familiar to anyone who's studied the sociology of this.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


someone i used to be acquainted with spent some years in prison in india in the 1990s for smuggling cannabis and he told me that while inside he discovered that shit can be all sorts of colours. so now if i found something green and sloppy, i would be careful before declaring it definitely safe or indeed desirable to eat


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

prunus said:


> Do they mean elude?


My understanding of elide is basically to omit; in the context that they're using the word I think they probably mean evade.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2021)

krink said:


> It's long and boring. A little bit like life as a poor working class person.



Long and boring?
Luxury.

When I were a lad it was short and terrifying.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

8ball said:


> Long and boring?
> Luxury.
> 
> When I were a lad it was short and terrifying.


Read the first para, then?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

Tricky though innit, it's a spectrum I guess. As a kid I had middle class grandparents which meant good Christmas presents and a holiday with them every year but I was often on free dinners, school uniform vouchers, lived on a council estate in a poor town. Now I suppose I'm a professional of sorts, more than ten grand under the average wage but with soft hands and a fair bit of autonomy. Live in a nice enough modest street in an industrial port town. I don't worry about money (not that I did when I was on the dole in the 90s tbf).

I'd call myself working class. Mrs SI would say we're middle class.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 19, 2021)

Would anyone on urban admit to membership of the aristocracy?


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Would anyone on urban admit to membership of the aristocracy?


I'm sure people would. Whether it's true or not is another story.

Lady Sue. (You can call me Ma'am.)


----------



## Flavour (Jan 19, 2021)

As TopCat says its mostly a divide-and-rule strategy, perhaps best epitomized "right to buy" and the absurdly aggressive anti-benefits (anti-people-who-receive-state-benefits) media campaign over decades


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Would anyone on urban admit to membership of the aristocracy?


I did get about 8 John lewis cards for free cake every few days.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Would anyone on urban admit to membership of the aristocracy?



Pretty sure there's one poster who says he has a title (but isn't posh). 

I won't out them though...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

Flavour said:


> As TopCat says its mostly a divide-and-rule strategy, perhaps best epitomized "right to buy" and the absurdly aggressive anti-benefits (anti-people-who-receive-state-benefits) media campaign over decades


What, the paper? Really?
Have you read it?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Read the first para, then?



Well, I have now...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

> We would therefore argue that these intergenerational understandings of class origin should also be read as having a _performative _dimension; *as deflecting attention away from the structural privilege these individuals enjoy*, both in their own eyes but also among those they communicate their ‘origin story’ to in everyday life. At the same time, by framing their life as an upward struggle ‘against the odds’, these interviewees misrepresent their subsequent life outcomes as more worthy, more deserving and more meritorious.



This conclusion is about the motivation(s) of folk who pretend to be WC; seems reasonable to me.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 19, 2021)

What a surprise that not everyone can agree on a single definition of class and that some people claim that they're in one class whilst other people claim that they're mistaken.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Pretty sure there's one poster who says he has a title (but isn't posh).
> 
> I won't out them though...



'Mr.' is a title.
Bet we have a few 'Doctors' too.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

Still trying to work out what definitions they're using - they say "We draw here on the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC), where Classes 1 and 2 denote professional and managerial occupations and Classes 6 and 7 working-class occupations." You might notice that this scheme seems to have an extra 3 classes in between the "middle class" and "working class" groupings, which they treat as "intermediate occupations". 


> These are positions in clerical, sales, service and intermediate technical occupations that do not involve general planning or supervisory powers. Positions in this group are intermediate in terms of employment regulation in that they combine elements of both the service relationship and the labour contract.
> 
> Although positions in L7 have some features of the service relationship, they do not usually involve any exercise of authority (other than in applying standardised rules and procedures where discretion is minimal) and are subject to detailed bureaucratic regulation.


Again, just to stress, this is a group that they're defining as separate, outside of the working class. I think the "divide-and-rule bollocks" shoe seems to fit pretty well here.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?








stronger glasses needed


----------



## prunus (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> My understanding of elide is basically to omit; in the context that they're using the word I think they probably mean evade.



As usual always internet search first...  so today I've learnt that elide as well as meaning skipping sounds in speech can also mean

*verb*
If you elide something, especially a distinction, you leave it out or ignore it.
[formal]
_These habits of thinking elide the difference between what is common and what is normal. _


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2021)

I'm assuming that the disparity between _self identity _and some tedious creature going through a list of jobs is not unrelated to the the concept that class identity is a great deal more complex than employment type.

So, for me, I would absolutely say that I'm middle class, but with working class roots - certainly my grandparents were skilled working class, and my parents started their working lives in skilled working class jobs - but if my children ended up doing exactly the same jobs as us I think it would be difficult to say they had working class roots, simply because their experiences and the experiences of the people around them are pretty much entirely middle class..

I also think that 'middle class' also carries a certain stigma of 'effetness' and 'softness', and that these are not characteristics that people either wish to see in themselves or wish others to perceive in them.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If I see something green and sloppy, and assume it's mushy peas rather than guacamole, does that make me working class?


Unless you're Mexican working class.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

I've just had a quick read of the paper. The authors are quite obviously not using a Marxist lens on class, and neither are their subjects. So you do end up with a negotiable and contestable notion of class that tries to take elements of economic position and cultural identity and construct a "class" out of that.

Interesting paper though, it tackles, yet is shaped by, the mythology of meritocracy and social mobility that such fuzzy definitions of class enables.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

Idaho said:


> Unless you're Mexican working class.


salsa verde


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I've just had a quick read of the paper. The authors are quite obviously not using a Marxist lens on class, and neither are their subjects. So you do end up with a negotiable and contestable notion of class that tries to take elements of economic position and cultural identity and construct a "class" out of that.
> 
> Interesting paper though, it tackles, yet is shaped by, the mythology of meritocracy and social mobility that such fuzzy definitions of class enables.



Easier to read if you mentally substitute "consumer status" for "class".


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2021)

My most working class credential is that I accept how middle class I am.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> EDIT: Oh wait lol that's what I get for following Guardian links - I was reading and responding to this Evans/Mellon British Social Attitudes study, which is linked in the Guardian article above, but seems to be a totally different piece of research to the Friedman/O'Brien/McDonald LSE study in the OP.


The author of the Graun article is Friedman and it links to the article in the OP, but it also links to your one with the 'working class' link.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

8ball said:


> Easier to read if you mentally substitute "consumer status" for "class".



I'm not sure that's fair/accurate. There's more to it than that.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> The author of the Graun article is Friedman and it links to the article in the OP, but it also links to your one with the 'working class' link.


Yep, and the actual LSE study itself links to that study prominently at the end of the second paragraph or so: "For example, the latest available data – the 2016 British Social Attitudes Survey – shows that 47% of those in ‘middle-class’ professional and managerial occupations identify as working class (Evans and Mellon, 2016)." So, although they're not the same bit of research, one cites the other, and both seem to share the same underlying framework - only 25% of the population is working class, and people in "clerical, sales, service and intermediate technical occupations that do not involve general planning or supervisory powers" that "do not usually involve any exercise of authority (other than in applying standardised rules and procedures where discretion is minimal) and are subject to detailed bureaucratic regulation" are a separate grouping outside of the w/c.


----------



## stdP (Jan 19, 2021)

Growing up in a north-west ex-mining/steel town and moving to London, I've yet to see a consistent definition of exactly what constitutes one's class. There seem to be big differences between how class is perceived in "t'north" versus the south, and I suspect the definitions there are have become even more ill-defined as the UK has become ever more "post-industrial" and people who come from historically working-class families find themselves in more stereotypically middle-class roles. As such I think the perception of class is incredibly mutable depending on where, when and how you grew up.

Little doubt about me I guess - I come from a long line of middle-class families (well, one branch of it started out working class until about a hundred years ago) doing primarily academic or clerical activities. The working class of my youth were people whose parents were all involved in the mines, mills or factories. Individual income disparity between my parents' professions and the industrial jobs wasn't huge (although both of my parents worked for the state their entire adult lives whereas most other families were private sector single-earner + housewife). I suspect if I'd grown up in a different environment I might have a very different perception though.

When I came to London for uni, I was frankly astonished to discover a lot of people in the south considering my families position as working class, as their definition of middle class seemed to be like that of Hugh Grant in Four Weddings (something that's distinctly upper class in my book). I did wonder if there was some sort of self-shaming going on there, wanting to seem less posh that they were. I remember attending a house party at the gaff of someone who seemed as middle-class as me whilst their parents were away only to be shocked to discover it was a 12-bedroom pile complete with library and stables, not the four-bedroom semi I was expecting; if he was slumming it, he did a good job of disguising it. But there were also people far less rich than he was who openly sneered at me ("you really are _frightfully_ common!") for having the audacity to turn up at uni after having only been to a comprehensive and a sixth-form.

This experience has been echoed through much of my time darn sarf; a year or two ago there was a surreal BBC doco called "How the middle-class ruined britain" where stereotypical middle-class events were scoffing chateaubriand and top-drawer wine in black tie and ya-ya-ing on about Cowes week, things that seemed distinctly posh/upper-class to what I might call my northern sensibilities.

Attempting to swerve vaguely back on topic: I think a lot of people from working class stock see themselves as more middle class since they're no longer working down the mines or in a factory like their forefathers; a lot of upper class people don't see themselves as being rich enough to have more than one yacht so see themselves as middle class. Income inequality seems massively larger between richest and poorest in the south than it does oop norf, but that frequently doesn't seem to correlate with people's sense of class.

As such, I think the various class labels are largely so subjective as to be mostly useless and frequently used to stifle or railroad discussion about ever-rampant income disparity. Perception of it seems different all over the place; it's a much more complex question of self-image vs. income than the classic bowler/fedora/flat cap sketch would have you believe. I think more important than simple divides of class is the attitude people take towards those they see as above/below them, but that's an even more incomprehensible discussion point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I've just had a quick read of the paper. The authors are quite obviously not using a Marxist lens on class, and neither are their subjects. So you do end up with a negotiable and contestable notion of class that tries to take elements of economic position and cultural identity and construct a "class" out of that.
> 
> Interesting paper though, it tackles, yet is shaped by, the mythology of meritocracy and social mobility that such fuzzy definitions of class enables.


Yes, it felt very much like every thread on Urban about class. They claimed to know what it was, but actually slid around between different ways of defining class, and got confused about the difference between economic and cultural identity factors.

That said, I’m not saying that cultural identity is irrelevant, just that I’d see it more of an indicator rather than being class itself. Class, for me, is a relationship with ownership, capital.  

There were some interesting anecdotes. I liked the bit about a respondent having gone to a not very good, and inexpensive private school. That was hilarious.  

The idea of an “intergeneration self” was intriguing. I think this is a common way of seeing the world. But my dad having been a forestry worker and (later) a taxi driver does not make me either of those. But it does reflect on my upbringing. 

A confused but not uninteresting piece.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 19, 2021)

Surely middle class is a subset of working class.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

Posted this on the  63 UP thread, as just finished watching. There's a good essay looking at the series which makes the case - correctly IMO - that over time it showed how just many people resent their class-identity labels.   It mentions: " As Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite argued in _Class, Politics, and the Decline of Deference in England, 1968–2000_, although class continued to matter—even as inequality worsened—people resisted labeling themselves by class; the very word seemed snobbish or blinkered. Most preferred to say they were ordinary, and yet they were still able to define complex identities for themselves. "

This is echoed in the massive Social Class in the 21st Century study - vast majority of people resent class stigmatisation. Its a major problem for a left that puts class consciousness and therefore class identity as its starting point, when people resent and try to escape the stigmas of all class identities. IMO the left can resolve that, not by abandoning class, but by finding new language for class-relationships that sidesteps old class stereotypes. The 99% was a failed attempt at that. I just dont think the terms 'working' and 'middle' cut it anymore if they ever did -as structural or identity categories - and maybe they did in the industrial revolution.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I'm not sure that's fair/accurate. There's more to it than that.



It's not accurate, I know.  Just very marginally less grating.
Other suggestions welcome.


----------



## Winot (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> So, for me, I would absolutely say that I'm middle class, but with working class roots - certainly my grandparents were skilled working class, and my parents started their working lives in skilled working class jobs - but if my children ended up doing exactly the same jobs as us I think it would be difficult to say they had working class roots, simply because their experiences and the experiences of the people around them are pretty much entirely middle class..



Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.


Including they had a hotel. Another funny bit.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

the actual LSE study this time said:
			
		

> People in the UK are more likely to ‘misidentify’ as working class rather than middle class. Drawing on data from the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA), Evans and Mellon (2016) show that 60% of people in Britain identity as working class – a figure that has not changed since 1983, despite working-class jobs declining sharply and now making up only 32% of the workforce. And among those in ‘middle-class’ professional and managerial occupations, just under half (47%) say they are working class...
> How might we make sense of this widespread misidentification of class identity? Sociological literature points in three possible directions.


None of the three possible directions they identify involves the possibility that the sociologists might be the ones getting things wrong. Principal Skinner strikes again.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

I would say that careful use of terms such as :

position
identity
privilege
status 

can help (a little) in clarifying what facet of class is being talked about.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

quimcunx said:


> Surely middle class is a subset of working class.


Its role in the structure of capital is what’s important:





danny la rouge said:


> Yes, there are inherent contradictions in the system.  But if our conversation was about definitions of class, and we’re now moving on to discussing the nature of contemporary society, then we’re widening the conversation somewhat.  Which is fine, but let’s be clear about what it is we’re discussing.
> 
> You’ve said you don’t find class a useful concept (correct me if I misrepresent you).  I’ve said I think it the fundamental political concept.  I had assumed that you understood why, even if you disagreed.  But for the sake of exposition, for now I’m going assume you don’t.  Let’s make that a “you”: ie, the reader.
> 
> ...


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I've just had a quick read of the paper. The authors are quite obviously not using a Marxist lens on class, and neither are their subjects. So you do end up with a negotiable and contestable notion of class that tries to take elements of economic position and cultural identity and construct a "class" out of that.


I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.

So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of _not _doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?

In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.



Formative experiences/culture?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

20 pages by tomorrow but for this to be in any way considered to be an urban classic there must be bannings


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> what we are able to do?


Able to.  Lots of people who would be able to live on the performance of their capital alone also have a paid job, in which they sell their labour power. The point is that they don’t _have to_ do the latter.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Able to.  Lots of people who would be able to live on the performance of their capital alone also have a paid job, in which they sell their Labour power. The point is that they don’t _have to_ do the latter.


I think you're probably right, except what you use to illustrate it is a slightly different thing - they already have that capital. PAYE professionals don't, although they may be able to accrue it if they behave differently.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.
> 
> So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of _not _doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?
> 
> In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?



I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.
> 
> So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of _not _doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?
> 
> In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?


I mean, I think part of the problem is that Marxist class isn't meant to be a matter of slotting individuals into careful categories like a butterfly collection or something. I suppose how I'd look at it is that you can think of a number of measures that would be good for renters and bad for BTL landlords, etc - for instance, rent controls, eviction bans, tighter regulations on what landlords are required to provide, and so on. That's where you can see antagonistic class interests take shape, and I'd guess that in that instance a renter who had the possible means of becoming a landlord would still be more likely to side with other renters than with landlords in that issue. Obviously, that's assuming a crude/mechanical relationship between class interests and consciousness, of course in reality anyone can be the kind of mug who empathises with landlords or whatever.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I think you're probably right, except what you use to illustrate it is a slightly different thing - they already have that capital. PAYE professionals don't, although they may be able to accrue it if they behave differently.


Ones relationship with the means of production is whatever it is at any point in time.  If I have no capital now, I am not a member of the capitalist class. If I accrue it, I then become a member of that class. No matter how I pronounce “bath”.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.


Yeah, the diffusion of managerial responsibilities throughout the whole workforce is a really interesting topic, and seems understudied, imo.
For instance, this article:


> When I started my job, there were about 10 people that could tell me off. These semi-supervisors were all recruited from the pool of part-time precarious staff. Because they were all recruited from the part-time staff they had a lot of knowledge about the job and usually pretty friendly relationships with other part-time staff. They knew us, they knew the job, and we got on. That meant they were very effective supervisors.
> 
> When you get ‘promoted’ you get 20p more an hour and a load more stress. You’re basically still as skint as you were beforehand, but now you have to make two or three other workers work harder, you have to discipline them, and you have to make them work Sundays.
> 
> ...


Shift supervisors definitely play a "managerial" function, but is useful to understand them as PMC?


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Ones relationship with the means of production is whatever it is at any point in time.  If I have no capital now, I am not a member of the capitalist class. If I accrue it, I then become a member of that class. No matter how I pronounce “bath”.



...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 19, 2021)

i keep it simple, me.

if you have to get out of bed to get money to live* = working class
if you can stay in bed and get paid via something you own (labour/property) = middle class

*where this gets fuzzy is when this work goes towards defending/reproducing bourgeois hegemony, but that is a different argument. 

And i'm not arsed if you've got a cupboard full of couscous or pork scratchings.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I've heard various people equate being 'Northern' with being working class. It's very strange.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.


_might _being an important word, there...


----------



## Winot (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Formative experiences/culture?



Sure - I agree it's important. Just thought it was amusing that you did exactly what the paper talked about.

No judgement - I do it too (grandfather left school at 14 and was a panel beater; parents didn't go to university etc.).


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.


I'm a professional. I choose not to manage anybody, and I get paid about the same as my manager. I work in a sector where there is a skills shortage, broadly and in specialism, and so to some extent that I wouldn't like to try and define, I have greater control than most over my labour. The best fit is probably from DLR's post earlier - 'artisan', if you ignore the modern identity association of that.


hitmouse said:


> I mean, I think part of the problem is that Marxist class isn't meant to be a matter of slotting individuals into careful categories like a butterfly collection or something. I suppose how I'd look at it is that you can think of a number of measures that would be good for renters and bad for BTL landlords, etc - for instance, rent controls, eviction bans, tighter regulations on what landlords are required to provide, and so on. That's where you can see antagonistic class interests take shape, and I'd guess that in that instance a renter who had the possible means of becoming a landlord would still be more likely to side with other renters than with landlords in that issue. Obviously, that's assuming a crude/mechanical relationship between class interests and consciousness, of course in reality anyone can be the kind of mug who empathises with landlords or whatever.


This is a really good post. Capital interests like home ownership certainly change your default interests, at least if you don't think about it very hard. This is partly why I asked the question - in 'American Dream' style, is it structurally problematic that as you become afforded the _option _of something like landlordism, your interests may become aligned (do they?) with that thing, even if it's not what you presently do? e.g., 'well, _I_ might want to buy a house as an investment, so...'


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.


Indeed.  Which is why these indicators are not irrelevant.  

I probably tend to dismiss the cultural indicators more than I should because in these discussions people always focus right in on them and get stuck, instead of seeing the structure.  I want people to pull out and see the structure, and therefore get the cultural identity elements into perfective.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.



this is a good point.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> _might _being an important word, there...
> 
> View attachment 250054



Yep. Absolutely. Accent is just one signifier of cultural capital. This is where _habitus_ is a useful concept.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> There were some interesting anecdotes. I liked the bit about a respondent having gone to a not very good, and inexpensive private school. That was hilarious.



Yes. Someone I came across who did the 'Northern' therefore working class thing went to a 30 grand a year public school. They didn't find it hilarious when I went 'erm, how does that work...?'


----------



## Deej1992 (Jan 19, 2021)

I just call these folk champagne socialists...


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

Further complications included the changing "shape" of the economy.

A generation or two ago someone following my trajectory would be bourgeois as fuck with a nice big house, secure career, pension and investments. Significant social status and the autonomy and power that come come with that.

Now I do the same actual work for £14 an hour on a casual basis. if I'm lucky.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

I think the paper is quite interesting in that it explores one particular aspect of self-identification (self perception) of class and, as such, in this instance, I don't think it is overly productive to pore over definitions of class.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I think the paper is quite interesting in that it explores one particular aspect of self-identification (self perception) of class and, as such, in this instance, I don't think it is overly productive to pore over definitions of class.


How can you self-identify as something if you don't know what it is? I mean, I know how you _can_, but do we care what those people think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2021)

I think it's telling that the middle class researchers chose to use the term _misidentify._


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I think the paper is quite interesting in that it explores one particular aspect of self-identification (self perception) of class and, as such, in this instance, I don't think it is overly productive to pore over definitions of class.


I think where I keep getting hung up on is that the paper accepts the claim about "working-class... making up only 32% of the workforce". They're starting from a position where the working class is a third of the population and anyone outside of that third who claims to be w/c is an error that needs to be explained anway. I think it's inevitable that people who don't accept that framework are going to pick at it.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's telling that the middle class researchers chose to use the term _misidentify._



I though they were using "misrecognise" a lot. Which would be an interesting angle to take given they cite Bourdieu (albeit briefly).


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's telling that the middle class researchers chose to use the term _misidentify._


Some great use of subjective (what people say about themselves) and objective (what the researchers say about them) in there as well.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think where I keep getting hung up on is that the paper accepts the claim about "working-class... making up only 32% of the workforce". They're starting from a position where the working class is a third of the population and anyone outside of that third who claims to be w/c is an error that needs to be explained anway. I think it's inevitable that people who don't accept that framework are going to pick at it.


Fair point.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed.  Which is why these indicators are not irrelevant.
> 
> I probably tend to dismiss the cultural indicators more than I should because in these discussions people always focus right in on them and get stuck, instead of seeing the structure.  I want people to pull out and see the structure, and therefore get the cultural identity elements into perfective.



With respect though, they won't will they?

Not to have a go - I totally get your point and that your approach is more rigorous and probably more useful in a lot of ways but the other stuff isn't going away is it. And I don't think it's just because people are wrong about it - it does mean something important to people which is why it's so prevalent.

Not that I know how to do it but isn't a change in terminology or a similar different approach needed if you're going to make progress in understanding the distinction?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> I though they were using "misrecognise" a lot. Which would be an interesting angle to take given they cite Bourdieu (albeit briefly).


You could go onto your other fav and say a gap has developed between the interpellation these folks have supposed to have internalised and their actual self identity (despite being happy to take the material advantages the position offers). I suppose, like misidentification is for the middle classes, interpellation is for the working class.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

Also, not to keep harping on about the model the researchers are using too much, but it is quite funny to me that because they're using a model with no distinct upper/ruling/owning/boss class, the middle class are the class at the top and so they've had to invent this new category of "the intermediate class" to describe the class in the middle. If only there was some easier term to use for the class in the middle.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> You could go onto your other fav and say a gap has developed between the interpellation these folks have supposed to have internalised and their actual self identity (despite being happy to take the material advantages the position offers). I suppose, like misidentification is for the middle classes, interpellation is for the working class.



Misinterpellation?

(Althusser is not a fave btw  )

As it happens I mostly looki at m/c interpellation of signs of privilege.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Also, not to keep harping on about the model the researchers are using too much, but it is quite funny to me that because they're using a model with no distinct upper/ruling/owning/boss class, the middle class are the class at the top and so they've had to invent this new category of "the intermediate class" to describe the class in the middle. If only there was some easier term to use for the class in the middle.


I once attended a book reading thing where the author James Runcie discussed his novel East Fortune.  He described the family in the book (who live in a country house) as “middle class”.  They were only middle class in the sense that their money was from commerce not aristocracy.  That’s one of the problems we have: “bourgeoise” is “middle class” in that sense. ie not aristocrat.

A primary school teacher in the audience admonished him: “get it right, she said. They’re upper class. _We’re_ middle class.”  She here indicated the audience.  Cue uproar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I once attended a book reading thing where the author James Runcie discussed his novel East Fortune.  He described the family in the book (who live in a country house) as “middle class”.  They were only middle class in the sense that their money was from commerce not aristocracy.  That’s one of the problems we have: “bourgeoise” is “middle class” in that sense. ie not aristocrat.
> 
> A primary school teacher in the audience admonished him: “get it right, she said. They’re upper class. _We’re_ middle class.”  She here indicated the audience.  Queue uproar.


if there's one thing the middle classes are good at, it's queuing


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> if there's one thing the middle classes are good at, it's queuing


Oh, ffs. Is it too late for me to edit?

Cue.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, ffs. Is it too late for me to edit?
> 
> Cue.


Don't worry Danny, I've always regarded anarchic speeling as a pretty good heuristic of being PFWC


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Posted this on the  63 UP thread, as just finished watching. There's a good essay looking at the series which makes the case - correctly IMO - that over time it showed how just many people resent their class-identity labels.   It mentions: " As Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite argued in _Class, Politics, and the Decline of Deference in England, 1968–2000_, although class continued to matter—even as inequality worsened—people resisted labeling themselves by class; the very word seemed snobbish or blinkered. Most preferred to say they were ordinary, and yet they were still able to define complex identities for themselves. "
> 
> This is echoed in the massive Social Class in the 21st Century study - vast majority of people resent class stigmatisation. Its a major problem for a left that puts class consciousness and therefore class identity as its starting point, when people resent and try to escape the stigmas of all class identities. IMO the left can resolve that, not by abandoning class, but by finding new language for class-relationships that sidesteps old class stereotypes. The 99% was a failed attempt at that. I just dont think the terms 'working' and 'middle' cut it anymore if they ever did -as structural or identity categories - and maybe they did in the industrial revolution.


everyone i have worked with was working class, thought of themselves as working class and were proud of the fact.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

discokermit said:


> everyone i have worked with was working class, thought of themselves as working class and were proud of the fact.


well its worth being aware what mass surveys tell us of what the wider population are thinking, and trying to understand why a message of up the working class isnt resonating


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2021)

ska invita said:


> well its worth being aware what mass surveys tell us of what the wider population are thinking, and trying to understand *why a message of up the working class isnt resonating*


Where is this message and who is it coming from?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> Where is this message and who is it coming from?


I take your point


----------



## Cloo (Jan 19, 2021)

It goes all the way up the scale, like a lot of millionaire Tories who identify as middle class, and think middle class means two homes, privately-educated kids, 6-figure salaries all-round (and concurrent annual bonuses),  fully flexible at-home childcare etc. I guess it's that 'not aristocrat' (even if married to one) thing that danny la rouge mentions. So of course they have a still less of an idea what working class is. No wonder they can't run a country for the actual people in it.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

ska invita said:


> well its worth being aware what mass surveys tell us of what the wider population are thinking, and trying to understand why a message of up the working class isnt resonating


when the message comes from middle class people with a track record of shitting on the working class it doesnt, no.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> Further complications included the changing "shape" of the economy.
> 
> A generation or two ago someone following my trajectory would be bourgeois as fuck with a nice big house, secure career, pension and investments. Significant social status and the autonomy and power that come come with that.
> 
> Now I do the same actual work for £14 an hour on a casual basis. if I'm lucky.



I'm on £12.35 an hour working an unskilled job in a supermarket, lol.



hitmouse said:


> Yeah, the diffusion of managerial responsibilities throughout the whole workforce is a really interesting topic, and seems understudied, imo.
> For instance, this article:
> 
> Shift supervisors definitely play a "managerial" function, but is useful to understand them as PMC?



No.  Not in my anecdotal experience in how responsibility is distributed and the status and reward given, anyway.  Such roles are so much part of the routine workforce now it appears to be inaccurate to describe such people as 'proper managers,' at least in my line of work and our relationship with people on the shop floor.  It is often collaborative, and the cultural aspects of shared class experience and backgrounds does help in that. For potential organisation they aren't the definite 'enemy,'  

They have little in the way of significant power over people who are, in my eyes, only lower down the pecking order because the 'team leader' is standing on their tiptoes. I have noticed the gradual downgrading and dilution of management positions over the years with lower pay. I have noticed this happening simultaneously with the well-paid, higher status management roles that remain being fewer as well as being harder to access via the shop-floor route. It's more 'professionalised' now.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

I don't even know my relationship to the means of production.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

Second cousins or something, idk


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

i am avoiding the means of production since it has broken my brain.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2021)

S☼I said:


> I don't even know my relationship to the means of production.


5 pages of “do me!”.

😉


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> Further complications included the changing "shape" of the economy.
> 
> A generation or two ago someone following my trajectory would be bourgeois as fuck with a nice big house, secure career, pension and investments. Significant social status and the autonomy and power that come come with that.
> 
> Now I do the same actual work for £14 an hour on a casual basis. if I'm lucky.


another thing that stood out a mile from the 7 UP series was pretty much all the working class participants who left school without going to uni and got a random job and a partner also got a mortgage on a house immediately , failing that a council flat.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

seventh bullet said:


> No.  Not in my anecdotal experience in how responsibility is distributed and the status and reward given, anyway.  Such roles are so much part of the routine workforce now it appears to be inaccurate to describe such people as 'proper managers,' at least in my line of work and our relationship with people on the shop floor.  It is often collaborative, and the cultural aspects of shared class experience and backgrounds does help in that. For potential organisation they aren't the definite 'enemy,'
> 
> They have little in the way of significant power over people who are, in my eyes, only lower down the pecking order because the 'team leader' is standing on their tiptoes. I have noticed the gradual downgrading and dilution of management positions over the years with lower pay. I have noticed this happening simultaneously with the well-paid, higher status management roles that remain being fewer as well as being harder to access via the shop-floor route. It's more 'professionalised' now.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd tend to think. Someone approaching it from a perspective that started off by ticking off responsibilities listed on a job description might have a different answer though.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> Further complications included the changing "shape" of the economy.
> 
> A generation or two ago someone following my trajectory would be bourgeois as fuck with a nice big house, secure career, pension and investments. Significant social status and the autonomy and power that come come with that.
> 
> Now I do the same actual work for £14 an hour on a casual basis. if I'm lucky.


Agreed; the neoliberal turn away from concessions based on the diminishing fear of system competition has certainly effected that sort of 'expectation management', but the only genuinely bourgeois aspect I can see there is the 'investments' (possibly also private pension) bit. The rest look like very healthy aspirations for working class folk.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd tend to think. Someone approaching it from a perspective that started off by ticking off responsibilities listed on a job description might have a different answer though.



I think it's important to adjust the target sighting when identifying what is happening and the divides created.  Management exists, yes, but it's up there somewhere and increasingly out of reach.  At the lowest level?  Not even entry-level anymore with a 'career' track? Nah, I pity some of them. Doing what's left over from the streamlining and gutting out of management and transforming such roles once performed by someone in a well-paid position into a downgraded task to be distributed and performed by an ordinary bod.  'Team leaders' are monkeys that get a few extra nuts.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 19, 2021)

NoXion said:


> This, so much. I never went to Uni and have never worked a "professional" job, but if I go anywhere north of Birmingham I get called "posh" because of my accent. I know that I'm a proletarian in the Marxist sense, but that's not the definition the media uses.


I was once accused of having a posh acccent once by someone who either came from Weymouth or St Davids, one. Can't remember which now.
If you are looking at the cross over of working class people who don't need to get out of bed (and who might own dozens of buy to lets), a footballer or
manager would fit in quite well.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 19, 2021)

Tldr but if the authors didn't make reference to the urban proletariat and their peasant allies, then they can fuck right off.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 19, 2021)

Generally people like being liked. They also like thinking of themselves as being nice people. Can you be a truly nice person if you exploit others? Hmmmn. Maybe not. If you are middle class and are better off than others around you, can you still enjoy your undeserved bounty? Aha! Yes, of course you can. If you come from a working class background! (No more uncomfortable guilt. No more worries about street credibility)


----------



## The Pale King (Jan 19, 2021)

S☼I said:


> I remember Grace Dent saying as a kid she was working class by saying _we didn't have any books_



I remember Robert Webb saying as a kid he was working class because his parents watched _Blind Date_


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Generally people like being liked. They also like thinking of themselves as being nice people. Can you be a truly nice person if you exploit others? Hmmmn. Maybe not. If you are middle class and are better off than others around you, can you still enjoy your undeserved bounty? Aha! Yes, of course you can. If you come from a working class background! (No more uncomfortable guilt. No more worries about street credibility)



I think I'd then dislike them even more tbh.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2021)

I wonder if the 'are you working class?' answers are squewed by the person being questioned _knowing _that they only people who would ask such a question are tedious Class Warriors - probably with BO and spittle - who will harangue them if they reply 'no, probably not....'.

Much like the pub bore, these are people to be avoided if possible, and given the brush off if necessary.... 

Class is complex.

Class self-identity is another layer of complexity.

Reporting to others your Class identity is yet another complex layer on top of that.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 19, 2021)

The Pale King said:


> I remember Robert Webb saying as a kid he was working class because his parents watched _Blind Date_


I was about to chime in and say that I had an unambiguously working-class upringing and Blind Date was even beneath us. But, on reflection, we used to watch it every week and it's probably just that I felt it was beneath _me._


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2021)

All these little cultural signifiers (blind date, sovereign rings, sofa / settee,  time you have your tea/supper/dinner), i feel like I’ll never fully get it and i think it’s because of being born into an immigrant family, who were totally clueless about the rules. The serious stuff, means of production and all that, is much easier to learn.


----------



## andysays (Jan 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> All these little cultural signifiers (blind date, sovereign rings, sofa / settee,  time you have your tea/supper/dinner), i feel like I’ll never fully get it and i think it’s because of being born into an immigrant family, who were totally clueless about the rules. The serious stuff, means of production and all that, is much easier to learn.



Yeah, I think sometimes the importance of the "cultural capital" thing can be overstated.

You can have all the cultural capital you want, but if you have to get up every morning and go to work in a precarious low paid job over which you have more or less zero control, you're working class.

Even if your job isn't that precarious or low paid, even if you even have at little bit of control over it, you're still working class, however you pronounce the word "bath" and whatever you call or what time of day you eat your main meal of the day.


----------



## Winot (Jan 19, 2021)

Cultural signifiers can be learned and faked really easily if you want to present as other.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Cultural signifiers can be learned and faked really easily if you want to present as other.



And is quite widespread according to the reports findings about class tourism/performative practise


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 19, 2021)

S☼I said:


> I don't even know my relationship to the means of production.



^There's probably a test online somewhere.

If you feel the need to identify with being working class, you're probably not working class. It's not a feeling ffs.


----------



## andysays (Jan 19, 2021)

But presenting as other or engaging in class tourism/performative practice doesn't actually change your relationship with the means of production, which is why I think the significance of "cultural capital" can be overstated


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 19, 2021)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I think sometimes the importance of the "cultural capital" thing can be overstated.
> 
> You can have all the cultural capital you want, but if you have to get up every morning and go to work in a precarious low paid job over which you have more or less zero control, you're working class.
> 
> Even if your job isn't that precarious or low paid, even if you even have at little bit of control over it, you're still working class, however you pronounce the word "bath" and whatever you call or what time of day you eat your main meal of the day.


Yes but I don't think it's just about your salary. What often gets underplayed in this conversation is asset ownership. If you own your house in a non-precarious way it does change your class position because of your increased stability and the potential access to cash on a rainy day. Thatcher knew what she was doing. If you own assets beyond your own house that give you some income (even if only a few thousand a year) then you are again in another class position. You can own some quite big assets but be on a fairly low income and dependent on that income - it's not an unusual position. It's a very different position from someone on low income and no assets.

And I would include having a good pension beyond the state pension to be significant asset ownership.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

Certainly if you're earning minimum wage or close to it, doing a low-status job where you could be replaced tomorrow, you're Working Class however you 'identify'. I know people I've worked with who have denied they're WC because they think it's something not to admit to (not to mention family members...) Personally I used to think anyone who loudly self-identified as WC probably wasn't, mainly because I thought it was a crap thing to be so why would anyone want to draw attention to it? But I recognize there is a cachet in being able to demonstrate an authentic 'WC background' to MC strivers (especially in an academic or business context).

I was told years ago by some random that if you have a degree that automatically makes you MC, and then because I've always been able to talk well i've always been called _posh_ when I'm really, really not. It is a good disguise though. Appropriating social capital one has never earned or owned. I'm amused when I notice people doing this 'downward' as if there really is social capital in being WC, outside of MC fantasy.

Anyway just wanted to chime in. Graduates doing minimum wage work .. self-employed during the night but minimum wage during the day .. bastard classes proliferate, no wonder there's little agreement on class.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Cultural signifiers can be learned and faked really easily if you want to present as other.


no they cant. or rather they can if you want to present to other middle class people who are more clueless than you. but not to working class people.
for a start, if you are middle class, how do you know what the cultural signifiers are to working class people?


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I wonder if the 'are you working class?' answers are squewed by the person being questioned _knowing _that they only people who would ask such a question are tedious Class Warriors - probably with BO and spittle - who will harangue them if they reply 'no, probably not....'.
> 
> Much like the pub bore, these are people to be avoided if possible, and given the brush off if necessary....
> 
> ...



Nah, 'Class Warrior' is a crap insult.  It's as if the person using it to dismiss someone is wanting to avoid something about themselves.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 19, 2021)

thinking about cultural capital, is it not just reformist currency for the academics, that siloed lot cut off from the substrate? old fashioned prejudices dressed up in modern parlance.


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Cultural signifiers can be learned and faked really easily if you want to present as other.


They can also be just gotten wrong, out of ignorance. My dad, high level & relatively well paid classical musician, loved his fat sovereign ring & kept the plastic sheeting on the new leather sofa for ages but those were neither fake nor meaningful symbols i don’t think, because he (immigrant from then-communist country) had no reference points for those things in English culture, same with linguistic nuances (napkin / serviette??) they don’t work so well as markers when it’s your 2nd or 3rd language.
When I was about 8 I came home from school and asked him what class we were and he said middle middle (double middle). I think he was trying to help me integrate.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

andysays said:


> But presenting as other or engaging in class tourism/performative practice doesn't actually change your relationship with the means of production, which is why I think the significance of "cultural capital" can be overstated



Also you can spot a faker a mile off.

Cultural capital isn't dress up.


----------



## chilango (Jan 19, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> thinking about cultural capital, is it not just reformist currency for the academics, that siloed lot cut off from the substrate? old fashioned prejudices dressed up in modern parlance.



No.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

chilango said:


> Cultural capital isn't dress up.



This is so fucking important, because class (and I think what we're calling here 'cultural capital') is much about assumptions and attitudes towards yourself and your relationship with society. Do you assume you will be listened to if you speak, or do expect to be ignored - or sanctioned? Do you feel things you try to do will be supported and encouraged, or do you expect to be told not to bother? Do you expect to 'get ahead' in your job, do you expect progression because you feel you deserve it, or do you expect to just slog along because it's what your mum, dad, granny, grandad did? Do you expect to struggle from one month to the next, or do you expect a regular, livable income so that when hard times strike you find it easy to promote yourself and your skills? Do you have a range of marketable skills, or have you had no time / support to develop more than the one or two skills you live from?

etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

discokermit said:


> no they cant. or rather they can if you want to present to other middle class people who are more clueless than you. but not to working class people.
> for a start, if you are middle class, how do you know what the cultural signifiers are to working class people?



They can. We know it’s shit, that’s definitely true. But it’s not us who the performance is for.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

Great post mojo pixy


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> ^There's probably a test online somewhere.
> 
> If you feel the need to identify with being working class, you're probably not working class. It's not a feeling ffs.


It was a joke. Why are you getting irate? 
To me it IS a feeling. Where you belong and where you fit. I went to my oldest mates wedding a few years ago and felt like everyone there knew how to behave, what to do, how to talk pleasantries and platitudes. Like a code I hadn't found out about.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Great post mojo pixy



It was mentioned on another thread that WC kids don't as a rule tend to form bands, and that crystallized for me a thought that's been growing for years, about what it really means to be working class as a musician. That world is closed to you, there will always be someone with more money for gear, more and better words from articulate, educated parents, more expensive equipment or a course at theatre school, a better book or record collection, more time to practise .. and always someone else who expects to be listened to, expects the gig, expects the attention. So why bother?

Just get a job.

There's no 'social capital' there, not as i understand the term.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

seventh bullet said:


> I'm on £12.35 an hour working an unskilled job in a supermarket, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also a great post. You’ve definitely identified two significant class signifier shifts.

The lower echelons of management - in manufacturing and services - have definitely suffered a significant loss of pay, status and most critically a loss of the ability to manage (normally mediated with the union steward where there is one) the pace and organisation of work.

At the same time the route from the shopfloor- via the lower management rung - into the intermediate and higher ranks has been choked off, as you put it professionalised. Those recruited into those ranks are normally recruited from outside the organisation.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> It was mentioned on another thread that WC kids don't as a rule tend to form bands, and that crystallized for me a thought that's been growing for years, about what it really means to be working class as a musician. That world is closed to you, there will always be someone with more money for gear, more and better words from articulate, educated parents, more expensive equipment or a course at theatre school, a better book or record collection, more time to practise .. and always someone else who expects to be listened to, expects the gig, expects the attention. So why bother?



That’s true, but also also a relatively recent development.

When you think back, as Raymond Williams once wrote, ‘culture is ordinary’.... The decomposition of working class communities as centres of cultural production needs to be understood in the context of the decline of independent working class politics, communal mass organisations and a class capable of placing demands upon capital and winning them.

The aim once wasn’t to break into middle class culture. It as to replace it with one more rich and more dynamic. When was the last working class band that achieved sucesss on those terms?? The Manics maybe?


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 19, 2021)

S☼I said:


> It was a joke. Why are you getting irate?
> To me it IS a feeling. Where you belong and where you fit. I went to my oldest mates wedding a few years ago and felt like everyone there knew how to behave, what to do, how to talk pleasantries and platitudes. Like a code I hadn't found out about.



I wasn't irate Si. Only the first sentence was a reply to you. It was a joke back. It's why I used the ^ on that line.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 19, 2021)

Q: Do you identify as working class?
A: 'Identify? Identify?!?!' Class is not a fucking identity, you prick. It's a social and economic relationship.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 19, 2021)

I lived in Germany for 6 months, I didn't learn enough to pick up class signals from people there. Here there would be no point in my trying to be anything I am not, from a social perspective I am middle class.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> I wasn't irate Si. Only the first sentence was a reply to you. It was a joke back. It's why I used the ^ on that line.


You see if I had any cultural capital I'd have spotted that


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 19, 2021)

weltweit said:


> , from a social perspective I am middle class.


What does this mean?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Generally people like being liked. They also like thinking of themselves as being nice people. Can you be a truly nice person if you exploit others? Hmmmn. Maybe not. If you are middle class and are better off than others around you, can you still enjoy your undeserved bounty? Aha! Yes, of course you can. If you come from a working class background! (No more uncomfortable guilt. No more worries about street credibility)


Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 19, 2021)

ska invita said:


> another thing that stood out a mile from the 7 UP series was pretty much all the working class participants who left school without going to uni and got a random job and a partner also got a mortgage on a house immediately , failing that a council flat.



Err not true... Lynn's job wasn't random for example...she became a children's librarian and stayed in the profession through out her life....she didn't seem to_ fall_ into it, she liked it. It certainly didn't seem to be a 'I just do this one' case at all.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 19, 2021)

S☼I said:


> What does this mean?


What I meant was - not relative to the means of production - but more socially / culturally I am middle class, especially how I speak, how and where I socialise, behaviour, those sorts of things. My parents were MC and inevitably so am I.

However, I am almost lapsed MC, for example I went to a very middle class funeral a couple of years ago and was surprised to find I didn't fit in with the other mourners. It made me wonder if I am still MC.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s true, but also also a relatively recent development.
> 
> When you think back, as Raymond Williams once wrote, ‘culture is ordinary’.... The decomposition of working class communities as centres of cultural production needs to be understood in the context of the decline of independent working class politics, communal mass organisations and a class capable of excepting demands upon capital.



Right - and isn't this what's largely driving whatever MC appropriation of WC 'style' (for want of a better word)? WC folks don't usually have the confidence to make their own cultural artifacts - it's not about articulacy or ability, we know that - but it is about feeling nobody will care** even if you do make something. MC kids on the other hand feel the world is their oyster and all they have to do is drop an aitch, get tattoos and a bit of cheap jewellery and wham bam they're on TV, the voice of a generation etc.

** Eta, might even take the piss, actually.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Err not true... Lynn's job wasn't random for example...she became a children's librarian and stayed in the profession through out her life....she didn't seem to_ fall_ into it, she liked it. It certainly didn't seem to be a 'I just do this one' case at all.


oh yeah by random i just meant a job and its salary you can get straight away as opposed to working up to over a decade
the point of the post was more about how much you could earn r leaving school and get on the housing ladder and how thats changed


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

Brainaddict said:


> Yes but I don't think it's just about your salary. What often gets underplayed in this conversation is asset ownership. If you own your house in a non-precarious way it does change your class position because of your increased stability and the potential access to cash on a rainy day. Thatcher knew what she was doing. If you own assets beyond your own house that give you some income (even if only a few thousand a year) then you are again in another class position. You can own some quite big assets but be on a fairly low income and dependent on that income - it's not an unusual position. It's a very different position from someone on low income and no assets.
> 
> And I would include having a good pension beyond the state pension to be significant asset ownership.


posted a few weeks back that i was reading something from sometime around 1990 which flagged up that there was a lot of conversation around the socialist left at the time basically musing "is there a significantly large working class anymore (from a revolutionary point of view)? or have the Tories bought everyone off?" - with the conclusion that yes the tories had so diminished the non-asset holding, low income working class pool that the balance of power was lost for good, and suggested that strategic changes would be required to convince people of a socialist programme.

wish i could remember what it was now, it was an interesting time capsule and conversation.

Id be very interested to see some demographics on the current numbers of home owners/renters/average earnings/etc <does anyone know where to find that kind of thing? I know there's to be a new census in 2021....


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 19, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> It was mentioned on another thread that WC kids don't as a rule tend to form bands, and that crystallized for me a thought that's been growing for years, about what it really means to be working class as a musician. That world is closed to you, there will always be someone with more money for gear, more and better words from articulate, educated parents, more expensive equipment or a course at theatre school, a better book or record collection, more time to practise .. and always someone else who expects to be listened to, expects the gig, expects the attention. So why bother?
> 
> Just get a job.
> 
> There's no 'social capital' there, not as i understand the term.


Yeah, there's a lot Mark Fisher was wrong about but this is one of those things he was spot on about imo (and don't ask me where exactly he talked about this because I can't remember off the top of my head) - maybe there's never been a level playing field as such but there's all kind of material stuff that can make that condition a bit easier. Relatively widespread squatting and a dole system that doesn't stress intense JSA/Universal Credit-style hassling of claimants = more freedom for people who aren't coming from money to practice creative activity or whatever kind. Kill those things off and you make it that much harder for anyone except the Ed Sheerans and Bastilles to get through.


Smokeandsteam said:


> At the same time the route from the shopfloor- via the lower management rung - into the intermediate and higher ranks has been choked off, as you put it professionalised. Those recruited into those ranks are normally recruited from outside the organisation.


...and often from outside the industry - they're not required to have any expertise in what the people they're managing do as long as they can show _expertise in being a manager_. Which can be pretty funny at times tbf, especially with relatively new managers - "you lot, stop slacking off and work harder! Also can you explain to me what exactly your job involves again?"


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2021)

There seem to be at least three things going on in this thread now:


actual capital, economics
social capital, basically how much opportunity you are afforded
cultural capital/signifiers/whatever, really something involving a measurement of how much you fit in easily

The first buys the second, and occasionally the inverse is true. The third is something else though - you can and even more historically could be rich and still be socially excluded. Having money helps, I guess.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

mauvais said:


> actual capital, economics
> social capital, basically how much opportunity you are afforded
> cultural capital/signifiers/whatever, really something involving a measurement of how much you fit in easily



Also something else. Something like an internalized, conditioned sense of social worthlessness. Best expressed as low expectations. So whatever social capital you may otherwise have (looks, brains, skill etc) you may not be in a position to capitalize (pun intended) on it, because your expectations just aren't high enough.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 19, 2021)

I think jarvis cocker wrote a song about this.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

its not peoples expectations that hold them back.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think jarvis cocker wrote a song about this.



hilariously, being a graduate of a prestigious theatre school his very own self.
ok no, maybe just alumnus, unsure if he graduated or what with. a song, certainly.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 19, 2021)

discokermit said:


> its not peoples expectations that hold them back.



low expectations can stop you even starting.

I should unpack that a little. It's not about self pity, and it's not about lacking the moral fibre to bootstrap yourself. If your family is always struggling when you grow up, this teaches you what normal feels like. Parent(s) struggling, in debt, working two jobs to make ends meet, working nights etc - or unemployed. Friends working in low-status jobs or unemployed, immediate family all in low-status jobs, or unemployed. This is the 'working class background' we're on about, but it's not just material and economical - it's psychological, it's emotional, it's what you learn to expect, what to accept, maybe eventually what to aspire to.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 19, 2021)

weltweit said:


> I lived in Germany for 6 months, I didn't learn enough to pick up class signals from people there. Here there would be no point in my trying to be anything I am not, from a social perspective I am middle class.



It would be interesting to read of the differing signifiers of class from other countries. 

When I lived in Spain I lived round the corner from a private university. Every lad who studied there seemed to have the same floppy hair cut and the same Ralph Lauren Polo top on. They weren't hiding their class, they were revelling in it. Contrast that with the private school kids who were studying when I was at uni who were really into grime and dancehall and wore trackies and said things were peng.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.



Hot take


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> low expectations can stop you even starting.
> 
> I should unpack that a little. It's not about self pity, and it's not about lacking the moral fibre to bootstrap yourself. If your family is always struggling when you grow up, this teaches you what normal feels like. Parent(s) struggling, in debt, working two jobs to make ends meet, working nights etc - or unemployed. Friends working in low-status jobs or unemployed, immediate family all in low-status jobs, or unemployed. This is the 'working class background' we're on about, but it's not just material and economical - it's psychological, it's emotional, it's what you learn to expect, what to accept, maybe eventually what to aspire to.


if you are working class, you are better off not starting a lot of the time. you havent got the connections, the background, the schooling, the financial support, necessary. the middle class have built up over centuries ways to keep all but a select few out.

another thing is this view is one that in my experience isnt born out in real life. if anything its the opposite. ive met plenty who naively had a dream only to see it smashed by reality.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.


my last but one job, five or six years ago, i had to lift five tons of steel into a jig from the floor and back down again twice by hand every shift. just over eight quid an hour, 6-2, 2-10. just cos you dont sweat, doesnt mean nobody sweats.

edited for better maths.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

discokermit said:


> *if you are working class, you are better off not starting a lot of the time. you havent got the connections, the background, the schooling, the financial support, necessary.* the middle class have built up over centuries ways to keep all but a select few out.
> 
> another thing is this view is one that in my experience isnt born out in real life. if anything its the opposite. *ive met plenty who naively had a dream only to see it smashed by reality.*



The bolded bits are pretty much what I'm on about, the lack of internal/external resources to really get ahead or strike out. I'm not sure how your other bit (underlined) fits though? My experience is that apart from a small minority we basically get stuck in low-status work at best, with dreams of more that always remain just out of reach because you don't have the money and/or time and/or confidence to go for it. The 'economy' depends on this, actually.

I dunno now. Working class, or human condition? Maybe the human condition is more malignant without resources to mitigate it. It's not much of an insight, but more important is that the structures that keep it going need to be broken and burned.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 20, 2021)

If you write for the guardian your not working class.
Frankly your not being shipped south as there are more important passengers for the south Atlantic ring road project 🤬


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 20, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.


The last sentence shows you’re seeing this in identity terms.  Class is primarily a relationship, not an identity.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 20, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.



Have you actually worked with anyone from the 'global south'?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 20, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely all of us in the west live on the back of exploitation of people in other parts of the world we have exported the working class to the 'developing world'. The real hard work at real poverty levels is done elsewhere in the world.  Let's all pretend it matters who is in the working class here and who is not.



We could always find someone who is ‘worse off’ than us, I don’t think that’s a helpful perspective. It’s of little comfort to someone who’s kids are crying with hunger or who has just had their PiP refused and they don’t know how they’ll put the heating on. It creates a space for people to suggest others should be grateful for the tiny scraps they receive and should just get on with it. Seeing class as a structural relationship enables there to be space to push back, to say it’s not good enough and we deserve better.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

purenarcotic said:


> We could always find someone who is ‘worse off’ than us, I don’t think that’s a helpful perspective.



...and further up it's the logic behind the whining of the squeezed middle who can always find someone 'better off' than them.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...and further up it's the logic behind the whining of the squeezed middle who can always find someone 'better off' than them.



Yes! ‘We shop at Lidl now, we can’t afford Waitrose, it’s so very, very hard for us...’ (I am being a bit facetious I realise)


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...and further up it's the logic behind the whining of the squeezed middle who can always find someone 'better off' than them.



It's often the motivation behind centering identity. _You got it bad but at least you're X and only have X to worry about. Pity Y, we have Y to worry about and that's way worse!_


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

purenarcotic said:


> Yes! ‘We shop at Lidl now, we can’t afford Waitrose, it’s so very, very hard for us...’ (I am being a bit facetious I realise)



...and when people, as is often the case, live, work, school and socialise in 'bubbles' segregated by class, comparison becomes obscured.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...and when people, as is often the case, live, work, school and socialise in 'bubbles' segregated by class, comparison becomes obscured.



It also enables  ‘that doesn’t belong to me’ / ‘that isn’t for the likes of us’ too I think. Which does feed into class from a perspective of identity opposed to relationship. It also of course helps to maintain the relationship. Not sure if I’m making much sense. 😕


----------



## Winot (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...and when people, as is often the case, live, work, school and socialise in 'bubbles' segregated by class, comparison becomes obscured.



“one of the small private schools, quite cheap”


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 20, 2021)

_"... lucky enough" to receive a scholarship to a minor private school where I managed to completely avoid any of the values and privileges of the institution, staff or pupils_


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

Reinforcing the mythology of meritocracy and social mobility. 

"I'm not _that_ privileged, just lucky I guess"

i.e. I deserve my advantage, you deserve your disadvantage.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

plus, _nobody helped me I did all myself! I did it, why can't other people!!11!_


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

"Wise choices"

...which brings us back to question of "horizons" and what is viewed as "possible".


----------



## Winot (Jan 20, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> plus, _nobody helped me I did all myself! I did it, why can't other people!!11!_



This happens across all classes of course. My wc grandad ‘made good’ and became a bootstraps Thatcherite.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 20, 2021)

I've got a mate who in the sixth form of the local comp was scoffed at by teachers when he applied to Cambridge for a laugh and to piss them off. There was no indication it was ever going to be something he should try for. (He got AAB and into Cambridge where he got pissed and a 2:2.)


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

Winot said:


> This happens across all classes of course. My wc grandad ‘made good’ and became a bootstraps Thatcherite.



It definitely does happen sometimes, that's what gives the myth it can happen to anyone such power. Like a lottery.
Plus often, people just forget about tiny things that eased their way .. a chance meeting here, a friend-of-a-friend there...

Also in C20 a lot of social mobility came about through the wars, *especially for men***.
1. lots of dead men to take the place of when it's over,
2. classes mixing on the frontlines brought opportunities later for survivors.
Some war vets no doubt succeeded after WWII due to social forces of postwar reconstruction, but credited their own selves most of all.

** EtA actually, I think for women too, especially in terms of having a job and earning an independent wage, learning professional skills etc. which was less common in 1910 than it had become by 1950.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

S☼I said:


> I've got a mate who in the sixth form of the local comp was scoffed at by teachers when he applied to Cambridge for a laugh and to piss them off. There was no indication it was ever going to be something he should try for. (He got AAB and into Cambridge where he got pissed and a 2:2.)



I was told quite bluntly that Oxbridge wasn't for likes of me, and the school refused to support Uni applications it saw as "unrealistic".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> It definitely does happen sometimes, that's what gives the myth it can happen to anyone such power. Like a lottery.
> Plus often, people just forget about tiny things that eased their way .. a chance meeting here, a friend-of-a-friend there...
> 
> Also in C20 a lot of social mobility came about through the wars, especially for men.
> ...


This social mobility by war, I wonder if you could point me to a source which explores it more deeply


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anecdotals only for now. If I remember or find something objective, I'll expand.

Of course, the main type mobility during war is _into the ground_ so I don't want to overstate the err benefits.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

Social mobility did "improve" post-war, and has been on the decline since the 80s. 

Social mobility is, if course, problematic on its terms, but it's the mythology of it that interests me.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> I was told quite bluntly that Oxbridge wasn't for likes of me, and the school refused to support Uni applications it saw as "unrealistic".



In fact the lack of any sort of serious Uni "prep" meant that when I arrived as a "first generation" undergrad I didn't have a clue what to expect or what to do or how to navigate this strange new world, and neither did my parents. The results were pretty catastrophic...


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale said:


> _might _being an important word, there...
> 
> View attachment 250054


It's pronounced Barf


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.


marty21 can adjudicate this vital question


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> In fact the lack of any sort of serious Uni "prep" meant that when I arrived as a "first generation" undergrad I didn't have a clue what to expect or what to do or how to navigate this strange new world, and neither did my parents. The results were pretty catastrophic...


Yeh for me too, I found the bar long before I found the lecture theatre


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh for me too, I found the bar long before I found the lecture theatre



Ditto. The pub was familiar already. I knew how to "do" pubs.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2021)

Given what Friedman, O'Brien & McDonald say in their paper, I wonder if there are Urbz who think that they may have used an "..._intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges they enjoy"_? 

I expect that some of us may have experienced others, acquaintances, co-workers etc. "_misidentify their origins as working class_", but I wonder if anyone here would like to reflect when, and in what sort of context, they may have done so themselves?

Might be an interesting discussion?


----------



## xenon (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> I was told quite bluntly that Oxbridge wasn't for likes of me, and the school refused to support Uni applications it saw as "unrealistic".



more or less the same said to my sister. She needs carers as she uses a wheelchair and at her interview they said they would have to have some say in who those carers were because they couldn’t just have anyone going to Oxford. The whole stuffy atmosphere also put her off.


----------



## xenon (Jan 20, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh for me too, I found the bar long before I found the lecture theatre



for me it helped a bit as I had lived at a residential college prior to going to university. Albeit it was a former poly and I was doing an art course. I still had never met so many middle-class people.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Given what Friedman, O'Brien & McDonald say in their paper, I wonder if there are Urbz who think that they may have used an "..._intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges they enjoy"_?
> 
> I expect that some of us may have experienced others, acquaintances, co-workers etc. "_misidentify their origins as working class_", but I wonder if anyone here would like to reflect when, and in what sort of context, they may have done so themselves?
> 
> Might be an interesting discussion?



Might be worth a separate thread?


----------



## Sue (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> Might be worth a separate thread?


It might need a snappier title than _Have you used an_ _intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges you enjoy_? though .


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> Might be worth a separate thread?


Maybe, but this one was seeing quite a lot of discussion...who knows? Maybe it's a bit of stretch for folk to talk openly about it?


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

_20 times Urbanites have used an_ _intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges they enjoy...you won't believe number 16!!!  _


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> _20 times Urbanites have used an_ _intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges they enjoy...you won't believe number 16!!! _


Bound to end up being cheese related!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2021)

ive gone the other way. im trying to raise an army to take arundel castle.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Bound to end up being cheese related!


You were lucky t'ave cheese...


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 20, 2021)

Do you put your crisps in a bowl


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Given what Friedman, O'Brien & McDonald say in their paper, I wonder if there are Urbz who think that they may have used an "..._intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges they enjoy"_?
> 
> I expect that some of us may have experienced others, acquaintances, co-workers etc. "_misidentify their origins as working class_", but I wonder if anyone here would like to reflect when, and in what sort of context, they may have done so themselves?
> 
> Might be an interesting discussion?



I think if you remove the terms _performative _and _deflect _from that question - because, simply, it's a very leading question with some pretty crass judgements within it - and think about _context _and _formative, childhood experience and influences - _then it can be interesting discussion.

Having it on some fairly cretinous _Student Grant meets Citizen Smith level_ however means it won't be interesting or informative.

So, for me, I am absolutely middle class: nice upbringing, decent state school with assumptions of university blah blah, but my parents didn't start out as middle class, and my grandparents - who were a big part of my childhood - certainly weren't. That's not an argument for inherited Class through DNA, but a solid belief that I am a product of the 'village' that brought me up, and a good slice of that village was WC, with WC attitudes and experiences that were related to me.

So, as an example, when I was a kid my grandad, who I spent pretty much every weekend with, took me to a village in Dorset where his family had lived from about 1600 to 1900. They were _all _agricultural labourers and domestic servants with grim life expectancy and all the normal indicators of poverty - 80 years after they left/died out, and despite living there for 300 years (and probably a lot longer), not one of the houses they'd lived in still stood, and _not a single one_ of the several hundred members of that family who'd lived there had a grave marker of any type. They had, along with pretty much every other person of their class, been completely airbrushed out of existence by a system that believed they had only the temporary value of the sweat on their backs.

When I was 22 my parents had a little family party for me when I commissioned, and my Nan gave a little speech - and she said how proud she was of me, but she said that my mum and dad should take great credit for being the first generation since we'd come down from the trees who's children had never gone to bed hungry because there was no money for food. That 'family memory' of some pretty grim experiences was never far from my childhood - it was certainly used to show us the privilege we had, but also to show how quickly situations can change, and that we weren't far from dire poverty and exploitation.

So, middle class with working class roots - but we never watched blind date. Does the wrestling count?


----------



## Raheem (Jan 20, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> Do you put your crisps in a bowl


My OH does that sometimes. She went to a CofE secondary.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 20, 2021)

Raheem said:


> My OH does that sometimes. She went to a CofE secondary.



exactly


----------



## fucthest8 (Jan 20, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> Do you put your crisps in a bowl



Do you know what to do with an avocado


----------



## ska invita (Jan 20, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Also something else. Something like an internalized, conditioned sense of social worthlessness. Best expressed as low expectations. So whatever social capital you may otherwise have (looks, brains, skill etc) you may not be in a position to capitalize (pun intended) on it, because your expectations just aren't high enough.


...i relate to that ...having expectations at all even

another shocking thing i found from watching the seven up series was the seven year old upper class kids knowing what precise schools they will go on to, what university they would go to, and possible even with ideas about what work they would do after - certainly they thought about post-university careers by 14. Expectations discussed and planned from such a young age

other working class kids in the show didnt know the word university, or for example didnt think grammar schools were for them.
on a personal level even as i was getting to finish a levels no one from family or school talked to me about university or aspirations , and if id been asked i wouldnt have an opinion as never thought about it. meanwhile at eton they're teaching 11 year old kids how to supress a riot by calling on the army. Obvious point but its two different worlds in terms of expectations. I guess family plays a big part here, but schools do nothing to get involved IME, apart from a pointless careers advice session for half an hour as you're about to leave.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 20, 2021)

fucthest8 said:


> Do you know what to do with an avocado


Hide it under your flat cap if the neighbour peers through your grimy windows.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2021)

i, a working class child, has had my expectations raised by some kind knowledgable patriarch. "you can do anything! be anything!" i think to myself. so, how do i become an admiral in the british navy?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 20, 2021)

They do it to fit in. Around all those people with actual real chips on their shoulder. 
because they are the enablers of opression, and they are worried about found out.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 20, 2021)

discokermit said:


> ive gone the other way. im trying to raise an army to take arundel castle.


Never occurred to me as a kid but naming the streets of our council estate after the "great" houses of England was a rancid choice. Arundel, Sandringham, Chatsworth Drives, etc. I was in Goodwood Close.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I think if you remove the terms _performative _and _deflect _from that question - because, simply, it's a very leading question with some pretty crass judgements within it - and think about _context _and _formative, childhood experience and influences - _then it can be interesting discussion.
> 
> Having it on some fairly cretinous _Student Grant meets Citizen Smith level_ however means it won't be interesting or informative.
> 
> ...


Good post.
The wording was, of course, lifted directly and deliberately from the paper linked to in the OP.
Thinking about what you said regarding the ag.lab./service background of your family reminded me of when i did a bit of my own family history stuff and, like most folk here I suspect, there was a mass of ag.lab./service job definitions on all of the census returns going back to 1831 or whatever it was.

Got me thinking that maybe the growth in popularity of family ancestry stuff might in some way have contributed to some of the MC construction of ‘intergenerational self’ contributing to 'misidentification'.

btw, not saying you did that above.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale I'm not sure the ancestry.com stuff plays a role, after all the intergenerational ideas of class isn't a new thing - but wouldn't be surprised if _safe distance _and rose-tinted glasses played a role.

My grandparents very cold house and pretty limited tastes are now a very long way away, perhaps it's now safe to identify with them?

Of course fashion plays a role in this - in the 18th century the most minor gentry would deny till they were blue in the face that they might be the grandson of a farmer, yet now the opposite it true. Perhaps it may swing back....

Personally - of course - I don't see it as a fetishisation of WC origins/influences (though I certainly wouldn't deny that it exists), rather with simply being comfortable with a wider part of our origins. 

I would imagine that one of the problems with identity is that it's an intensely personal construct, with two people of fairly similar backgrounds 'choosing' radically different identities because they pick X circumstance of Y circumstance - one is reminded here of Americans, who identify themselves as 'whatever-Americans' because their Great, Great, Great Grandparent was 'watever', while ignoring the 47others of that generations of that ancestor who wasn't of that identity/background....


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

discokermit said:


> i, a working class child, has had my expectations raised by some kind knowledgable patriarch. "you can do anything! be anything!" i think to myself. so, how do i become an admiral in the british navy?



This is what happens in schools with "growth mindset" pushing by teachers.


----------



## andysays (Jan 20, 2021)

This is an interesting vid which popped up in my youtube suggestions recently


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2021)

Winot said:


> “one of the small private schools, quite cheap”


Someone on first dates last night said almost exactly this


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale 
Of course fashion plays a role in this - in the 18th century the most minor gentry would deny till they were blue in the face that they might be the grandson of a farmer, yet now the opposite it true. Perhaps it may swing back....
[/QUOTE]

A friend of mine who went to a "quite small, quite cheap" private school gets enraged when anyone mentions that her curiously-spelled surname is down to an illiterate ancestor spelling a name wrong on a form (or perhaps a clerk mishearing it), so the pendulum is still a bit mid-swing.


----------



## krink (Jan 20, 2021)

ddraig said:


> Someone on first dates last night said almost exactly this


Ah man, I was going to post that haha!! Apparently she was Scottish too, although I failed to hear it.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2021)

8ball said:


> brogdale
> Of course fashion plays a role in this - in the 18th century the most minor gentry would deny till they were blue in the face that they might be the grandson of a farmer, yet now the opposite it true. Perhaps it may swing back....



A friend of mine who went to a "quite small, quite cheap" private school gets enraged when anyone mentions that her curiously-spelled surname is down to an illiterate ancestor spelling a name wrong on a form (or perhaps a clerk mishearing it), so the pendulum is still a bit mid-swing.
[/QUOTE]

My family's surname in that village in Dorset is spelt three different - and quite impressively different -ways in less than a century...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2021)

kebabking said:


> A friend of mine who went to a "quite small, quite cheap" private school gets enraged when anyone mentions that her curiously-spelled surname is down to an illiterate ancestor spelling a name wrong on a form (or perhaps a clerk mishearing it), so the pendulum is still a bit mid-swing.



My family's surname in that village in Dorset is spelt three different - and quite impressively different -ways in less than a century...
[/QUOTE]
One of the joys of looking back at old census returns is the variety of spellings, both names and locations (of birth). I assume that some were errors derived from partial literacy and others from the answers written down by census officials interpreting the answers given by illiterate forebears.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 20, 2021)

krink said:


> Ah man, I was going to post that haha!! Apparently she was Scottish too, although I failed to hear it.



Posh Scottish people speak with the same accent as posh English people on the whole - I'm not sure a distinct posh Scottish accent exists.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2021)

brogdale said:


> One of the joys of looking back at old census returns is the variety of spellings, both names and locations (of birth). I assume that some were errors derived from partial literacy and others from the answers written down by census officials interpreting the answers given by illiterate forebears.



Absolutely, I love seeing the way new and old first names weave in and out of the family tree - we went through a couple of generations during the 18th century where all the girls had quite Germanic names like Thurzia and what have you - and then 'poof' - all that disappeared and they went back to be John's and Mary's, and we have _no _idea why...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Posh Scottish people speak with the same accent as posh English people on the whole - I'm not sure a distinct posh Scottish accent exists.



I thought maybe Victor Meldrew would be a posh Scottish accent.  Doesn't sound like a posh English one.


----------



## krink (Jan 20, 2021)

andysays said:


> This is an interesting vid which popped up in my youtube suggestions recently



Quite enjoyed that, brought a few things to mind. During the anti cuts campaigns 2010 onwards we had to deal with this insufferable, wrecking, control freak (and grass) who wanted to be in charge of everything. In an attempt to attack my character he tried to say it was absurd that an anarchist could work at the council (I was a basic admin assistant). So I turned it on him and said what kind of Marxist could be a petite bourgeoisie, council house thief (he was self employed and bought his council house) and it really got to him which was great fun 😂 
Now I do actually have a point/question. I still work and have a boss but they don't make profit, as I work for the local council on behalf of the dwp. So my bosses with the power to fire me are still employees themselves and the whole 'business' isn't really a business. I'm not sure what my question is but how (as that video seems to suggests) are my interests the same as the ceo of the council?

 Be gentle if you answer, I'm not a brainiac haha!


----------



## mauvais (Jan 20, 2021)

discokermit said:


> i, a working class child, has had my expectations raised by some kind knowledgable patriarch. "you can do anything! be anything!" i think to myself. so, how do i become an admiral in the british navy?


Kill an existing admiral in the Royal Navy and take his hat. It's much the same as with Popes.


----------



## krink (Jan 20, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Posh Scottish people speak with the same accent as posh English people on the whole - I'm not sure a distinct posh Scottish accent exists.


I had my honeymoon in Edinburgh stayed in a lovely b&b and we asked the owners why there was so many posh English people in the area and they explained that they were actually all rich Scots.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 20, 2021)

Sue said:


> It might need a snappier title than _Have you used an_ _intergenerational understanding of family class origin in a performative manner to deflect attention away from the structural privileges you enjoy_? though .


_KULAKS: INCRIMINATE YOURSELVES HERE_?


----------



## cyril_smear (Jan 20, 2021)

What if they identify as working class?


----------



## andysays (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> What if they identify as working class?


Class is a social relationship, not a matter of identity


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 20, 2021)

8ball said:


> I thought maybe Victor Meldrew would be a posh Scottish accent.  Doesn't sound like a posh English one.


Depends what you mean by posh. Richard Wilson has a grammar school West of Scotland accent (he’d have been educated in pre-comprehensive 11 plus times).  

But, yeah, Scottish landed gentry pretty much all went to English public schools and sound like they did.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jan 20, 2021)

andysays said:


> Class is a social relationship, not a matter of identity


And as such you can’t escape it?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 20, 2021)

andysays said:


> Class is a social relationship, not a matter of identity


Can it not be both?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> And as such you can’t escape it?



I suppose on the strict _economic _basis that if you have any economic relationship with anyone else then you have a class, then it's entirely true.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 20, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I suppose on the strict _economic _basis that if you have any economic relationship with anyone else then you have a class, then it's entirely true.


Your relationship surely has to be with a society, surely. If my only economic relationship were with my dentist, the fact that I'm the one paying would not make me an aristocrat.


----------



## andysays (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> And as such you can’t escape it?


No, you can't "escape" it.

I suppose a tiny number of people manage to acquire a sufficient amount of property to stop being working class/proletarian and become members of the capitalist class, but I'm not sure that's really what we're talking about.


S☼I said:


> Can it not be both?


I suppose it can be an identity as well, but your class position (in the Marxist sense, what is sense I'm talking about in) isn't altered by how you identify, not in any meaningful way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> And as such you can’t escape it?


Only by overturning capitalism.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jan 20, 2021)

andysays said:


> *No, you can't "escape" it.*
> 
> I suppose a tiny number of people manage to acquire a sufficient amount of property to stop being working class/proletarian and become members of the capitalist class, but I'm not sure that's really what we're talking about.
> 
> I suppose it can be an identity as well, but your class position (in the Marxist sense, what is sense I'm talking about in) isn't altered by how you identify, not in any meaningful way.



It’s not societal then is it.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jan 20, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Only by overturning capitalism.


Well, I’m out of my depth. I’ll bow out.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> Well, I’m out of my depth. I’ll bow out.



I've not had much luck overturning capitalism either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 20, 2021)

cyril_smear said:


> Well, I’m out of my depth. I’ll bow out.


Don’t give up!


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> In fact the lack of any sort of serious Uni "prep" meant that when I arrived as a "first generation" undergrad I didn't have a clue what to expect or what to do or how to navigate this strange new world, and neither did my parents. The results were pretty catastrophic...



In contrast, at my school we had an ‘Oxbridge group’ in sixth form where they got extra tutoring, advice on what to expect with the interviews etc. I remember at the time thinking ‘so how is this about merit?’ I don’t think it’s wrong to give people support around interviews / applications, but it’s that process of extreme coaching because of your background... You automatically belong, even if actually you don’t because you haven’t really got what it takes...


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 20, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Posh Scottish people speak with the same accent as posh English people on the whole - I'm not sure a distinct posh Scottish accent exists.



Oh a posh Scottish accent very definitely does exist...cf. Malcolm Rifkind, various tartan-trewed Lord Lieutenants, circles of advocates and senior bankers, rugby internationals at Murrayfield, Scotland's dozen or so private schools. The accent is instantly recognisable.

Thankfully it doesn't automatically denote political power as it once did, but it still very much is sodden in cultural & social power. Folk like these tend to have a less public role these days and to keep their head down. They were last heard bemoaning that the SNP wanted to "do us all in" around the time of the 2014 referendum and are still the backbone of the Scottish Tory Party. They seemed to be labouring under the delusion that the SNP wanted some form of Mugabe-style land reform. Salmond, as it transpired, came much closer to being Canaan Banana than he ever was to being Mugabe.

I should add that they are the backbone of the _membership_ rather than the cadre of elected politicians, who tend in the main to be jumped up lower middle class wannabes...an unpleasant farrago of military fantasists (Davidson, R), curtain-twitching nonetities (Ross, D) the spectacularly thick (Fraser, M), and other assorted vastly over-promoted local councillors and genuinely mediocre accountants / car salesmen. Jackson Carlaw and Ruth the Mooth can mouth couthy Scots such as _"hud oan" _as well as anyone. I'm sure the membership is grateful that they shoulder that difficult and vulgar burden, secretly hankering for the days when children were strapped for speaking in local dialect.


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2021)

purenarcotic said:


> In contrast, at my school we had an ‘Oxbridge group’ in sixth form where they got extra tutoring, advice on what to expect with the interviews etc. I remember at the time thinking ‘so how is this about merit?’ I don’t think it’s wrong to give people support around interviews / applications, but it’s that process of extreme coaching because of your background... You automatically belong, even if actually you don’t because you haven’t really got what it takes...



...and - often - that coaching is done by Oxbridge graduates, who can spot "one of their own" . Who, in the case of private schools. may well have developed relationships with with Oxbridge colleges' admissions etc. etc.

Even in my own limited experience of teaching in private schools abroad, I found myself developing relationships with the admissions departments if a couple of "leading" Art schools in the UK and France (iirc). They sought me out and cultivated this relationship. Does this happen in State schools?

Further (and this is the sort of area I research) think about the architecture and atmosphere of Oxbridge Colleges' - someone from a private school will feel at home with wood panelling, the art, the carved stone and "stately" feel. In contrast the "atmosphere" of most State schools (IME) is more inclined to echo that of a modern prison.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 20, 2021)

On topic, there's absolutely no point pretending (embarrassingly) to be a member of a class which clearly you are not. Working class people will suss you as a fraud in no time.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2021)

However, that won't necessarily improve their life prospects.


----------



## Sue (Jan 20, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> Oh a posh Scottish accent very definitely does exist...cf. Malcolm Rifkind, various tartan-trewed Lord Lieutenants, circles of advocates and senior bankers, rugby internationals at Murrayfield, Scotland's dozen or so private schools. The accent is instantly recognisable.
> 
> Thankfully it doesn't automatically denote political power as it once did, but it still very much is sodden in cultural & social power. Folk like these tend to have a less public role these days and to keep their head down. They were last heard bemoaning that the SNP wanted to "do us all in" around the time of the 2014 referendum and are still the backbone of the Scottish Tory Party. They seemed to be labouring under the delusion that the SNP wanted some form of Mugabe-style land reform. Salmond, as it transpired, came much closer to being Canaan Banana than he ever was to being Mugabe.
> 
> I should add that they are the backbone of the _membership_ rather than the cadre of elected politicians, who tend in the main to be jumped up lower middle class wannabes...an unpleasant farrago of military fantasists (Davidson, R), curtain-twitching nonetities (Ross, D) the spectacularly thick (Fraser, M), and other assorted vastly over-promoted local councillors and genuinely mediocre accountants / car salesmen. Jackson Carlaw and Ruth the Mooth can mouth couthy Scots such as _"hud oan" _as well as anyone. I'm sure the membership is grateful that they shoulder that difficult and vulgar burden, secretly hankering for the days when children were strapped for speaking in local dialect.



I laughed when I heard Anas Sarwar* on the radio the other day. His current accent is definitely _not _Hutcheson's Grammar.

*Standing for leadership of Scottish Labour, privately educated (as are his children), last seen banging on about the importance of equality. Non-ironically one assumes...









						Anas Sarwar: ‘I’ll rebuild Labour party in Scotland’
					

Glasgow MSP pledges to replace internal wrangling with united purpose as he sets out his stall to succeed Richard Leonard




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 20, 2021)

Sue said:


> I laughed when I heard Anas Sarwar* on the radio the other day. His current accent is definitely _not _Hutcheson's Grammar.
> 
> *Standing for leadership of Scottish Labour, privately educated (as are his children), last seen banging on about the importance of equality. Non-ironically one assumes...
> 
> ...



Yep Monica Lennon would be the smart choice for “Scottish” Labour, which means that a largely cretinous and dwindling membership will plump for Anus 3:1. He’s about as genuine as a Bank of Wales three pound note.

The branch office seem determined to play the role of saluting, forelock- tugging redjacket sergeant, as the Tories seek desperately to delay the final lowering of the Union Jack for a few years more.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 20, 2021)

chilango said:


> In fact the lack of any sort of serious Uni "prep" meant that when I arrived as a "first generation" undergrad I didn't have a clue what to expect or what to do or how to navigate this strange new world, and neither did my parents. The results were pretty catastrophic...



This.  

It makes me angry. My parents gave me everything they could but it wasn't good enough as they didn't have the know how to navigate that world.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> This social mobility by war, I wonder if you could point me to a source which explores it more deeply



subject to the disclaimers that military history isn't my speciality, it's too late and i'm too tired to dig out sources, and that i'm in no way justifying militarisation, conscription or wars, but my understanding is that during the wartime / national service generation of servicemen, a few did get commissioned 'from the ranks' and (depending on your viewpoint) became middle class that way, if that's what was meant.



kebabking said:


> My family's surname in that village in Dorset is spelt three different - and quite impressively different -ways in less than a century...



according to this, william shakespeare spelled his own name differently on different documents. wasn't spelling of most words in english fairly flexible at one point in time?


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 21, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> ...wasn't spelling of most words in english fairly flexible at one point in time?


Judging by what I read on the internet, it still is.


----------



## extra dry (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Don’t give up!


Got to sell the idea first.


----------



## extra dry (Jan 21, 2021)

chilango said:


> ...and - often - that coaching is done by Oxbridge graduates, who can spot "one of their own" . Who, in the case of private schools. may well have developed relationships with with Oxbridge colleges' admissions etc. etc.
> 
> *Even in my own limited experience of teaching in private schools abroad, I found myself developing relationships with the admissions departments if a couple of "leading" Art schools in the UK and France (iirc). They sought me out and cultivated this relationship. Does this happen in State schools?*
> 
> Further (and this is the sort of area I research) think about the architecture and atmosphere of Oxbridge Colleges' - someone from a private school will feel at home with wood panelling, the art, the carved stone and "stately" feel. In contrast the "atmosphere" of most State schools (IME) is more inclined to echo that of a modern prison.



This happened with nearly ever state school I attended. From the north east of England to Scotland.

stuff like, exchange trips, native speaking french and german teachers would spend three to six months teaching classes of clueless 8yrs olds who could just about say
 'hello my name is...'
 'I like the colour ....'
 'the railway ticket is not valid for the underground on Tuesdays or Thursdays...' Madam


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> Yep Monica Lennon would be the smart choice for “Scottish” Labour, which means that a largely cretinous and dwindling membership will plump for Anus 3:1. He’s about as genuine as a Bank of Wales three pound note.
> 
> The branch office seem determined to play the role of saluting, forelock- tugging redjacket sergeant, as the Tories seek desperately to delay the final lowering of the Union Jack for a few years more.


Off topic, but I don’t think it makes any difference at all who leads Scottish Labour.  Their problems are deeper than whoever the person at the top is.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> according to this, william shakespeare spelled his own name differently on different documents. wasn't spelling of most words in english fairly flexible at one point in time?


Back then before everything was computerised you could sign on in different jobcentres, so he did it to keep them off his back. Double bubble for Will


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 21, 2021)

Where are the class boundaries nowadays, and in the days to come? When I was a lad it all seemed clear cut. Manual work made you working class, clerical work made you middle class. Or so it seemed. Huge variations, of course, between e.g. coal miners and bus drivers. 
Nowadays perceptions vary so much. Working on the tills at Tesco might be seen as working class, but the tills at Waitrose are another matter entirely. And Lidl?
With potential mass unemployment on the way, how does that affect the mix? Are unemployed pub barmen the same class as unemployed pub landlords? Does the length of time of the unemployment count?
Does house ownership come into it and how is that affected by the age of the house owner and fluctuations in house prices? If you are in the first year of your mortgage or you own outright, does that make a difference?
And is there variation between different parts of the country? 

I know that Marxist analysis and similar might take no or little account of such human perceptions. But we all do.

(There's at least 7 question marks in that lot, but is it really only one big question or lots of little ones?)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Where are the class boundaries nowadays, and in the days to come? When I was a lad it all seemed clear cut. Manual work made you working class, clerical work made you middle class. Or so it seemed. Huge variations, of course, between e.g. coal miners and bus drivers.
> Nowadays perceptions vary so much. Working on the tills at Tesco might be seen as working class, but the tills at Waitrose are another matter entirely. And Lidl?
> With potential mass unemployment on the way, how does that affect the mix? Are unemployed pub barmen the same class as unemployed pub landlords? Does the length of time of the unemployment count?
> Does house ownership come into it and how is that affected by the age of the house owner and fluctuations in house prices? If you are in the first year of your mortgage or you own outright, does that make a difference?
> ...


does it matter if you paint houses with gloss or oils?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> does it matter if you paint houses with gloss or oils?


Ask the pit painters


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Where are the class boundaries nowadays, and in the days to come? When I was a lad it all seemed clear cut. Manual work made you working class, clerical work made you middle class. Or so it seemed. Huge variations, of course, between e.g. coal miners and bus drivers.
> Nowadays perceptions vary so much. Working on the tills at Tesco might be seen as working class, but the tills at Waitrose are another matter entirely. And Lidl?
> With potential mass unemployment on the way, how does that affect the mix? Are unemployed pub barmen the same class as unemployed pub landlords? Does the length of time of the unemployment count?
> Does house ownership come into it and how is that affected by the age of the house owner and fluctuations in house prices? If you are in the first year of your mortgage or you own outright, does that make a difference?
> ...


You think working the tills' at Waitrose takes you out of the working class?


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> does it matter if you paint houses with gloss or oils?


Farrow and Ball chalk paints only now if you don't want to be associated with the proles


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> You think working the tills' at Waitrose takes you out of the working class?


Human perception, innit. Marx never predicted that.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> You think working the tills' at Waitrose takes you out of the working class?



If you work for Waitrose you are a part owner of the business...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 21, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If you work for Waitrose you are a part owner of the business...



But still on shit pay.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Human perception, innit. Marx never predicted that.


Years back I had some friends who would only shoplift or go kiting in M&S. Lower or middle, middle class?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If you work for Waitrose you are a part owner of the business...


Can you stay in bed and watch the capital accrue?


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If you work for Waitrose you are a part owner of the business...


So they can choose who to hire and fire and set their own terms, conditions and pay? Cool


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

chilango said:


> Reinforcing the mythology of meritocracy and social mobility.
> 
> "I'm not _that_ privileged, just lucky I guess"
> 
> i.e. I deserve my advantage, you deserve your disadvantage.


I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more _demeaning_' or _damaging or limiting _for them (and by extension, the class that  makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else.  And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Can you stay in bed and watch the capital accrue?


marx had a cat called capital and recorded in a letter to engels how he watched it accrue all over his bed one morning


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

My daughter worked for John Lewis for a while. She said she was treated worse there than any other job she’s had.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 21, 2021)

Isn't it the case that the vast majority of the population don't give a stuff about class nowadays?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Marvellous.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Isn't it the case that the vast majority of the population don't give a stuff about class nowadays?


Is it because they think it means whether or not you eat avocados?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Isn't it the case that the vast majority of the population don't give a stuff about class nowadays?


ah but class gives a stuff about them


----------



## kebabking (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Can you stay in bed and watch the capital accrue?



If you stay in bed for quite a long time, perhaps....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> My daughter worked for John Lewis for a while. She said she was treated worse there than any other job she’s had.


by management or customers or both?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> Oh a posh Scottish accent very definitely does exist...cf. Malcolm Rifkind, various tartan-trewed Lord Lieutenants, circles of advocates and senior bankers, rugby internationals at Murrayfield, Scotland's dozen or so private schools. The accent is instantly recognisable.


Is Ken Bruce from Radio 2 one?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> by management or customers or both?


Both. But, mainly management.  She didn’t feel like a “partner” at all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Is Ken Bruce from Radio 2 one?



Yes. Hutchie Grammar accent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Both. But, mainly management.  She didn’t feel like a “partner” at all.


we're all in it together until management drop you in the shit


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more _demeaning_' or _damaging or limiting _for them (and by extension, the class that  makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else.  And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.


I get that, but I can also see why so many of them are pissed off. They've got into huge debt, that they might never pay off, chasing some mad dream that's been pushed at them, that a degree, masters or whatever will get them a fulfilling career with bare money. 

Sorry kidda, get down to B&Q. Them shelves ain't gonna stack themselves


----------



## [62] (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Where are the class boundaries nowadays, and in the days to come? When I was a lad it all seemed clear cut. Manual work made you working class, clerical work made you middle class. Or so it seemed. Huge variations, of course, between e.g. coal miners and bus drivers.



No, I don't really get it anymore either.

I nowadays think of myself as middle class (thus making me extra working class  ), on account of my clerical job and having married into a more solidly middle class family and having a mortgage. I grew up on free school meals and secondhand clothes. I'm very grateful to be relatively shielded from that world and its insecurity now.

Loads of my mates are train drivers. Technically a manual job, but they earn almost double my salary, and the manual element is limited to pressing buttons and switches in an air-conditioned cab. Some of them left school with no qualifications and joined in BR days. A couple of the younger ones went to grammar schools and did A-levels. Their role in society and the 'guild' style unionism of ASLEF also gives them a lot of power, certainly loads more than a Deliveroo rider. Are they still working class?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2021)

[62] said:


> I nowadays think of myself as middle class (thus making me extra working class )


lol 
Agree though, its no longer sufficiently accurate, there are endless contradictions, complexities and grey areas, and I appreciate why Marxists are reluctant to update the categories, but its hardly _scientific_ socialism. And to bring it back to the thread OP, its no wonder people misidentify.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Bit sad when the (then) governor of the bank of england has a better understanding of how class is fundamental and constitutive of our society and so just can't be forgot or moved on from or updated (see new-laboured also) than many lefters:

“If you substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for steam engines, Twitter for the telegraph, you have exactly the same dynamics as existed 150 years ago – when Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto.”


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 21, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Isn't it the case that the vast majority of the population don't give a stuff about class nowadays?


Not according to the research in that BSA study I've been slagging off:
"60% say they are working class, compared with 40% who say they are middle class. This proportion who consider themselves working class has not changed since 1983...
Those who identify as working class are more likely than those who identify as middle class to say that there is a wide divide between social classes (82% compared with 70%). People who see society as divided between a large disadvantaged group and a small privileged elite feel more working class regardless of their actual class position [i.e., their actual class position as defined by the BSA research, which I'm not a fan of]...
only a minority think that it is “not very difficult” to move between classes, and at just over a quarter, the proportion that do take that view has dropped from a little over a third in 2005. This decline is consistent with the claim that the change in the economic climate between 2005 and 2015 has served to make people more aware of class differences. Meanwhile, it is also the case that those who identify as working class are rather more likely to believe movement between classes is “very difficult”. People’s class identity is, on this measure at least, linked to some extent with their class awareness."



[62] said:


> I nowadays think of myself as middle class (thus making me extra working class  ), on account of my clerical job and having married into a more solidly middle class family and having a mortgage. I grew up on free school meals and secondhand clothes. I'm very grateful to be relatively shielded from that world and its insecurity now.
> 
> Loads of my mates are train drivers. Technically a manual job, but they earn almost double my salary, and the manual element is limited to pressing buttons and switches in an air-conditioned cab. Some of them left school with no qualifications and joined in BR days. A couple of the younger ones went to grammar schools and did A-levels. Their role in society and the 'guild' style unionism of ASLEF also gives them a lot of power, certainly loads more than a Deliveroo rider. Are they still working class?


Yes, what you're describing there are working class people who've done a good job at defending their collective interests (leaving aside for the moment whatever criticisms we may have of ASLEF's guild unionism). If the rail bosses successfully managed to break the rail unions, slash pay and rewrite their Ts&Cs, would that then re-working-classify train drivers?


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

The govenor of the Bank of England will always have a better understanding of class. Its central to their function


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> I get that, but I can also see why so many of them are pissed off. They've got into huge debt, that they might never pay off, chasing some mad dream that's been pushed at them, that a degree, masters or whatever will get them a fulfilling career with bare money.
> 
> Sorry kidda, get down to B&Q. Them shelves ain't gonna stack themselves


tbh graduates earn on average £100,000 more (if female) or £130,000 more (if male) after loan repayments factored in (Graduates enjoy £100k earnings bonus over lifetime.).
assuming a career of 40 years and a 35 hour week

for women
(100,000/40)/(52 x 35) = £1.37 an hour more than someone without a degree

for men
(130,000/40)/(52 x 35) = £1.79 an hour more than someone without a degree

which i wouldn't have thought a very great incentive


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

It’s irritating that _every_ time we discuss this people think that because Marx’s Capital discusses textile mills and not call centres that his analysis has been superseded by conditions.  It hasn’t.  

Read the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.  The painters and decorators are Uber drivers.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 21, 2021)

Isn't it part of the problem that people seem to be conflating caste with class?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

fishfinger said:


> Isn't it part of the problem that people seem to be conflating caste with class?


Status not caste, but even that can and has solidified into effectively operating as caste at times/places. Was one of the great strengths of the labour movement historically and bugbear of many prominent left-intellectuals - perry anderson in particular. Which led to many a good finger-wagging and shaking of the intellectuals heads.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

fishfinger said:


> Isn't it part of the problem that people seem to be conflating caste with class?


_But I work for Apple Stores and wear Gucci._


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh graduates earn on average £100,000 more (if female) or £130,000 more (if male) after loan repayments factored in (Graduates enjoy £100k earnings bonus over lifetime.).
> assuming a career of 40 years and a 35 hour week
> 
> for women
> ...


Taking into account those without qualifications that will never or seldom work and spend a life on the margins, the difference between those with degrees and the rest of us scum will be even smaller. I don't have figures and am too lazy to search them out, but I suspect that with the increase in kids accessing higher education and the lack of decent opportunities that that gap will narrow further over the coming years


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yes, what you're describing there are working class people who've done a good job at defending their collective interests (leaving aside for the moment whatever criticisms we may have of ASLEF's guild unionism). If the rail bosses successfully managed to break the rail unions, slash pay and rewrite their Ts&Cs, would that then re-working-classify train drivers?



It would shift their position in the economic hierarchy, so yes "re-working-classify" might be a good term. Not sure about the hyphens though. But no job that typically sees people paying top-rate tax can be considered working-class.


----------



## extra dry (Jan 21, 2021)

For as a definition of working and middle class, look for things where do people go on holiday, that is if the ruling masters will give you any holidays...



nogojones said:


> Taking into account those without qualifications that will never or seldom work and spend a life on the margins, the difference between those with degrees and the rest of us scum will be even smaller. I don't have figures and am too lazy to search them out, but I suspect that with the increase in kids accessing higher education and the lack of decent opportunities that that gap will narrow further over the coming years


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> It would shift their position in the economic hierarchy, so yes "re-working-classify" might be a good term. Not sure about the hyphens though. But no job that typically sees people paying top-rate tax can be considered working-class.


Na. If you and your workmates are tight enough to win decent conditions, then you're a shining example of what the WC should aspire to. I don't go for that labour aristocracy thing. More power to them


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> I get that, but I can also see why so many of them are pissed off. They've got into huge debt, that they might never pay off, chasing some mad dream that's been pushed at them, that a degree, masters or whatever will get them a fulfilling career with bare money.
> 
> Sorry kidda, get down to B&Q. Them shelves ain't gonna stack themselves


It's not them in that situation i'm on about really, but those who talk for them or activist for them. _You know these kids could have been real humans, real people. The others, well...
_
It would be beyond stupid  politically to pretend that this is the default thinking amongst the first lot. The second lot, well, it's just the age-old unexamined but well established prejudice of many well meaning middle class people isn't it?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 21, 2021)

I reckon many U.K. folk claim ‘traditional’ working class heritage in the same way the yanks claim Irish heritage.  Just by numbers alone pretty much everyone will have a great great grandad or two that worked down the pit or in the mills. I’ve heard people claiming this sort of ancestry many times.

One of my teachers at school asked us what class we thought we were and just about everyone thought they were middle class. She then told us we were all working class by background (with one exception) because all our parents worked rather than being business owners etc.  It’s because there are these traditional working class stereotypes and identity that people don’t consider what their actual place is in the scheme of things is.  Pretty much the only time this was covered in school. Weirdly the teacher was an out Liberal Democrat/SDLP supporter (the only teachers at my school that mentioned their politics were Lib Dems, usually with a bit of smugness).


----------



## kebabking (Jan 21, 2021)

fishfinger said:


> Isn't it part of the problem that people seem to be conflating caste with class?



Or that some are simply unable to grasp that the word 'class' can have more than one meaning?

If you use a strictly Marxist definition of Class then pretty everyone is working class - I certainly am - but that is not the only _reasonable _analysis for looking at society as it stands, and - TBH - it's not a particularly useful one in many ways.

Another word might have been better, so as to not confuse the two sets of analysis, but it's too late for that now..


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> I reckon many U.K. folk claim ‘traditional’ working class heritage in the same way the yanks claim Irish heritage.  Just by numbers alone pretty much everyone will have a great great grandad or two that worked down the pit or in the mills. I’ve heard people claiming this sort of ancestry many times.
> 
> One of my teachers at school asked us what class we thought we were and just about everyone thought they were middle class. She then told us we were all working class by background (with one exception) because all our parents worked rather than being business owners etc.  It’s because there are these traditional working class stereotypes and identity that people don’t consider what their actual place is in the scheme of things is.  Pretty much the only time this was covered in school. Weirdly the teacher was an out Liberal Democrat/SDLP supporter (the only teachers at my school that mentioned their politics were Lib Dems, usually with a bit of smugness).


The UK is the only country in the world where the trad urban w/c ever constituted a majority of the population - and it did that for many decades of the midde of the 20th century. It would be very odd for a huge amount of people not to have w/c roots in the family.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> Na. If you and your workmates are tight enough to win decent conditions, then you're a shining example of what the WC should aspire to. *I don't go for that labour aristocracy thing. More power to them*



I think this is an interseting area that I'm not too familiar with. I wouldn't have said that winning better conditions was an example of labour aristocracy, however something like buying your council house would be. Do you have any recommended reading around this?


----------



## chilango (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more _demeaning_' or _damaging or limiting _for them (and by extension, the class that  makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else.  And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.



Yeah.

I think that has a lot to with internalisation of a the values of meritocratic, individualised, social mobility.

The whole "wise choices" thing. Your graduates, your PhDs etc. have "played the game", acquired the credentials, educational capital (and social and cultural capitals that come with that) and have not seen this rewarded. 

For some (of a more m/c background) it'll be the failure of the social reproductive mechanisms that they "feel entitled" to.  For others from w/c or less secure m/c backgrounds it'll be the denial of the route to social mobility they'd promised.

I admit I regularly feel this, absolutely. I can't step completely out of the mythologies I live within.

...and, yes, it totally plays into the deserving/undeserving thing.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 21, 2021)

Hey but at least there was a round of applause. Every week! I mean! Who could ask for more.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> Na. If you and your workmates are tight enough to win decent conditions, then you're a shining example of what the WC should aspire to. I don't go for that labour aristocracy thing. More power to them


Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.


That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO_ that's _a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> I think this is an interseting area that I'm not too familiar with. I wouldn't have said that winning better conditions was an example of labour aristocracy, however something like buying your council house would be. Do you have any recommended reading around this?


Reading around this is something I did years ago and a lot of stuff I read I didn't really chime with. It's more from personal experience. For the first half of my life I worked in well paid traditional heavy industry, with 100% unionisation and a very much "us and them" aproach to management. We earned much more than mates who had degrees and worked in offices and respected professions. Pretty much all of us were able to buy our own houses with ease and there was a good proportion of us who would vote tory, hold pretty shitty views, but still remain totally solid, never grass and work together subvert managements goals. This was based on decades of strong unionisation though and that's hard to just conjure up in the more fragmented workforce we have today.

I recall reading New Capitalism by Kevin Doogan a couple of years back that tried to challenge the view that the fragmentation of the labour market is the inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. It's pretty dry though and very Euro/US centric given that it's the emerging economies that hold the bulk of the worlds workers today, but it's nice to see a challenge to those ideas


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.


Na, it's based on if you own or control the means of production or not


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO_ that's _a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.


the lesson i always pass on is that if they want higher wages they can become a tube driver and join the rmt or they could join the union where they work. the remuneration tube drivers receive is due in no small measure to their combative unions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> Reading around this is something I did years ago and a lot of stuff I read didn't really chime with. It's more from personal experience. For the first half of my life I worked in well paid traditional heavy industry, with 100% unionisation and a very much "us and them" aproach to management. We earned much more than mates who had degrees and worked in offices and respected professions. Pretty much all of us were able to buy our own houses with ease and there was a good proportion of us who would vote tory, hold pretty shitty views, but still remain totally solid, never grass and work together subvert managements goals. This was based on decades of strong unionisation though and that's hard to just conjure up in the more fragmented workforce we have today.
> 
> I recall reading New Capitalism by Kevin Doogan a couple of years back that tried to challenge the view that the fragmentation of the labour market is the inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. It's pretty dry though and very Euro/US centric given that it's the emerging economies that hold the bulk of the worlds workers today, but it's nice to see a challenge to those ideas


The fragmentation was a planned attack to exactly that power you talk about. And it happened on the social/territorial level too. This was pure counter-attack. Choices. Capitalist choices to decompose that power and recompose their own.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> The fragmentation was a planned attack to exactly that power you talk about. And it happened on the social/territorial level too. This was pure counter-attack. Choices. Capitalist choices to decompose that power and recompose their own.


absolutely


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 21, 2021)

And "we're all middle class now" was part of that attack. Done by Prescott to cosy up to Blair and way before him by sociologists to try and deny Marxist analysis a voice.

All to the same end.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> absolutely


And in turn, that power that came from concentration of the class (at work, socially and housing etc) was a w/c response to previous capital attacks on the power of the then existing w/c through deskilling, routinisation, standardisation, theft of workplace knowledge by neutral technicians in pay of capital etc. So round and round we go, regardless of people saying the class war is over, all middle class now etc


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more _demeaning_' or _damaging or limiting _for them (and by extension, the class that  makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else.  And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.


I've experienced this first hand with some people who've have asked me about my eldest; post-Masters he has a job as a porter. It's his choice, he enjoys his work and seems as happy as he's been in years (albeit on shit pay). I think his contentment in part derives from working and organising with those from his own class. The more patronising responses have sometimes be vocalised as "Oh, but I thought..." but for others the look on their face and silence have spoken volumes.

There are plenty of reasons why it's piss-poor that so many youngsters have been led up the garden path to debt and left with qualifications they can't work with, but perceiving working class jobs as inherently more demeaning or psychologically damaging for graduates etc. does often appear to come from a place of class prejudice.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.





nogojones said:


> Na, it's based on if you own or control the means of production or not


Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO_ that's _a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.


No, it would be socio-economic. Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad attitude, it's an expression of resentment at well-off people seeking to further increase their economic advantage.

But how middle-class people should be viewed and treated is a separate question to the classification itself anyway. Train driver is a good example of an occupation which might once have been considered working class but which, in the here-and-now, comes with too great a degree of financial reward and consequent economic choice not to be considered middle-class, without rendering class meaningless beyond cultural definitions.


----------



## chilango (Jan 21, 2021)

I don't fucking like Althusser


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.


And this kind of thing does happen, of course - what has been won can also be lost. Eurostar is a good example that I know a bit about. When it was first started, the drivers and guards were on good money and conditions. The company has since changed hands and new employees, particularly the guards, are on very different contracts, which are nowhere near as good as the old ones. Those on the old contracts have been _encouraged_ to take redundancy.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.


But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.

Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.



the other angle to this specific case is that there isn't a huge pool of unemployed train drivers who could do the job tomorrow.

railways aren't quite my patch, but i understand that the process from 'coming off the street' to being a fully fledged train driver working on your own is a matter of months, not weeks.

it's also one of the few jobs where the privatisation / fragmentation of the industry has gone to the workers' favour, as some train companies have tried to cut back on training get by with poaching existing drivers from other train companies (and some wind down training towards the end of a franchise giving the new incumbent a problem that takes time to solve) and towards the end of BR days there was a demographic problem waiting to happen as they were taking on less new drivers as the freight / parcels side of things wound down.

in pure market terms, there used to be (broadly) one monopoly purchaser for train drivers' labour (or two if you count the london underground) - now there are a more purchasers out there seeking a relatively rare commodity.

in a heck of a lot of jobs, management really could replace significant chunks of the staff within days...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the other angle to this specific case is that there isn't a huge pool of unemployed train drivers who could do the job tomorrow.
> 
> railways aren't quite my patch, but i understand that the process from 'coming off the street' to being a fully fledged train driver working on your own is a matter of months, not weeks.
> 
> ...


Yeah, compare and contrast with bus drivers, who are paid a fucking pittance given the level of responsibility the job entails.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.
> 
> Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.


I think you have a point - taking a look at your bank balance is a decent start when determining your relationship to the means of production.

But isn't there also another point - that many more people are 'working class' under any coherent definition of the term than might think they are? There's even a new term for certain sections of that group - the 'precarious middle classes'. Thinking politically, I would have thought there is a need to emphasise the commonality between people in this group, not any differences, precisely so that those in the 'precarious middle classes' find solidarity with the striking tube drivers rather than their bosses.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.
> 
> Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.


Yes. I think that some self employed sole traders do have a slightly different class position. These days I'm self employed and my struggle isn't with my boss for better pay, it's competing with other self employed traders for customers. I'd be over-aggrandizing myself to call myself middle class as I only earn £10-15k (and fuck all for the last year) and the work I do is mostly manual and not regarded as high status in anyones eyes, but there's no way I could organise collectively to improve my conditions. For the greater good of society I would align myself with workers struggles, but that's not a given for people in my class position. If anything I'm now in the traditional class base for fascism, being stretched by the forces of the market.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, compare and contrast with bus drivers, who are paid a fucking pittance given the level of responsibility the job entails.


and the train drivers don't have to deal with the general public or even steer the train. The petty bourgeois bastards


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.

(That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 21, 2021)

chilango said:


> I don't fucking like Althusser




?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.


I feel your frustration mate. I think it's impossible for us to take part in these threads beyond either arguing that a) this isn't what is meant by class or shouldn't and here's why or b) bringing out the effects of what class really is but still having to do it in terms of the non-class understanding of class - whether that's the cultural nonsense or the financial nonsense which has recently been offered as an attack on that cultural understanding. I think we just have to accept these things are going to happen and use the opp to ask a few other questions/make a few other points. They are pretty crap usually - as long experience should tell us.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I feel your frustration mate. I think it's impossible for us to take part in these threads beyond either arguing that a) this isn't what is meant by class or shouldn't and here's why or b) bringing out the effects of what class really is but still having to do it in terms of the non-class understanding of class - whether that's the cultural nonsense or the financial nonsense which has recently been offered as an attack on that cultural understanding. I think we just have to accept these things are going to happen and use the opp to ask a few other questions/make a few other points. They are pretty crap usually - as long experience should tell us.


Maybe I'm a masochist, but you have to keep plodding along and have these discussions. The ruling class and their institutions try their best to obscure class positions. It can take a lot of head swiveling to get your noggin around the prevaling views, when you're being pickled with shit like salaries, nice offices and avocados.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.
> 
> (That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).


Sorry Danny, I sometimes get carried away and forget to ask who's chairing.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> the work I do is mostly manual and not regarded as high status in anyones eyes, but there's no way I could organise collectively to improve my conditions.


It might be unrealistic, but I doubt it is impossible in principle.


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.
> 
> (That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).



I read your posts - this one in particular which was helpful thanks:



danny la rouge said:


> Its role in the structure of capital is what’s important:



I have a question though if you don't mind? If I understand it correctly, what distinguishes the mc from the wc (in the Marxist sense) is that the wc carries out the labour and the mc supervises the wc. I can see how that makes sense when a product is being produced.

However in the service economy, what is the 'labour'? In practical terms it seems to me that everyone (including supervisors) are labouring. I can see that in theory you could have someone whose role is solely supervisory, but in practice I think that's pretty rare. In that case wouldn't most employees - including supervisors - be wc?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> I read your posts - this one in particular which was helpful thanks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


foreman is the loneliest job. literally everyone thinks you're a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

discokermit said:


> foreman is the loneliest job. literally everyone thinks you're a cunt.


Don't have to buy rounds though i suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> I read your posts - this one in particular which was helpful thanks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Labour - in this thing you're asking about - means 'productive labour'- that means activity that produces the thing called surplus value. Not just work. Surplus value is the exploitative relationship where you are engaged in say - 10 hours work, yet you are paid for that work by 1 hours work. The other 9 going to your boss. That 9 hours is the surplus value. Just saying that we all work is offering nothing.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Don't have to buy rounds though i suppose.


when i was a teenager we had one who was a right cunt. one night his sierra cosworth lookalike was nicked, he came to work all blotchy faced from crying. "some bastards nicked me car", he announced to us, voice breaking and trembling. i said "you think you feel bad, think about how bad the robber will feel when he finds out it ay a real cosworth!" and the four of us who worked under him howled like monkeys with laughter.
 i got sacked two weeks later. lol.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2021)

we used to wipe our dicks on his sandwiches when he left the cabin where we had our break, which was also his office.
teenage lads with their dicks out whooping and hollering as they ceremonially passed round his ham with extra cheese and wiped their nobs on em. fun times.
got chlamydia two weeks later. lol.


----------



## campanula (Jan 21, 2021)

One of my (vague) definitions of class is predicated on the relationship of labour to capital...but in my mind, the categories of wc, middle class and so on, are determined by an older distinction relating to property. The insane volatility and rampant inflation in the housing market, where a home-owner earns more in equity than salary, where the conditions for home ownership are cut loose from wage earnings, has, for me, illuminated clear class divisions - between owners and renters.
This is only a supposition on my part though...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 21, 2021)

kebabking said:


> If you work for Waitrose you are a part owner of the business...



As a 'partner' working the tills do you own enough capital to live off the surplus value extracted from others?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> I read your posts - this one in particular which was helpful thanks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see butchersapron has already answered this. Happy to come back to it if it needs further clarification.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> I read your posts - this one in particular which was helpful thanks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I posted this earlier in the thread, but think it's relevant to your question - I do think there's not enough talk/analysis of the whole supervisor thing, but thought this article about supermarket supervisors was a really good one: Human Shields and Supermarket Managers


> It’s not enough for workers to have a grievance in order for them to mobilise - they also need to have a clear sense of what actor is to blame for that grievance, and what they can do to force that actor to change what they’re doing. The muddying of managerial waters is one key way to prevent this transition from passivity to organisation. The human shields play a very effective role.
> 
> For instance, if you’re a worker and you get a last minute text asking you to cover a shift on a day off, your instinct is sod it, it’s my day off and I’m gonna play Fifa. In some situations you might be pressured by management bullying, the threat of reduced hours or how broke you are - but at my workplace that wasn’t how it worked. Instead, the thing that drove you to go into work was the sense of guilt that if you don’t do it your duty manager is gonna be working a staff shift, after having already done 40 hours this week. So you turn off Fifa and put on your trousers.
> 
> There is no solution to problems like these, until shop floor workers and low level supervisors overcome the false distinction between one another and begin recognising that one can turn into the other literally overnight. So if something is in the interests of shop floor workers it is more than likely in the interest of low-level supervisors and vice versa. The proletarianisation of management creates false divisions within the working class that need to be overcome through organisation.


Callum Cant's book on riding for Deliveroo also has some interesting stuff about how this works when your boss is an app - the whole layer of managerial/supervisory positions has basically been abolished in these companies, and instead they rely on the piecework system to get people to supervise/discipline themselves because the faster you work, you more you can earn. Obviously, I don't think it'd be useful to say that Deliveroo couriers are middle-class because they supervise themselves, although I'm sure someone somewhere would probably make that argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Yes the notes from below from oxbridge view.


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Labour - in this thing you're asking about - means 'productive labour'- that means activity that produces the thing called surplus value. Not just work. Surplus value is the exploitative relationship where you are engaged in say - 10 hours work, yet you are paid for that work by 1 hours work. The other 9 going to your boss. That 9 hours is the surplus value. Just saying that we all work is offering nothing.



OK I think I understand that. But wouldn't any employee create surplus value (assuming the company is run rationally) because otherwise there is no point employing them?

Also, if the employee is paid for all of his work (i.e. he gets 10 hours in your example) then he isn't being exploited. But that means that his position in the class structure is dependent on his wage which I thought wasn't the case.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 21, 2021)

Do we need to have a 12 page thread about "what class are Notes from Below editors/contributors?" Also more seriously do you have any other recommendations for stuff that talks about the whole diffusion/proletarianisation of management thing, because it feels like a fairly big and important topic but I think that apart from that one article I'd genuinely struggle to think of anything else I've ever seen that even talks about it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> OK I think I understand that. But wouldn't any employee create surplus value (assuming the company is run rationally) because otherwise there is no point employing them?
> 
> Also, if the employee is paid for all of his work (i.e. he gets 10 hours in your example) then he isn't being exploited. But that means that his position in the class structure is dependent on his wage which I thought wasn't the case.


Where does the profit come from? There must be a profit.

No, only certain work produces surplus value. 

Where  this magic surplus appears from is key. It's called exploitation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> OK I think I understand that. But wouldn't any employee create surplus value (assuming the company is run rationally) because otherwise there is no point employing them?
> 
> Also, if the employee is paid for all of his work (i.e. he gets 10 hours in your example) then he isn't being exploited. But that means that his position in the class structure is dependent on his wage which I thought wasn't the case.


No, they are employed for 10 hours - during that period they produce their own wage + many hours work/value. This + is surplus value.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Do we need to have a 12 page thread about "what class are Notes from Below editors/contributors?" Also more seriously do you have any other recommendations for stuff that talks about the whole diffusion/proletarianisation of management thing, because it feels like a fairly big and important topic but I think that apart from that one article I'd genuinely struggle to think of anything else I've ever seen that even talks about it?


I think a few posts is enough ta.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Do we need to have a 12 page thread about "what class are Notes from Below editors/contributors?" Also more seriously do you have any other recommendations for stuff that talks about the whole diffusion/proletarianisation of management thing, because it feels like a fairly big and important topic but I think that apart from that one article I'd genuinely struggle to think of anything else I've ever seen that even talks about it?


Which ones are mates then?


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Where does the profit come from? There must be a profit.
> 
> No, only certain work produces surplus value.
> 
> Where  this magic surplus appears from is key. It's called exploitation.



So any work that produces a profit is work that creates surplus value?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> So any work that produces a profit is work that creates surplus value?


No.  Surplus value is not profit. Can make plenty profit via non surplus value means.

Capitalism does not just equal making money. It means making money and ideologically ordering society in a very specific way. That way is the exploitation talked about earlier.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> So any work that produces a profit is work that creates surplus value?


What is a profit?


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

OK, I'll try again - so surplus value is value that the worker could have got for himself had the exploitative relationship not existed but instead is taken by the owner? And that's different from profit because profit depends on factors which lie outside of the relationship (e.g. price of raw materials, what the owner sells the finished product for etc.)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.
> 
> (That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).


I always read your posts, in the vain hope of hypnotism tips


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> OK, I'll try again - so surplus value is value that the worker could have got for himself had the exploitative relationship not existed but instead is taken by the owner? And that's different from profit because profit depends on factors which lie outside of the relationship (e.g. price of raw materials, what the owner sells the finished product for etc.)?


No. You're thinking in moral terms. It's not.

1)Pay you for a days work.
2) my wages are paid in an hour
3) 7 hours free


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

OK I'll go and do some reading.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I always read your posts, in the vain hope of hypnotism tips


My corgi just barked "No war but the class war at me"


----------



## Flavour (Jan 21, 2021)

Tbf I thought that book about being a deliveroo rider in Brighton was OK, even if it did contain the between-the-lines message of the PhD studying writer obviously being destined for greater things and this being a bit demeaning, like you say butchersapron - in the absence of books written about the rider experience written by people who don't _aspire... _Then again I doubt you'll find many riders who don't think of the job being anything more than a temporary stopgap - - that's part of why the exploitation works so well (not just here, see also casual hospitality jobs worked by a mix of students /immigrants) when the exploited are encouraged to grin and bear it as some sort of coming-of-age experience


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> No. You're thinking in moral terms. It's not.
> 
> 1)Pay you for a days work.
> 2) my wages are paid in an hour
> 3) 7 hours free


This works fine for explaining the relationship between workers and capitalists, but not so much when you introduce the idea of some of those workers being middle, as distinct from working, class. So the question is what makes this distinction. As indicated, I don't think it can done successfully except by reference to money.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

.


hitmouse said:


> Do we need to have a 12 page thread about "what class are Notes from Below editors/contributors?" Also more seriously do you have any other recommendations for stuff that talks about the whole diffusion/proletarianisation of management thing, because it feels like a fairly big and important topic but I think that apart from that one article I'd genuinely struggle to think of anything else I've ever seen that even talks about it?


The whole point of this is that material conditions have a large say in what you think and how you act - what the working class is doing, how it acts - is basic to this then. What and how these people decide to investigate from  below is 100% relevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> This works fine for explaining the relationship between workers and capitalists, but not so much when you introduce the idea of some of those workers being middle, as distinct from working, class. So the question is what makes this distribution. As indicated, I don't think it can done successfully except by reference to money.


In your limited frame of reference.  Equally in mine/ours. We're recoginisng it. You're doing it twice wrong.


----------



## xenon (Jan 21, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the other angle to this specific case is that there isn't a huge pool of unemployed train drivers who could do the job tomorrow.
> 
> railways aren't quite my patch, but i understand that the process from 'coming off the street' to being a fully fledged train driver working on your own is a matter of months, not weeks.
> 
> ...



and in fact it used to take longer to be trained as a driver. people from my dad‘s generation, starting as guards. firemen - well when steam was still a thing. The usual downward pressure on wages and increased knowledge and skills required as different rolling stock electronic systems were brought in. fortunately Aslef it’s a pretty strong union, at least at the branch my dad was a member of. Albeit over the years, there were tensions with  drivers in some areas voting for short-term benefit in some different areas of the Country. The old divide and rule.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> In your limited frame of reference.  Equally in mine/ours. We're recoginisng it. You're doing it twice wrong.


Seems obvious when you say it like that


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 21, 2021)

nogojones said:


> I recall reading New Capitalism by Kevin Doogan a couple of years back that tried to challenge the view that the fragmentation of the labour market is the inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. It's pretty dry though and very Euro/US centric given that it's the emerging economies that hold the bulk of the worlds workers today, but it's nice to see a challenge to those ideas



Thanks, spotted this review on A****n.

1.0 out of 5 stars Unfortunately the book has such an awful smell, that ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 13 September 2014
Verified Purchase
Unfortunately the book has such an awful smell, that gives me headaches which is preventing me to read it. This is a big inconvenient because the term is starting my readings are behind and I have spent my money uselessly.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> OK, I'll try again - so surplus value is value that the worker could have got for himself had the exploitative relationship not existed but instead is taken by the owner? And that's different from profit because profit depends on factors which lie outside of the relationship (e.g. price of raw materials, what the owner sells the finished product for etc.)?


Forget about the implementation detail of it and just deal with the basics. Imagine furthering your own interests in some way by building on top of someone else's efforts; it doesn't matter all that much how exactly. Then generalise this by thinking about how you would extend this fundamental idea from beyond a specific scenario concerning one individual and to a broad system, turning it into machinery.

'Profit' is a potential output of this system, but it's not the system itself.


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Forget about the implementation detail of it and just deal with the basics. Imagine furthering your own interests in some way by building on top of someone else's efforts; it doesn't matter all that much how exactly. Then generalise this by thinking about how you would extend this fundamental idea from beyond a specific scenario concerning one individual and to a broad system, turning it into machinery.
> 
> 'Profit' is a potential output of this system, but it's not the system itself.



I understand it in those general terms but that doesn’t help me understand why a mc supervisor is different to the wc worker, particularly in a service industry.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> I understand it in those general terms but that doesn’t help me understand why a mc supervisor is different to the wc worker, particularly in a service industry.


It doesn't need to be a binary, does it. The classic supervisor position exists because it's a necessary implement to keep the labour machine going and extract the maximum from it. The role is built upon the existence of other labourers, but it's also usually labour itself, and managed labour at that.


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2021)

mauvais said:


> It doesn't need to be a binary, does it. The classic supervisor position exists because it's a necessary implement to keep the labour machine going and extract the maximum from it. The role is built upon the existence of other labourers, but it's also usually labour itself, and managed labour at that.



Cheers. I need to do the reading danny la rouge gave me.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Does nobody read my posts?  I answer all these points every single time.  But people keep saying the same things.  It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.
> 
> (That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).


It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close. Given that the thread title doesn't mention his Marxness perhaps that's not surprising.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close.



Thing is, _Capital _was written well over 100 years ago and the world has changed a lot since then. We live with history Marx had not seen. Concepts of class have had to evolve, are continuing to evolve, but in strictly capitalist terms your class describes _your relationship to Capital and the means of producing it_. Do you produce _surplus value_ by your work? Who for? Does anyone produce it for you? etc. Surplus Value is a big concept in Capital, in brief it's _the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power_ (from wikipedia)

Once we have that and establish an individual's relationship to that process (given context specifics) then we can say what _class _they belong in.

Services complicate things a little, but so far, nothing about identity. That comes later when someone realizes you can have more power over the working class if you break them into small groups all bickering over ethnicity, sex and sexual preferences. Not sure whose idea it was, but by now even _working class_ can be an identity. And if you say it's about relationship to capital _yawn boring i mean who cares about that stuff any more?_

I'm tired, I'm fucking off now.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 21, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Thing is, _Capital _was written well over 100 years ago and the world has changed a lot since then. We live with history Marx had not seen. Concepts of class have had to evolve, are continuing to evolve, but in strictly capitalist terms your class describes _your relationship to Capital and the means of producing it_. Do you produce _surplus value_ by your work? Who for? Does anyone produce it for you? etc. Surplus Value is a big concept in Capital, in brief it's _the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power_ (from wikipedia)
> 
> Once we have that and establish an individual's relationship to that process (given context specifics) then we can say what _class _they belong in.
> 
> ...


We've always been broken into small bickering groups. That didn't start with capitalism. We've always given ourselves, or been given, a bunch of identities which we may choose between or have foisted upon us. My father in law was born in a small village in Bedfordshire, bitterly divided in his youth between the 'top enders' and the 'bottom enders'. No-one decided that it would be a good idea to divide the working class youth of his village into two warring factions. It just happened that way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close. Given that the thread title doesn't mention his Marxness perhaps that's not surprising.


The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong.  I was half joking about my despondency, but the fact is that I have had lengthy discussions over the years with parties to that conversation, explaining the Marxian position on just the issues being raised.  One of the threads has already been linked to. 

All I was saying is, it looks daft when you’ve had two decades’ worth of conversations about a topic and you still don’t understand it. Marx takes a bit of effort, but 20 years?  No.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Marx takes a bit of effort, but 20 years?  No.


How about 40 years? Would that be long enough?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> How about 40 years? Would that be long enough?


Are you haggling _up_?


----------



## Raheem (Jan 21, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong.


Danny, you were undoubtedly discussing in Marxian terms, but I haven't mentioned Marx.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 22, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> hilariously, being a graduate of a prestigious theatre school his very own self.
> ok no, maybe just alumnus, unsure if he graduated or what with. a song, certainly.


does being a graduate make a person middle class?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Danny, you were undoubtedly discussing in Marxian terms, but I haven't mentioned Marx.


Not by name, but you did say “under _this_ definition of class”.  


Raheem said:


> But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.
> 
> Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.



Anyway, goodnight. Sleep well. It’s another day already.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong.


I wasn't. I thought I was discussing definitions of class very generally. I certainly didn't think I was only discussing a Marxian definition of class.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Not by name, but you did say “under _this_ definition of class”.


Indeed, under any definition of class positing that no-one who has a boss can be middle class, the ground is marshmallow. I don't believe that's even close to a Marxian position anyway.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 22, 2021)

One class is exploited and damaged another gets fat off the injutice and oppression it entails.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

Well you all damn well _should_ be discussing Marx.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2021)

Let the Christian democrats speak!


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 22, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> does being a graduate make a person middle class?



I don't know. Some would say yes becausegetting a degree puts you by default in a professional-managerial class, but it probably depends more in that graduate's relationship to Capital. Which will vary.



Raheem said:


> Indeed, under any definition of class positing that* no-one who has a boss can be middle class,* the ground is marshmallow.



Who said *that*? In any case it sounds wrong to me. I like marshmallow though.

(I don't even know why I'm chiming in, I'm thick as shit politically. I get out of my depth really quickly then regret having any opinions at all...)


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 22, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> does being a graduate make a person middle class?


It goes like this:-
1st class degree - Upper Class
2:1 - Upper Middle Class
2:2 - Lower Middle Class
3rd - Working Class
Failed - Lumpenproletariat
Went to art college instead - Artisan
Agricultural college - Peasantry
None of the above - déclassé element


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 22, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> hilariously, being a graduate of a prestigious theatre school his very own self.
> ok no, maybe just alumnus, unsure if he graduated or what with. a song, certainly.



Jarvis Cocker, who I made my remark about, as a wealthy, famous pop-star, published author and TV celebrity, with a virtually inexhaustible source of Surplus Value of his own and (no doubt) a reasonable pool of Wealth from which to draw, is not Working Class, except that he might _choose to identify as_ working class because of feels. 

How much presenting that identity as his public image has benefitted him or continues to, in material terms, isn't really the point, though I imagine it has and does. The question that arises for me is, could it be considered _cultural appropriation,_ for a wealthy, successful individual to continue to identify publicly as working class long after their actual relation to Capital has changed, massively and fundamentally?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Well you all damn well _should_ be discussing Marx.


Is that Marx (highly dubious individual), Marxism (of many varieties, often disastrous), or Marxist economics (hard work even if basically correct)? And is there a relationship between those three different things?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Is that Marx (highly dubious individual), Marxism (of many varieties, often disastrous), or Marxist economics (hard work even if basically correct)? And is there a relationship between those three different things?


The last.  

Yes.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 22, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> My father in law was born in a small village in Bedfordshire, bitterly divided in his youth between the 'top enders' and the 'bottom enders'.



Which one? I'm from Bedfordshire, spent my whole childhood there. As it seems did whole generations of my family before me for hundreds of years, a family of agricultural labourers. Our small town was bitterly divided but between working class and the snobby middle class. There wasn't a lot of mixing which at least gave me an early introduction into what class may mean to some people.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 22, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> We've always been broken into small bickering groups. That didn't start with capitalism. We've always given ourselves, or been given, a bunch of identities which we may choose between or have foisted upon us.



_Always_ is a very big word here, but even if true, would that stop people looking to maintain their social privilege from exploiting the situation? Making it worse, deepening the divisions with lies and manipulation? Like _always?_

To clarify, when I wrote _someone_, I didn't really mean any particular person.

But when, finally, a large number of people at the bottom of the pile finally put their identity differences aside and organize to win better terms and conditions for their entire Class .. what better way to destroy that than by reminding them, _But wait, aren't you all different kinds of people?_

So yes, capitalism has a lot to do with it.


----------



## chilango (Jan 22, 2021)

[


danny la rouge said:


> The last.
> 
> Yes.



As an aside, I'm dipping into Cleaver's "33 lessons on Capital" a bit at the moment. I'm finding it really good and helpful.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

chilango said:


> [
> 
> 
> As an aside, I'm dipping into Cleaver's "33 lessons on Capital" a bit at the moment. I'm finding it really good and helpful.


It is good, isn’t it? I haven’t read it all, but have similarly been dipping in and out.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 22, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Which one? I'm from Bedfordshire, spent my whole childhood there. As it seems did whole generations of my family before me for hundreds of years, a family of agricultural labourers. Our small town was bitterly divided but between working class and the snobby middle class. There wasn't a lot of mixing which at least gave me an early introduction into what class may mean to some people.


Whoops! I meant Buckinghamshire, though the village of Lavendon is near the county borders.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 22, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Whoops! I meant Buckinghamshire, though the village of Lavendon is near the county borders.



Well I've just learned Lavendon is Buckinghamshire. I thought it was Northamptonshire because I used to cycle through it from Bedford to Northampton, so I do know it.

I remember it as extremely posh, much, much more posh than Sandy where I'm from.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> It is good, isn’t it? I haven’t read it all, but have similarly been dipping in and out.



he's very good/easy to read for someone like me who needs something to accompany reading Marx. I got waylaid last year and had to put it down for a bit, need to get back to it.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 22, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Well I've just learned Lavendon is Buckinghamshire. I thought it was Northamptonshire because I used to cycle through it from Bedford to Northampton, so I do know it.
> 
> I remember it as extremely posh, much, much more posh than Sandy where I'm from.


Bits of it are certainly posh now, and neighbouring Olney is dead posh. When we went there a few years ago I saw several Lamborghinis and a Rolls Royce in just the one afternoon. But back in the day much of the area was dirt poor. It's now considered commutable to London.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 22, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> _Always_ is a very big word here, but even if true, would that stop people looking to maintain their social privilege from exploiting the situation? Making it worse, deepening the divisions with lies and manipulation? Like _always?_
> 
> To clarify, when I wrote _someone_, I didn't really mean any particular person.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying that all these possible differences are a good idea, just that the processes of differentiation predate and are independent of capitalism as such. Those at the top, and some on the way up, will certainly use and exploit difference to their advantage. Not disagreeing with you there.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 22, 2021)

Fair enough, but it's probably a hot issue now because of the prominence 'identity' politics has. It suits that paradigm and its neoliberal proponents to treat 'working class' as just another identity. It doesn't suit that paradigm to see Working Class (or indeed Professional-Managerial Class, imo a better term than Middle Class) as categories that transcend identity.


----------



## krink (Jan 22, 2021)

I've really tried to follow this but I'm just getting more confused. I think I'll just stick to what I know - I'm getting ripped off, I'm doing  the work but still got fuck all and I'm not happy about it. And the reason it happens like this is because the only way I can survive is by selling my labour because all the stuff I need to live is owned by some other cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Well I've just learned Lavendon is Buckinghamshire. I thought it was Northamptonshire because I used to cycle through it from Bedford to Northampton, so I do know it.
> 
> I remember it as extremely posh, much, much more posh than Sandy where I'm from.


Sandy sticks in my mind as where the rspb were based, may still be. Always imagined it as a mini Sahara, with sand dunes stretching nearly to the horizon


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

krink said:


> I've really tried to follow this but I'm just getting more confused. I think I'll just stick to what I know - I'm getting ripped off, I'm doing  the work but still got fuck all and I'm not happy about it. And the reason it happens like this is because the only way I can survive is by selling my labour because all the stuff I need to live is owned by some other cunt.


That’s basically it anyway.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 22, 2021)

Imagine an upper-middle class privately educated academic dropping his hot takes on the class system now. Wouldn't get the time of day round here would he.


----------



## krink (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s basically it anyway.


Haha! I just you a pm while this was being posted


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 22, 2021)

krink said:


> I've really tried to follow this but I'm just getting more confused. I think I'll just stick to what I know - I'm getting ripped off, I'm doing  the work but still got fuck all and I'm not happy about it. And the reason it happens like this is because the only way I can survive is by selling my labour because all the stuff I need to live is owned by some other cunt.


This is the most insightful analysis of current society I have ever seen.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 22, 2021)

Yes krink that is basically it. Reading Marx's Capital or its various abridgements (eg Cafiero or Engels) is a worthwhile thing to do but not essential. The long and the short of it is... what you said. And if every working person (whatever class they happened to identify with) had that understanding, then we'd be somewhat less fucked.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

krink said:


> I've really tried to follow this but I'm just getting more confused. I think I'll just stick to what I know - I'm getting ripped off, I'm doing  the work but still got fuck all and I'm not happy about it. And the reason it happens like this is because the only way I can survive is by selling my labour because all the stuff I need to live is owned by some other cunt.


Understanding being a prole is the easy bit - who feels it knows it - Marx almost unnecessary for that
But the bit I think is unclear and problematic is the middle class category

Can someone do a quick up-to-date Marxist list of the modern jobs that form the bastard agents-of-capitalism middle classes please?
Does it still include academics, teachers, social workers, engineers, and nurses, like it used to when i first started reading about class? Even though those jobs often pay less than skilled manual work? But they're so classed because they supposedly "perpetuate and reproduce capitalist culture and class relations"?

What about film editors?
Gigging musicians? Is there a scale of success? When does it switch form working to middle?
Police? Do they not "perpetuate and reproduce capitalist culture and class relations"
Gastropub chefs? Michelin star chefs?
What if you're a firefighter?
What if you get promoted and become a firefighter lieutenant?

My wider family on my mums side had a lot of coal miners in it as it was a solid coal mining region for miles.
Of course if you work there long enough you move up the ranks, and there are ranks to go up. Are all the ranks working class positions, or do you become a middle class miner at some point over the years as you get promoted?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Yes krink that is basically it. Reading Marx's Capital or its various abridgements (eg Cafiero or Engels) is a worthwhile thing to do but not essential. The long and the short of it is... what you said. And if every working person (whatever class they happened to identify with) had that understanding, then we'd be somewhat less fucked.


Things is there's "working-poor" and "working-comfortable." Again going back to 7Up, Tony the east end boy drives a black cab with his wife, has a nice house, they can afford a family, and went on to buy a villa in Spain with a pool <voted Tory all his life. The revolutionary call of Workers of the World Unite falls on deaf ears with people like Tony.
Tony thinks he's working class, I think he's working class, but I guess for Marx he's a petty-boojwah...and thats where it all gets muddy.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 22, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Sandy sticks in my mind as where the rspb were based, may still be. Always imagined it as a mini Sahara, with sand dunes stretching nearly to the horizon



Yep, you've mentioned the two things it's known for (the only other is being on the A1).

RSPB still there. And we indeed had a sand dune. a massive hill of sand (one of the only hills in Bedfordshire) about as far away from the sea as you can get (almost). Just the one, mind. Though in many ways the town is a sleepy desert.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 22, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Things is there's "working-poor" and "working-comfortable." Again going back to 7Up, Tony the east end boy drives a black cab with his wife, has a nice house, they can afford a family, and went on to buy a villa in Spain with a pool <voted Tory all his life. The revolutionary call of Workers of the World Unite falls on deaf ears with people like Tony.
> Tony thinks he's working class, I think he's working class, but I guess for Marx he's a petty-boojwah...and thats where it all gets muddy.


Not really, to paraphrase someone (possibly Marx, can't remember)... _it's not what the working class is, nor what it thinks it is, but what it must become._

Also, with Marx, it's not so much the type of job you do, how horny-handed you are, it's about the economic relationship.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Not really, to paraphrase someone (possibly Marx, can't remember)... _it's not what the working class is, nor what it thinks it is, but what it must become._


Tony is likely a Petty Boojwah according to Marx, not working class. Goes with all sole traders and self employed does it?


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 22, 2021)

See my addition: "Also, with Marx, it's not so much the type of job you do, how horny-handed you are, it's about the economic relationship." Though Tony could well be "petit bourgeois".


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Define membership of the  "working class" income?, employment type?, wearing a flat cap and calling everyone luv? having a strong northern accent?


You forgot 'having a whippet or a greyhound', 'going to bingo/the dogs' and other crap identifiers.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

When I think of my uncle who started a small flower shop with his wife, to me he was always working class not a petty-booj  trader.

I really liked this short essay by anarchist James Scott - page 84 in the pdf if anyone fancies it, called Two Cheers for the Petty Bourgeoisie - a convincing positive take - stood out to me as its not something I've ever seen written before.


			https://libcom.org/files/James-C.-Scott-Two-Cheers-for-Anarchism_-Six-Easy-Pieces-on-Autonomy-Dignity-and-Meaningful-Work-and-Play-Princeton-University-Press-2012.pdf
		




> ....given any reasonably generous definition of its class boundaries, the petite bourgeoisie represents the largest class in the world. If we include not only the iconic shopkeepers but also smallholding peasants, artisans, peddlers, small independent professionals, and small traders whose only property might be a pushcart or a rowboat and a few tools, the class balloons. If we include the periphery of the class, say, tenant farmers, ploughmen with a draft animal, rag pickers, and itinerant market women, where autonomy is more severely constrained and the property small indeed, the class grows even larger.
> 
> What they all have in common, however, and what distinguishes them from both the clerk and the factory worker is that they are largely in control of their working day and work with little or no supervision. One may legitimately view this as a very dubious autonomy when it means, as a practical matter, working eighteen hours a day for a remuneration that may only provide a bare subsistence. And yet it is clear, as we shall see, that the desire for autonomy, for control over the working day and the sense of freedom and self-respect such control provides, is a vastly underestimated social aspiration for much of the world's population .



I cant argue with this:


> From the Diggers and the Levellers of the English Civil War to the Mexican peasants of 1911, to the anarchists of Spain for nearly a century, to a great many anticolonial movements,to mass movements in contemporary Brazil, the desire for land and the restoration of lost land has been the leitmotif of most radically egalitarian mass movements. Without appealing to petty bourgeois dreams, they wouldn't have had a chance.
> 
> Marx's contempt for the petite bourgeoisie, second only to his contempt for the Lumpenproletariat, was based on the fact that they were small property holders and therefore petty capitalists. Only the proletariat, a new class brought into being by capitalism and without property, could be truly revolutionary ; their liberation depended on transcending capitalism.
> 
> ...


Theres a lot more points made in the essay

Pre-captialism, being part of the independent petty-bourgeoisie was de rigeur. The proletarian class was created by dispossessing the petty-bees and forcing them into wage labour. Its only right working class people want that autonomy back.

Today I think the widespread working class aspiration to become petty-b is most often an expression of freedom and autonomy. If a skilled worker sets up their own business/sole trader/self employed/whatever they're rarely trying to make a go of becoming a capitalist, they just want a degree of dignity and freedom from the oppression of work (I just wish they wouldn't charge so much when the boiler breaks down.)
Trading isn't capitalism - its existed for thousands of years before capitalism came along.

This is one area where for me anarchism kicks in and I go a different path to Bolshevik class analysis. To me in the majority of cases i consider small scale petty-bees as part of the the same working class as me as a prole. Id rather a future of independent workers than every petty-bourgeoisie area of work being nationalised and state controlled.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Things is there's "working-poor" and "working-comfortable." Again going back to 7Up, Tony the east end boy drives a black cab with his wife, has a nice house, they can afford a family, and went on to buy a villa in Spain with a pool <voted Tory all his life. The revolutionary call of Workers of the World Unite falls on deaf ears with people like Tony.
> Tony thinks he's working class, I think he's working class, but I guess for Marx he's a petty-boojwah...and thats where it all gets muddy.


Tony isn’t _proletarian_, and himself does not see his interests as lying with the working class (a term I’d see as wider than proletariat, and encompassing artisans and certain self employed trades and so on).  In time of revolution much of the petit bourgeoisie may well throw their lot in with the wider working class.  The point being where they see their interests as lying.  

In revolutionary Spain, for example, many barbers were anarchists.  

For some of my “career” I have been self employed (as a music tutor) and therefore technically petit bourgeois.  I don’t think that precluded me from seeing where my interests lie, or which side the angels are on.  

I very probably would not be seen as culturally working class, and I’m actually not interested in prolier than thou cosplay.  But the point is the revolutionary potential of the working class and the economic analysis that entails is not (primarily) about cultural identity but about a systemic analysis of capitalism.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

Yes but for orthodox marxists the petty-bees are part of the problem, not the solution.
"scratch an anarchist on the surface you'll find a petty bourgeois underneath” is the old Communist adage
the aspiration for proles to become petty-bees is i think healthy from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, but is anathema to Communists - isnt that how it goes?

This is important in terms of how the broad left talks about class, and partly why the Tories win parts of the working class who are or aspire to be petty-bees.
When I see people on the left ask What Is Class and write/talk about it, I've never heard a class appeal to the petty-bees or people who aspire to be.

Also, what percentage of the UK population are propertyless proletarians (as opposed to the swathes of Marxist defined Petty-Bees and Middles Classes)? Around 15% at a guess. Whatever it is its no longer a revolutionary percentage. Yet I feel the message being banged out is often much the same one from a century ago when the percentages were very different


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Can someone do a quick up-to-date Marxist list of the modern jobs that form the bastard agents-of-capitalism middle classes please?
> Does it still include academics, teachers, social workers, engineers, and nurses, like it used to when i first started reading about class? Even though those jobs often pay less than skilled manual work? But they're so classed because they supposedly "perpetuate and reproduce capitalist culture and class relations"?
> 
> What about film editors?
> ...


would really appreciate an answer to this -genuinely confused

...off to do some work


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

ska invita said:


> for orthodox marxists the petty-bees are part of the problem, not the solution.


I’m not an orthodox Marxist (Marxist Leninist).  Neither was Marx.


----------



## Santino (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m not an orthodox Marxist (Marxist Leninist).  Neither was Marx.


He refused to join any political movement that would have him as a member.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

Santino said:


> He refused to join any political movement that would have him as a member.


Close but no cigar and glasses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2021)

Santino said:


> He refused to join any political movement that would have him as a member.


he refused to join any club that would have him as a member


----------



## Santino (Jan 22, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> he refused to join any club that would have him as a member


yes that's the joke


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 22, 2021)

I realise "petty bourgeois" has long been a term of abuse on the left (especially with crap Marxists), but it really shouldn't be. There's no morality involved, it's merely an economic category, some are more proletarian, others closer to the bourgeisie, and as danny la rouge says, it could go either way when it comes to the crunch (er..  by 'crunch' I mean international proletarian revolution).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2021)

Santino said:


> yes that's the joke


yes you got it wrong (as danny pointed out) and i simply supplied the correct version.


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 22, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Jarvis Cocker, who I made my remark about, as a wealthy, famous pop-star, published author and TV celebrity, with a virtually inexhaustible source of Surplus Value of his own and (no doubt) a reasonable pool of Wealth from which to draw, is not Working Class, except that he might _choose to identify as_ working class because of feels.



I think the key line that rings true for me in Pulp’s “Common People” is the line “If you called your dad he could stop it all”. People with no such fall back position can’t take as many risks in terms of pursuing certain careers like the arts. Too busy putting bread on the table and paying rent while being told by those who do have family support how unadventurous they are in terms of their choices. Heard enough of that crap from Uni housemates who were pretty much waiting to inherit the family fortune.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yes you got it wrong (as danny pointed out) and i simply supplied the correct version.


I was just making my own Karl/Groucho gag, to be fair.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I was just making my own Karl/Groucho gag, to be fair.


yours at least had the merit of being funny


----------



## campanula (Jan 22, 2021)

pretty much every good idea which comes from a wc position (free festivals, music, fashion, art) gets stolen and monetised (and sanitised) by the middle classes. Is this a fair assessment or just some drooling rubbish from a disaffected loser.
I have a wood (yep, I think the desire for land was a visceral need for this peasant).  My immediate neighbours have all started 'forest schools' creative writing classes, yoga retreats, glamping sites and wedding venues.  My class history absolutely precludes me from entering into this world, even though I am horribly skint. I have opened it up for the use of the local community and am getting some pushback from my neighbours. It is fascinating (to me) that social capital and confidence has not fallen on my shoulders despite being a land-owner and having a degree or 2. Class and its discontents  is all very complex for this simpleton (so much so that I am packing my toolbag to go and play in the soil).


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 22, 2021)

campanula said:


> pretty much every good idea which comes from a wc position (free festivals, music, fashion, art) gets stolen and monetised (and sanitised) by the middle classes. Is this a fair assessment or just some drooling rubbish from a disaffected loser.
> I have a wood (yep, I think the desire for land was a visceral need for this peasant).  My immediate neighbours have all started 'forest schools' creative writing classes, yoga retreats, glamping sites and wedding venues.  My class history absolutely precludes me from entering into this world, even though I am horribly skint. I have opened it up for the use of the local community and am getting some pushback from my neighbours. It is fascinating (to me) that social capital and confidence has not fallen on my shoulders despite being a land-owner and having a degree or 2. Class and its discontents  is all very complex for this simpleton (so much so that I am packing my toolbag to go and play in the soil).



one of the (many) things that fuck me off is the appropriation of allotments by the MC in the seventies, pushed via programmes such as the vile Good Life with Felicity Kendal. These days many on the left will denounce allotments and laugh at working class folk having the audacity to grow their own veg.


----------



## campanula (Jan 22, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> one of the (many) things that fuck me off is the appropriation of allotments by the MC in the seventies, pushed via programmes such as the vile Good Life with Felicity Kendal. These days many on the left will denounce allotments and laugh at working class folk having the audacity to grow their own veg.


On my small site (17 plots) there is not a single one which is being worked by someone who isn't a home-owner with gardens (although tbf, one of them only has a balcony and a shared community garden). This is not a large urban site, which tend to be more heterogenous, but a small site in the middle of the muesli belt.  Not  a single renter (except me).  I remember long waiting lists in the 70s - not just 'The Good Life, but the Seymour's 'Self-Sufficiency' created a big surge in allotment use. By the 90s, allotments were out of fashion again and the council couldn't rent them fast enough (my youngest had one too), so at one stage, I had 4, at 2 different sites and had one in Brighton when I was at college (92-5) By around 2005/6/7, 'grow your own' was back in fashion and allotments were highly sought after - it was impossible to rent a whole plot, with council allocated divisions and subdivisions... so I started to get some grief for having more than anyone else (2 at that time) and worse, was selfishly growing flowers instead of feeding a family.  I almost gave in to keep the peace (plus, there was the wood, although not accessible by bike) until it got a bit nasty, with accusations flying around on social media (at which point I dug in my heels) I couldn't help but notice none of my fellow allotmenteers were  not giving up spare bedrooms to homeless people. (while I have to pay the bedroom tax)...and a few were not doing much on their allotment either (I was offered money to maintain one of the plots!). At least 2 of them have a second home (in France and Spain) and bugger off every summer anyway. Suspect for some, it's all about lifestyle boasting.. although I have to be firm with myself that I am not being 'greedy and selfish'.
Apols for wandering off topic (although I think there is some overlap with a certain type of mc person very keen to adopt some 'son of the soil', imaginary peasant style with  claims that they are growing food to save money).

Who are these people on the left denouncing allotments? I haven't come across this.


----------



## LDC (Jan 22, 2021)

chilango said:


> [
> 
> 
> As an aside, I'm dipping into Cleaver's "33 lessons on Capital" a bit at the moment. I'm finding it really good and helpful.



Yeah, I'm reading it alongside _Capital _chilango and it's really helping.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 22, 2021)

campanula said:


> Who are these people on the left denouncing allotments? I haven't come across this.



From my experience of some, you can get a mix of:

why will the working class revolt if they have full bellies? best keep them in a state of discontent so we can step in and guide them when they kick off.
they will only sell what they grow and become petit-bourgeois.
if people stopped partaking in the globalised production process it would effect technological development and put a spanner in us all going to live on mars.


----------



## The Pale King (Jan 22, 2021)

imo the concept of the proletariat / working class has an inherently speculative character - I'm sure there were similar definitional fuzziness at the time Marx and Engels were writing around aristocracies of labour/access to cultural/symbolic capital (_Blind Date _excepted obviously). I think by describing the working class Marx brought it into being, and it brings itself into being by realizing that it is the working class. The concept has the character not of an empirical description, but a postulate, a wager, a 'hail'. Similarly, the working class (constituted both by its objective relation to the means of production and its subjective self realization of this position and the possibilities for action/resistance/transformation such knowledge grounds) is the only class capable of creating the conditions for its own self abolition, in the moment when it acquires this knowledge through political struggle... or something, running out of steam here tbh

So yeah, I think winning  (fractions of) the petite bourgeois over as Serge, Danny and others have said is both possible and necessary.


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> From my experience of some, you can get a mix of:
> 
> why will the working class revolt if they have full bellies? best keep them in a state of discontent so we can step in and guide them when they kick off.
> they will only sell what they grow and become petit-bourgeois.
> if people stopped partaking in the globalised production process it would effect technological development and put a spanner in us all going to live on mars.


these are real things that actual people have said?


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 22, 2021)

killer b said:


> these are real things that actual people have said?



I'm being a little creative with 1 & 3, although I don't think they are too wide of the mark in essence. Number 2 i've heard straight from the horses mouth.


----------



## campanula (Jan 23, 2021)

I have to say, I have never heard 1 or 3 (apart from some shit immiseration argument) and 2 is  just silly and only likely to come from someone who  has never actually worked a 10 pole allotment.

caveat...I do sell stuff I have grown (plants, cut flowers) but to imagine it makes any real difference to my living costs is...ridiculous...and when actually applied to vegetables,  is laughable. I barely manage a few extra additions to my dinners and even my most sustained and intensive crop (tomatoes) only keeps me in ketchup and sauce for a few months.


----------



## krink (Jan 23, 2021)

The resident trot nightmare I mentioned earlier said it was ridiculous and a waste of time for people to grow food, learn to look after themselves, learn how to live in harmony with nature etc. They should spend their time listening to him talk about Trotsky for eternity. The dickhead.
On my plot we have two posh m.class types who are not originally from the area but they're dead canny and not those poncy artisan m.class types. The rest of us are all bog standard locals.


----------



## campanula (Jan 23, 2021)

krink said:


> The resident trot nightmare I mentioned earlier said it was ridiculous and a waste of time for people to grow food, learn to look after themselves, learn how to live in harmony with nature etc. They should spend their time listening to him talk about Trotsky for eternity. The dickhead.
> On my plot we have two posh m.class types who are not originally from the area but they're dead canny and not those poncy artisan m.class types. The rest of us are all bog standard locals.


Yeah, some of the bigger sites have a much wider mix of gardeners but my site is truly mc. I get on OK with most of them but it never escapes my attention that I am the only council estate resident. It wasn't always the case...but  I have seen some really depressing demographic changes in my hometown...particularly in this very small, central site, over the last 20odd years I have been on this  allotment.

I really only feel a bit mocking towards a couple of them (quite well paid professionals) who always make such a  song and dance that they are 'saving money' and that whole frugal shit (although they never actually stump up for decent fertiliser or equipment and often buy _plug plants_...of bloody lettuces and stuff... They give me a hard time  for growing 'fripperies' instead of 'feeding my family' ( Grief, I am a snob too, I guess).


----------



## krink (Jan 23, 2021)

campanula said:


> Yeah, some of the bigger sites have a much wider mix of gardeners but my site is truly mc. I get on OK with most of them but it never escapes my attention that I am the only council estate resident. It wasn't always the case...but  I have seen some really depressing demographic changes in my hometown...particularly in this very small, central site, over the last 20odd years I have been on this  allotment.
> 
> I really only feel a bit mocking towards a couple of them (quite well paid professionals) who always make such a  song and dance that they are 'saving money' and that whole frugal shit (although they never actually stump up for decent fertiliser or equipment and often buy _plug plants_...of bloody lettuces and stuff... They give me a hard time  for growing 'fripperies' instead of 'feeding my family' ( Grief, I am a snob too, I guess).


Everyone on our plot (there's 28 gardens) is sound, friendly and really helpful. About half are retired. Everyone shares tips, seeds, spare veg and stops for a chat. We couldn't care less what people grow! I'm from Sunderland which is still vast majority working class and white but they've all taken the two mc people and an Indian family under their wing. I think it's great that a shared interest has got people mixing and really getting on with each other. However, it might be different if locals ever feel displaced by mc gardeners.


----------



## campanula (Jan 23, 2021)

krink said:


> Everyone on our plot (there's 28 gardens) is sound, friendly and really helpful. About half are retired. Everyone shares tips, seeds, spare veg and stops for a chat. We couldn't care less what people grow! I'm from Sunderland which is still vast majority working class and white but they've all taken the two mc people and an Indian family under their wing. I think it's great that a shared interest has got people mixing and really getting on with each other. However, it might be different if locals ever feel displaced by mc gardeners.


A lot of wc people are totally displaced...not just from allotments but from any chance of living in this increasingly polarised town. Fucking silicon fen...I hate it in many ways.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 24, 2021)

Excellent piece by Kenan Malik; 

‘Implicit here is the suggestion that those who are in precarious or low-paying jobs, or are unemployed, have only themselves to blame for not having the wherewithal to escape their background. Meritocracy becomes the means both to create the illusion of working-class roots for those who have become middle class and to demonise as insufficiently go-getting those left behind. They are the “left behind” in the sense of being victims not of globalisation or deindustrialisation or austerity but of their own moral, cultural and intellectual deficiencies’.









						Age-old notions of the noble savage haunt views of working-class life | Kenan Malik
					

So many middle-class Britons identify as blue-collar in a bid for ‘authenticity’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 24, 2021)

I think there are also echoes here from various forms of religious belief. Calvinist Protestants believing that God predestined everyone to whatever role in life they inhabit, so that the well-off classes deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their sinful lot. Catholic Christians believing that the poor give the opportunity for their betters to dispense charity, so inequality is necessary. Hindus and Buddhists believing that your karma determines your species, sex and/or social status. Etc. I'm over simplifying here, but many, not all, religious beliefs give moral justification to class difference, indeed allow self-glorification of both earned and inherited wealth.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 24, 2021)

Kenan Malik said:
			
		

> They do so to create “elaborate ‘origin stories’” that “downplay important aspects of their own, privileged, upbringings” and allow them “to tell an upward story of career success ‘against the odds’” that “casts their own achievements as unusually meritocratically legitimate”.
> 
> The desire to be seen as working class may seem to be at odds with the demonisation of the poor. In fact, it’s part of the same process. It’s a way of people viewing themselves as “strivers”, not “shirkers”, to use the language of former chancellor George Osborne, as possessing both the authenticity of a humble background and the nous to escape it.
> 
> Implicit here is the suggestion that those who are in precarious or low-paying jobs, or are unemployed, have only themselves to blame for not having the wherewithal to escape their background.



My experience chimes with this, and I'd add that a lot of socially vital jobs are very low paid, which conceals how important the work itself is. For example, if everyone on minimum wage went on strike for one week, the entire country would be fucked. They'd call in the army.

Devaluing the work, having a "minimum wage" instead of a _maximum_ wage, is all about undermining any power that might grow among people who know how important their work is to society. Letting wealthy people get away with describing themselves as 'working class' unchallenged, is still more undermining.

We've all been convinced to accept this premise that low paid work is low skilled work and not important becuse it isn't _wealth creating _or some shit. 

_The labour market values such work less than... _
Ah fuck off.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 3, 2021)

Some useful discussion here particularly about the grey areas of working to middle class definition



00:00 What is the PMC? 9:07 The PMC and COVID School Reopening 22:07 The PMC Love Empathy, Not Solidarity 35:00 Catherine Liu Interview on the Professional-Managerial Class 1:44:54 Closing Thoughts

i put playback speed at 0.75 as they talk too fast


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 3, 2021)

Too long. Are they discussing class as an identity then?


----------



## ska invita (Feb 3, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Too long. Are they discussing class as an identity then?


no

includes mention of this essay from 2013, for example
*The rise and fall of the professional-managerial class.
BARBARA AND JOHN EHRENREICH*









						Death of the Yuppie Dream
					

The rise and fall of the professional-managerial class.




					inthesetimes.com
				




*i like to listen to stuff while cooking


----------



## Dystopiary (Feb 3, 2021)

I think the non-academic answer is, because they are twats.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 3, 2021)

ska invita said:


> no
> 
> includes mention of this essay from 201, for example
> *The rise and fall of the professional-managerial class.
> ...



I listened to an interview with Barbara Ehrenreich recently where she discussed the background to their seminal piece. It was very interesting in terms of periodisation. I’ll see if I can dig it out and post it here.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 3, 2021)

ska invita said:


> no
> 
> includes mention of this essay from 201, for example
> *The rise and fall of the professional-managerial class.
> ...


Ta. I might have a listen if I get a spare couple of hours.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 3, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Ta. I might have a listen if I get a spare couple of hours.


skip around using the chapter links, its in bits, that helps break it up

ETA
the main interview is particularly good - talking about how the managerial have seperated out and up form the professional middle class, who no longer enjoy middle class status - plus other stratifications within the PMC


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2021)

Bumping this thread because I think Foley’s review of Catherine Liu’s book ‘Virtue Hoarders’ need to be more widely read. This is both a good piece of writing and really penetrating on what the PMC is and what role it plays within the left (and what role the left plays for it









						The New Dangerous Class? The PMC And Virtue Hoarding | Conter
					

In a review of a new book about the ‘Professional Managerial Class’ , James Foley says middle-class activists dress up conformity as a war on cultural backwardness.




					www.conter.co.uk
				




Info on the book, which I haven’t read, is here:









						Virtue Hoarders
					

A denunciation of the credentialed elite class that serves capitalism while insisting on its own progressive heroism




					www.upress.umn.edu


----------



## ska invita (Feb 24, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Bumping this thread because I think Foley’s review of Catherine Liu’s book ‘Virtue Hoarders’ need to be more widely read. This is both a good piece of writing and really penetrating on what the PMC is and what role it plays within the left (and what role the left plays for it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


she talks about the book at length here

shes on at 35minutes


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2021)

ska invita said:


> she talks about the book at length here
> 
> shes on at 35minutes




Yeah, thanks Ska. I saw that when you posted it. Haven’t had time to listen to it yet but intend to.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Bumping this thread because I think Foley’s review of Catherine Liu’s book ‘Virtue Hoarders’ need to be more widely read. This is both a good piece of writing and really penetrating on what the PMC is and what role it plays within the left (and what role the left plays for it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've just read it. It's a blazing hilarious polemic (with a few utterly minor problems) that's put me a  right good mood.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 25, 2021)

I (now) know the concept of the PMC has been around for decades now, but its the first time ive come across it (thanks to you I think Smokeandsteam ) - Ive found it really useful - I cant stop applying it in my mind to everything going on in the UK. Liu's work is very US focussed - in fact it sounds like its a big part of her worklife and social circle! It would be great if someone took a similar approach to the UK, particularly on how it bleeds into UK-specific politics.

Ive always found the concept of the modern middle class very ambiguous and at times contradictory. There are still grey areas - I think Barbara Ehrenreich's update that many professional roles (such as teaching and nursing) have increasingly lost their middle class protection is important to factor in, but that also continues the grey area of it all.

Somehow PMC feels a lot sharper in focus to me. I wonder why.... maybe because its specifically naming job types? I think that's probably a key bit of it.  If you take out the PMC from the Middle Class, who is left, and what can be said about that group that is different from the PMC?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Somehow PMC feels a lot sharper in focus to me. I wonder why.... maybe because its specifically naming job types? I think that's probably a key bit of it.  If you take out the PMC from the Middle Class, who is left, and what can be said about that group that is different from the PMC?



I found it useful because while the PMC are still technically 'workers', they are very much the front line in the defense and ideological shoring up of the power of capital (although even harder to avoid interactions with). 

They're like the mental arena's equivalent of the police force (calling the police a "service" never sits right with me).  Imo.

Other non-PMC bits of the middle class could include the media, 'tame' creatives etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> I found it useful because while the PMC are still technically 'workers', they are very much the front line in the defense and ideological shoring up of the power of capital (although even harder to avoid interactions with).
> 
> They're like the mental arena's equivalent of the police force (calling the police a "service" never sits right with me).  Imo.


It's a service if they work for you, it's a force if they work on you


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It's a service if they work for you, it's a force if they work on you



I'm stealing that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> I (now) know the concept of the PMC has been around for decades now, but its the first time ive come across it (thanks to you I think Smokeandsteam ) - Ive found it really useful - I cant stop applying it in my mind to everything going on in the UK. Liu's work is very US focussed - in fact it sounds like its a big part of her worklife and social circle! It would be great if someone took a similar approach to the UK, particularly on how it bleeds into UK-specific politics.
> 
> Ive always found the concept of the modern middle class very ambiguous and at times contradictory. There are still grey areas - I think Barbara Ehrenreich's update that many professional roles (such as teaching and nursing) have increasingly lost their middle class protection is important to factor in, but that also continues the grey area of it all.
> 
> Somehow PMC feels a lot sharper in focus to me. I wonder why.... maybe because its specifically naming job types? I think that's probably a key bit of it.  If you take out the PMC from the Middle Class, who is left, and what can be said about that group that is different from the PMC?


I'm still not totally clear what the PMC is. Is the key the 'managerial' bit? If so, does that mean it only applies to someone whose job is primarily concerned with managing the work of others?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It's a service if they work for you, it's a force if they work on you





Always worth a pea roast


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm still not totally clear what the PMC is. Is the key the 'managerial' bit? If so, does that mean it only applies to someone whose job is primarily concerned with managing the work of others?


It’s outlined pretty comprehensively in the (excellent) article.

If you need an illustration, look at the so-called Twinkie wars, when in the 70s PMC leftists sneered at the contributions to house meeting table snacks and passive-aggressively tried to turn everyone onto organic granola muffins instead.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s outlined pretty comprehensively in the (excellent) article.
> 
> If you need an illustration, look at the so-called Twinkie wars, when in the 70s PMC leftists sneered at the contributions to house meeting table snacks and passive-aggressively tried to turn everyone onto organic granola muffins instead.


I read the article, but the definition seemed abstract to me. The closest I can find to a definition is this bit:



> graduates specialising in symbolic manipulation – the hallmark of the PMC – compete for a shrinking number of jobs. Since their contributions are not measured in abstract numerical units, such as profit and loss for capitalists, or productivity for workers, their employability is defined by intangible status competition



Maybe I'm being thick, but I'm not clear what that means.


----------



## planetgeli (Feb 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s outlined pretty comprehensively in the (excellent) article.
> 
> If you need an illustration, look at the so-called Twinkie wars, when in the 70s PMC leftists sneered at the contributions to house meeting table snacks and passive-aggressively tried to turn everyone onto organic granola muffins instead.



There were no organic granola muffins in my household in the 70s. Mind you, mum thought pasta was dangerously middle class too.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> There were no organic granola muffins in my household in the 70s. Mind you, mum thought pasta was dangerously middle class too.



Aside from spag bol, alphabetti spaghetti and tinned ravioli, same here.
My Mum had middle-class aspirations tbf.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I read the article, but the definition seemed abstract to me. The closest I can find to a definition is this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm being thick, but I'm not clear what that means.


The article as a whole describes the pmc throughout.  However, they don’t own their own means of production and have to sell their mental labour power to make a living, and are described in the first chapter of this: http://libcom.org/files/Rad America V11 I2.pdf


----------



## Sue (Feb 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s outlined pretty comprehensively in the (excellent) article.
> 
> If you need an illustration, look at the so-called Twinkie wars, when in the 70s PMC leftists sneered at the contributions to house meeting table snacks and passive-aggressively tried to turn everyone onto organic granola muffins instead.


I like snacks and muffins. Am I a class traitor, greedy pig or both..?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> The article as a whole describes the pmc throughout.  However, they don’t own their own means of production and have to sell their mental labour power to make a living, and are described in the first chapter of this: http://libcom.org/files/Rad America V11 I2.pdf


Ok, it still wasn't clear to me what, or who, exactly they were talking about. Thanks for the link - that is much clearer for me as it gives concrete examples. Also, adding the hyphen 'professional-managerial' helped.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2021)

Sue said:


> I like snacks and muffins. Am I a class traitor, greedy pig or both..?



Snacks are fine, so long as they are not organic, or say "plant based" on the packaging.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2021)

Sue said:


> I like snacks and muffins. Am I a class traitor, greedy pig or both..?


Not necessarily any of these. But you’d go in a list.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> The article as a whole describes the pmc throughout.  However, they don’t own their own means of production and have to sell their mental labour power to make a living, and are described in the first chapter of this: http://libcom.org/files/Rad America V11 I2.pdf



This is a really useful addendum (or preface) to the previous stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2021)

Oh yeah, one thing i meant to add to my quick post earlier that i think has some relevance - indeed, she touched on this in her discussion of PMC dominance of Occupy etc so isn't unaware of this  -  the Democratic Socialists of America of which i believe she is a supporter/member, has 75 000 members. 60% of them have a PhD or professional degree, whilst 3% come from the traditional working class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Oh yeah, one thing i meant to add to my quick post earlier that i think has some relevance - indeed, she touched on this in her discussion of PMC dominance of Occupy etc so isn't unaware of this  -  the Democratic Socialists of America of which i believe she is a supporter/member, has 75 000 members. 60% of them have a PhD or professional degree, whilst 3% come from the traditional working class.


i wonder whether the concurrence between the dominance of this class within movements such as occupy and the great effusion of conspiracy theories occurring around the same time are connected.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder whether the concurrence between the dominance of this class within movements such as occupy and the great effusion of conspiracy theories occurring around the same time are connected.


Well, within the discussion in Virtue Hoarded about Occupy, Adbusters were identified as being key to it getting established and also as being both very influential in its failures and in being exemplars of the PMC. Of course, it was adbusters who were accused of smuggling in anti-semitism (even prior to occupy) and conspiracist tropes into the thing.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Well, within the discussion in Virtue Hoarded about Occupy, Adbusters were identified as being key to it getting established and also as being both very influential in its failures and in being exemplars of the PMC. Of course, it was adbusters who were accused of smuggling in anti-semitism (even prior to occupy) and conspiracist tropes into the thing.



Oh  You got a link to the adbusters stuff. I used to like them


----------



## ska invita (Feb 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm still not totally clear what the PMC is. Is the key the 'managerial' bit? If so, does that mean it only applies to someone whose job is primarily concerned with managing the work of others?



For me the managerial bit is the key to it, or the bit that interests me the most.  Its the psychology of the uncritical manager that has the struck a chord of truth, and how that attitude of compromise seeps into wider social consciousness. 

Managerialism is structurally centrist as in practice it has to manage workers for capital. 
Managerialism has a big dose of Mark Fishers Capitalist Realism in it ; "Capitalist realism as I (Mark) understand it is.......like a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a kind of invisible barrier constraining thought and action."

Starmer is "a Manager". He's also a Professional though, and its easy to think of professional people who also hold values and attitudes that overlap with managerialism. In many cases a successful professional is also a superior to other workers around their workplace, and there's probably management work for them to be done.

But the professional category seems leaky to me: I see no reason for a nurse not to be considered working class. Thinking of teachers I have known some seem to me to be working class whilst others have had that managerialist dogma about them, even if they're not deputy/department heads etc

And this is another reason why the middle class as a category is leaky full stop to me: lets presume in a theoretical group, no PMC person owns the means of production and are therefore WC, some will adopt managerialism and power of position whilst others won't. Management roles are particularly prone to this I think, though its not impossible to have a "good" manager who genuinely works in the interest of all workers.

So yeah for me its managers, management thinking, management attitudes, managers all the way down! In the past I thought in terms of bosses, but bosses is different to managerialism. Boss feels like the very top job. Managerialism is more pervasive,  even to people who aren't themselves managers.



8ball said:


> Other non-PMC bits of the middle class could include the media, 'tame' creatives etc.


I'd think they can go in with the professionals if enjoying enough authority.
?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> For me the managerial bit is the key to it, or the bit that interests me the most.  Its the psychology of the uncritical manager that has the struck a chord of truth, and how that attitude of compromise seeps into wider social consciousness.
> 
> Managerialism is structurally centrist as in practice it has to manage workers for capital.
> Managerialism has a big dose of Mark Fishers Capitalist Realism in it ; "Capitalist realism as I (Mark) understand it is.......like a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a kind of invisible barrier constraining thought and action."
> ...


you're confusing me again now.  Danny's link made sense to me to the extent that it wasn't like you're saying here. It was quite explicit, I thought, that it was professional *or* managerial, rather than *and*.

Maybe I'm still reading it wrongly or maybe there are just fuzzy edges to it. There are plenty of jobs that involve selling your mental abilities that don't involve management in any real sense, and whose output can be measured very easily in terms of productivity. 

You might end up being helped by someone else or being part of a collaborative team, but I still wouldn't necessarily class that as management really, or if it is management, then management is an extremely widespread thing, involving anyone who has any responsibility for the work of others - anyone not really junior in a variety of settings? A sous chef is a manager by that definition, but surely that's not managerialism.

To give a concrete example, because that helps me: Writer/editor/designer for a book or magazine, where there will be instructions and ideas about what to do going back and forth according to the particular area of expertise/responsibility. One out of that team might end up saddled with the project management of the thing, but that's a pain and the boring admin bit none of them actually wants to do, often. It adds responsibility, but I wouldn't say it fundamentally changes your relationship with your colleagues or your work. If anything, I would call that being taken advantage of by the bosses - people getting lumbered with more responsibility usually without any kind of pay rise.


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 25, 2021)

chilango said:


> Oh  You got a link to the adbusters stuff. I used to like them


On adbusters, there's this: Anti-semitism in Adbusters, 2004
Went round a bit in 2011, for instance: Much Ado About ‘Adbusters’ Relationship to the Jews

On the DSA's make-up, what did people think of this from N+1? Professional-Managerial Chasm
I looked it up because that Conter article characterises it as "the worst of bad faith grifting, as with N+1’s apologia for Elizabeth Warren". I still have a fair bit of reading and thinking to do around this stuff, but I didn't read it as a bad faith grifty apologia for Warren, and frankly that characterisation made me suspicious of the Conter writer's own good faith or lack of.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2021)

More on adbusters 

That N+1 peice is the kick off for a good old rant in the Virtue Hoarded book. Calls it PMC apologia and left-bashing and an attempt to get Sanders + supporters to bend the knee to warren.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2021)

Thanks. haven't picked up a copy of Adbusters for at least 15 years. That's sad to see.


----------



## Red Sky (Feb 25, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> I've just read it. It's a blazing hilarious polemic (with a few utterly minor problems) that's put me a  right good mood.



"Within living memory, there were socialist cultures that defined themselves as working class, sometimes at the cost of silliness. At any activist get-together, there were Mockney accents, tracksuits and flat caps aplenty"


Not just a memory


----------



## kenny g (Feb 26, 2021)

Would you Adam and Eve it at my last branch meeting of the slaver party someone got it into their brown bread to try and slather on about their  creds. Became a right old rubble with various bringing up the fact they are a brief was only following an apprenticeship paid for by the docks. This still goes on and is pitiful to watch. One of the best things about the speegie beebeis was that members were at least authentic in their alienation.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 26, 2021)

SWP meetings were the worst for teachers trying to be East Enders characters.


----------



## ska invita (May 2, 2021)

Has anyone read this?




__





						Verso
					

Verso Books is the largest independent, radical publishing house in the English-speaking world.




					www.versobooks.com
				



Going by the blurb, doesnt sound right to me 
sounds like someone in denial perhaps


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 11, 2022)

I know class is mostly cultural but there should surely come a point where you buy your sixth house and think "I'm not really working class anymore"


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> It was mentioned on another thread that WC kids don't as a rule tend to form bands, and that crystallized for me a thought that's been growing for years, about what it really means to be working class as a musician. That world is closed to you, there will always be someone with more money for gear, more and better words from articulate, educated parents, more expensive equipment or a course at theatre school, a better book or record collection, more time to practise .. and always someone else who expects to be listened to, expects the gig, expects the attention. So why bother?
> 
> Just get a job.
> 
> There's no 'social capital' there, not as i understand the term.



Over a year later but I disagree with this. Forming bands is/was one of the few avenues where working class kids believed they could escape the drudgery of having a job (or not having a job). And some made it - see The Happy Mondays, Oasis etc. Football is the other obvious one. You’re right that there’s lots of things that they would feel is above their station though and wouldn’t pursue.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 11, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> I know class is mostly cultural


No it isn't.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 11, 2022)

The labelling on that first graph implies that e.g. tube drivers are wrong-headed for thinking that they are working class. Like if you have a decent union then you’re not poor so you must be a class traitor. 

It’s the New Statesman though so no surprises there.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> No it isn't.



My dad ate baked beans and bet on the horses and so I’m working class.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 11, 2022)

> - Half of Brits who own their house outright say they're working class,





how many of them are working people who are approaching (or past) retirement age and have paid their mortgage off? 

because house prices 30+ years ago were such that working people who had a steady job could get a mortgage?

do they suddenly change class now?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> do they suddenly change class now?



Some believe they did, yes.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 11, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My dad ate baked beans and bet on the horses and so I’m working class.


Did he do Vernon's or Littlewoods pools? It could make all the difference.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Did he do Vernon's or Littlewoods pools? It could make all the difference.



Ah. Littlewoods. I didn’t know there was another lol.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

There is a benefit in owning your own home as mortgages go down whilst rents go up as long as you have the funds for maintenance.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 11, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ah. Littlewoods. I didn’t know there was another lol.



or zetters?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Did he do Vernon's or Littlewoods pools? It could make all the difference.



I can’t believe I answered that when you were clearly taking the piss. I’m fucking slooooow.


----------



## A380 (Apr 11, 2022)

My mum and dad both worked full time for various parts of the communist party, left school and 14 and 15 respectively and had deffo working class parents. And whilst i got a diet of marxism from age four I wasn't allowed to watch ITV kids' programmes - apart from Bat Man. And we had Vienettas not Artic Rolls.


----------



## Sue (Apr 11, 2022)

A380 said:


> My mum and dad both worked full time for various parts of the communist party, left school and 14 and 15 respectively and had deffo working class parents. And whilst i got a diet of marxism from age four I wasn't allowed to watch ITV kids' programmes - apart from Bat Man. And we had Vienettas not Artic Rolls.


What was special about Batman and what was wrong with Arctic Rolls?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

Swiss rolls with ice cream in. Harrods should catch on soon.


----------



## A380 (Apr 11, 2022)

Sue said:


> What was special about Batman and what was wrong with Arctic Rolls?


My mum liked Bat Man. I have no idea on the Artic Roll front.


----------



## Sue (Apr 11, 2022)

A380 said:


> My mum liked Bat Man. I have no idea on the Artic Roll front.


Viennettas were well posh.


----------



## A380 (Apr 11, 2022)

Sue said:


> Viennettas were well posh.


Were?


----------



## Raheem (Apr 11, 2022)

Sue said:


> Viennettas were well posh.


You cut them with a cake slice, according to the advert. But they were also only about 70p.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 11, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> how many of them are working people who are approaching (or past) retirement age and have paid their mortgage off?
> 
> because house prices 30+ years ago were such that working people who had a steady job could get a mortgage?
> 
> do they suddenly change class now?



Would be interesting to see how many landlords consider themselves working class.


----------



## T & P (Apr 11, 2022)

This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances. 

Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.


Some are sold on the idea that Labour will tax them more and dole it out to people who can't be arsed working and they don't see beyond that. Low wages with less tax better than low wages with more tax. 
That they think that way says more about Labour tbh than those trusting the Tories more.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 11, 2022)

sadly its the media 

already head people around 35 k saying it would be easier to claim the doll



give that a shout fella


----------



## Dystopiary (Apr 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances.
> 
> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.


If their kids grow up poor (very likely, especially nowadays), they can't really say they came from a middle class background.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances.
> 
> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.



Class is an economic, social and cultural phenomena. If you define it based on which party people periodically choose to manage the state on behalf of capital you aren’t going to get far in making sense of it


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 11, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> or zetters?


Full prole points for zetters


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 11, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> Would be interesting to see how many landlords consider themselves working clclass.


Or bosses.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances.
> 
> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.


Whoever people vote for has fuck all to do with their class.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances.
> 
> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.




   Idea for a programme : bits that Karl Marx misundertood when he wrote The Communist Manifesto


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> This might have been said before, but I’m not going to check through 17 pages. But one immovable factor for me is whether someone has ever voted Tory or even given it a moment’s thought regardless of background, accent, profession, tastes in life or economic circumstances.
> 
> Plenty of people who would qualify, in particular those who are actually poor, but if you’re so fucking thick as to be poor and vote Tory, then you cease to be WC and become a failed aspirational middle class wanker in my book.


This has got to be the most stupid analysis of class on a thread with an already pretty low bar.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 12, 2022)

Didn't Thatcher literally try and destroy all facets of class signiture, so that the 5 house puce landlord can be working class?  

Not everyone has be 'at heel'. 

They've ground it down so that there is the soiled unworthy mass and the energetic elite, grabbing.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 12, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Some believe they did, yes.


I think that a big error a lot of the left has made (weirdly considering they think themselves materialist) is that thinking relationship to asset ownership doesn't matter. If over the course of your life you gradually get to the point of owning a house without mortgage and you have an okay pension (living off the labour of others through proxy stocks and shares ownership) then you have changed class. I think either one of those things changes your position in society quite a bit, both at once is quite major because you have material security through asset ownership. I don't really understand why Tories understand this perfectly well (hence boosting housing assets and pensions to protect their vote), while the 'materialist' left largely ignores it. Doesn't matter what job you did, whether you were management, what your acccent is, whether you went to university, if you end up living on asset ownership you have changed class, if you want to use class in any meaningful economic sense. And yes, this does mean that a lot of people change class in our society through the course of their lives. Does this map to the 'working class' and 'bourgoisie' of Marx's time? No, it doesn't, and that's why some people are confused when I say this. I think someone as sharp as Marx would be very confused by people trying to use the same categories as him in an utterly changed economy. I think we should have a category of something like 'lower middle class' of people who reach the point of living on assets, but without the ability to command others much through that (that would be the upper middle class).


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 12, 2022)

As for people who are landlords, don't get me started. Not only are they living on asset ownership, but they have significant control over others while exploiting them - they are in fact moving into the upper middle class. The idea of 'working class' landlords is gibberish. Some people obviously have mixed incomes, some salary income, some landlord income, but hopefully we can all cope with mixed class positions or god help us all.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 12, 2022)

Too much attached to cultural signifiers rather than position in the workforce. Hence why you get loaded bosses doing performative WC stuff, pretending to be into football etc.

plus people pick and choose their history, remember a mate going on about his grandad down the pits a bit too much. Personally I could choose to be the son of a pub barman and hospital cleaner, or the son of a paint chemist/manager and a school librarian. Both are true. Which one gets me more WC points?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> As for people who are landlords, don't get me started. Not only are they living on asset ownership, but they have significant control over others while exploiting them - they are in fact moving into the upper middle class. The idea of 'working class' landlords is gibberish. Some people obviously have mixed incomes, some salary income, some landlord income, but hopefully we can all cope with mixed class positions or god help us all.


A friend of mine lives in a flat in Croydon in a low rise private block. His landlord's property portfolio consists of that single flat. I find it very hard to believe that a landlord owning one one bedroom flat is bumping up the class ladder to the point of moving into the upper middle class. Middle class, I'd certainly grant you. But umc? Maybe your notion of class needs refining.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 12, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> A friend of mine lives in a flat in Croydon in a low rise private block. His landlord's property portfolio consists of that single flat. I find it very hard to believe that a landlord owning one one bedroom flat is bumping up the class ladder to the point of moving into the upper middle class. Middle class, I'd certainly grant you. But umc? Maybe your notion of class needs refining.


In this position you're exploiting people and have significant control over their lives, while making an income from assets. If this isn't a defining thing about your class then we're not using economic relations to define class. And what I just described is not the same as just living on assets through pensions. How do we name the distinction then? So sure, you can quibble about the exact categories and where the line falls, but I don't think it's just my notion of class that needs refining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> In this position you're exploiting people and have significant control over their lives, while making an income from assets. If this isn't a defining thing about your class then we're not using economic relations to define class. And what I just described is not the same as just living on assets through pensions. How do we name the distinction then? So sure, you can quibble about the exact categories and where the line falls, but I don't think it's just my notion of class that needs refining.


you're saying that the landlord of one flat in croydon is basically the same class as richard benyon, whose benyon estate covers hundreds of houses in hackney. it's the same thing as if you have a person who owns one shop or one pub and ekes a living out of that and then you saying they're the same class as mohammed al fayed, or the sainsbury family or tim martin. it's fucking ludicrous


----------



## brogdale (Apr 12, 2022)

Got to say that i don't really see how the size of a rentier's portfolio affects their status as leeches of unearned income. Perhaps the gradations of middle-classness are the problem here.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 12, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> you're saying that the landlord of one flat in croydon is basically the same class as richard benyon, whose benyon estate covers hundreds of houses in hackney. it's the same thing as if you have a person who owns one shop or one pub and ekes a living out of that and then you saying they're the same class as mohammed al fayed, or the sainsbury family or tim martin. it's fucking ludicrous


As I said, we need to think about mixed class positions. How can we not? That means there are gradients within class. 

Also someone who is such a large established landowner (usually through inheritance) that they have political as well as economic power, like Benyon, would be upper class in my book.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 12, 2022)

bourgeoisie_ ?_


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> As I said, we need to think about mixed class positions.


you'll have to get on without me on this one. some might see that as a blessing. anyway, i've got work to do


----------



## Smangus (Apr 12, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> . anyway, i've got work to do



Since when has that ever stopped you ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 12, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> If over the course of your life you gradually get to the point of owning a house without mortgage and you have an okay pension (living off the labour of others through proxy stocks and shares ownership)



Using your ‘materialist analysis’ 63% of the British population is either middle class or aspires to be via their ownership of a house. You don’t define an ‘okay pension’ but if you can we can examine whether, in fact, more than 2/3 of the population are or aspire to be middle class.

As Tony Blair once put it, ‘we’re all middle class now’….


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2022)

Hate to go #notalllandlords but there's a significant minority who are just people who've had to do some maneuvering to hold onto a home that should 'belong' to someone whose in long term care, people going through nasty divorces, etc. The same way the stock market holds everyone's pensions hostage, the rental market holds a lot of vulnerable people hostage. You can't claim someone whose rented out a house so they can afford the literal extortion of care for the elderly is middle class. They're just being exploited by the people profiting off the care system, as is the tenant.

Whether the landlord involves understands this, and is proactive in doing as little harm as possible, is a different question.

My sister lives in a (relatively) wealthy area in an otherwise down on its luck bit of Birmingham. The amount of empty houses is shocking, like the equivalent of what you get with retail units up a high street. The arseholes who own these houses are class traitors imo. Just full on hoarding houses they've inherited, often while they have a sibling who grew up in the house who wants to move in (or often whose entitled to money from the sale or something).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Using your ‘materialist analysis’ 63% of the British population is either middle class or aspires to be via their ownership of a house. You don’t define an ‘okay pension’ but if you can we can examine whether, in fact, more than 2/3 of the population are or aspire to be middle class.


That sounds about right tbh. I'd add in that roughly 50% of the population now enters higher education. The meaning of having a degree has changed.

I think the point I'd want to make about that is that as the 'middle classes', or at least those whose lives contain aspects of middle classedness (I think BA's notion of mixed classes is a good one), have expanded, so what you might call the class privileges of those in that bracket have shrunk. Uni education is a decent illustration of this, I think - while half the population now goes to uni, that half of the population is also now left with a potentially life-long debt to pay off and often not great employment prospects. 

Perhaps the US understanding of the term 'middle class' is more useful here? In the US, it doesn't carry the connotations of being comfortably off that it perhaps still has here.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 12, 2022)

muscovyduck said:


> Hate to go #notalllandlords but there's a significant minority who are just people who've had to do some maneuvering to hold onto a home that should 'belong' to someone whose in long term care, people going through nasty divorces, etc. The same way the stock market holds everyone's pensions hostage, the rental market holds a lot of vulnerable people hostage. You can't claim someone whose rented out a house so they can afford the literal extortion of care for the elderly is middle class. They're just being exploited by the people profiting off the care system, as is the tenant.
> 
> Whether the landlord involves understands this, and is proactive in doing as little harm as possible, is a different question.
> 
> My sister lives in a (relatively) wealthy area in an otherwise down on its luck bit of Birmingham. The amount of empty houses is shocking, like the equivalent of what you get with retail units up a high street. The arseholes who own these houses are class traitors imo. Just full on hoarding houses they've inherited, often while they have a sibling who grew up in the house who wants to move in (or often whose entitled to money from the sale or something).



The landlord sector is woefully unregulated and unregistered and it really needs more monitoring. There are a number of people who operate in special circumstances like your sister but the vast majority of properties are owned by under 20% of landlords while the bulk of landlords got into it because its the best way to make money.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775002/EPLS_main_report.pdf
		





> While almost half of landlords own just one property, half of private rented
> sector tenancies are let by the 17% of landlords with five or more properties.
>  45% of landlords have just one rental property. This represents 21% of the
> private rented sector9. A further 38% own between two and four properties
> ...





> Landlords most commonly reported that they had become landlords because
> property was preferable to other investments and/or to contribute to their
> pension.
>  46% of landlords became a landlord because they preferred property to other
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

also, regarding getting a mortgage, people have little choice in the matter. As social housing options disappear, if they are able to get a mortgage, that's often the only chance they will have to escape the precariousness of private renting. Hence the rotten practice of part-rent, part-buy has expanded so much. It's a con - instead of just paying a social housing rent, you pay that plus a mortgage on top - but even knowing it's a con, it can still be the right thing for people to choose given the piss-poor set of choices available to them.

The choice isn't 'do you want to be exploited or not?'. At best, it's 'how do you want to be exploited?' And having a mortgage doesn't mean you're not being exploited.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 12, 2022)

> The landlord sector is woefully unregulated and unregistered


Intentionally so.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 12, 2022)

Sue said:


> Viennettas were well posh.


Funded by Russian gold


----------



## nogojones (Apr 12, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I think that a big error a lot of the left has made (weirdly considering they think themselves materialist) is that thinking relationship to asset ownership doesn't matter. If over the course of your life you gradually get to the point of owning a house without mortgage and you have an okay pension (living off the labour of others through proxy stocks and shares ownership) then you have changed class. I think either one of those things changes your position in society quite a bit, both at once is quite major because you have material security through asset ownership. I don't really understand why Tories understand this perfectly well (hence boosting housing assets and pensions to protect their vote), while the 'materialist' left largely ignores it. Doesn't matter what job you did, whether you were management, what your acccent is, whether you went to university, if you end up living on asset ownership you have changed class, if you want to use class in any meaningful economic sense. And yes, this does mean that a lot of people change class in our society through the course of their lives. Does this map to the 'working class' and 'bourgoisie' of Marx's time? No, it doesn't, and that's why some people are confused when I say this. I think someone as sharp as Marx would be very confused by people trying to use the same categories as him in an utterly changed economy. I think we should have a category of something like 'lower middle class' of people who reach the point of living on assets, but without the ability to command others much through that (that would be the upper middle class).


Was it Lenin who described the British as a nation of coupon clippers?


----------



## nogojones (Apr 12, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll have to get on without me on this one. some might see that as a blessing. anyway, i've got work to do


Tell me it isn't true


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> The landlord sector is woefully unregulated and unregistered and it really needs more monitoring. There are a number of people who operate in special circumstances like your sister but the vast majority of properties are owned by under 20% of landlords while the bulk of landlords got into it because its the best way to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775002/EPLS_main_report.pdf


Oh no I didn't mean my sister is a landlord, just where she lives there's loads of empty houses. 

I'm aware of the issues with the sector (I have previously been homeless, not sofa surfing, literally homeless) and know people in all sorts of awful housing situations, my own isn't great at the moment either, which is why I described people being 'held hostage' by it. Because it's a bad thing. I honestly think landlordism is the worst thing in the UK. It's where most of the care system's cash goes too, paying over the top rent. 

It's the same way the stock market does a lot of damage but the challenge is that pensions are held hostage by it. So people say things like "fuck the stock market" but a lot of people have a misguided solidarity with the stock market because they're relying on it for their retirement and they don't understand they're basically being used as a human shield by people asset stripping the economy. It's a deliberate move to confuse the situation and make it difficult to combat.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 12, 2022)

So now we've established that house-owners are not working class, what other asset-holdings immediately elevate someone to the middle-class? A savings account at a bank? A car? An unreasonable quantity of books? A smartphone? 

If you're an airline pilot on £100k living in rented accommodation near Heathrow with few possessions are you more working class than an employed office cleaner on minimum wage who bought their council house in 1996?


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2022)

Anyway going back to the wider thread part of the problem imo is that we'll commonly use phrases like "upper middle class" "lower middle class" but don't label the same distinctions within the working class. There's definitely a group of wealthy working class people (eg doctors) and obvs with my background I subconsciously make a distinction of working class people from sheltered backgrounds (eg mom and dad are married in a house they've mostly paid off the mortgage on and the kids went to a nice comprehensive school far away from any knife crime issues). They're not not working class but they've got their own interests that don't reflect other working class groups, for example the possibility of class mobility


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2022)

muscovyduck said:


> Anyway going back to the wider thread part of the problem imo is that we'll commonly use phrases like "upper middle class" "lower middle class" but don't label the same distinctions within the working class. There's definitely a group of wealthy working class people (eg doctors) and obvs with my background I subconsciously make a distinction of working class people from sheltered backgrounds (eg mom and dad are married in a house they've mostly paid off the mortgage on and they went to a nice comprehensive school far away from any knife crime issues). They're not not working class but they've got their own interests that don't reflect other working class groups, for example the possibility of class mobility


i don't know the people working in the professions eg law or medicine are working class - thinking here of solicitors, barristers and doctors


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So now we've established that house-owners are not working class, what other asset-holdings immediately elevate someone to the middle-class? A savings account at a bank? A car? An unreasonable quantity of books? A smartphone?
> 
> If you're an airline pilot on £100k living in rented accommodation near Heathrow with few possessions are you more working class than an employed office cleaner on minimum wage who bought their council house in 1996?


We're establishing the limits of the terms, no, more than anything? And that's surely where BA's notion of mixed classes comes in. Reality isn't a good fit for such crudely defined boxes. 

Of all people, phildwyer was strong on this point, perhaps because he lived in the US, where this mixedness is more obvious. There's no contradiction in stating that in certain aspects of your life you are living off the work of others while in other aspects, others are living off your work. The balance between the two - plus of course the levels of your incomes - determine where you stand in the wider society's relations. tbh I think looking at a person's bank account and seeing how much money comes in each month is a decent place to start when determining such things.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 12, 2022)

Yeah, as fun as it can be to try and work out what class someone would be if they've voted tory but never eaten a viennetta, surely the whole point of class analysis is to work out collective class interests - as a renter, I have shared material interests with other renters, things like more protections for tenants and restrictions on what landlords can do would be good for me. The landlord of a single flat in Croydon might even be a nice and altruistic person who supports those things on principle, but their relationship to tenant protections or landlord regulations would be very different to mine, no?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 12, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> being an officer makes you automatically not, unless you are richard sharpe


What if McGann hadn't bollocksed himself playing football?! 😱😱😱


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, as fun as it can be to try and work out what class someone would be if they've voted tory but never eaten a viennetta, surely the whole point of class analysis is to work out collective class interests - as a renter, I have shared material interests with other renters, things like more protections for tenants and restrictions on what landlords can do would be good for me. The landlord of a single flat in Croydon might even be a nice and altruistic person who supports those things on principle, but their relationship to tenant protections or landlord regulations would be very different to mine, no?



I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to the concept of class than a massive collection of single-issue protest causes that people can analyse to see where they intersect for particular individuals.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to the concept of class than a massive collection of single-issue protest causes that people can analyse to see where they intersect for particular individuals.


Not 100% sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Got to say that i don't really see how the size of a rentier's portfolio affects their status as leeches of unearned income. Perhaps the gradations of middle-classness are the problem here.


Woe betide those who have lodgers


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 12, 2022)

The whole property situation in the uk is a fuck up. The idea of a "ladder" that you get on, it's a marketing con by the banks to get a steady income. Mortgages were difficult to get in the old days and the de regulation of them in the early seventies gave a green light to finance to start to gouge profit. Being a landlord is no sign of class though, take Rigsby, possibly the most famous fictional landlord, just an ordinary w.c. bloke. I've had plenty of good landlords who were decent people providing decent value within the constraints of the rental market. Landlords take the risk and responsibility that I couldn't manage.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, as fun as it can be to try and work out what class someone would be if they've voted tory but never eaten a viennetta, surely the whole point of class analysis is to work out collective class interests - as a renter, I have shared material interests with other renters, things like more protections for tenants and restrictions on what landlords can do would be good for me. The landlord of a single flat in Croydon might even be a nice and altruistic person who supports those things on principle, but their relationship to tenant protections or landlord regulations would be very different to mine, no?



Yes agreed. I think to go back to Brainaddict's point though, I do think this is where 'the left' hasn't been very successful in recognising the difference in those different interests. I'm thinking maybe around homeownership more than landlordism really. I mean it's fine to say, as people have here, that being a homeowner doesn't make you middle class and lots of working class people own homes but don't you then have to recognise that conflict of interest exists within the group still? Obviously the Tories have successfully appealed to those interests and Labour have lost votes, but even if you're coming at it from a more radical left viewpoint, working class homeowners aren't likely to be attracted to 'abolish all property' type approaches are they?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 12, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That sounds about right tbh.



2/3 of Britain being middle class sounds about right to you??


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 12, 2022)

Yeah, dunno really. Is it worth making a further distinction between mortgage-havers and people who haven't paid their mortgages off? I suppose it's easy to roll both into the same category of "homeowner", but if you're paying a mortgage off then are you that much more secure than a renter?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, dunno really. Is it worth making a further distinction between mortgage-havers and people who haven't paid their mortgages off? I suppose it's easy to roll both into the same category of "homeowner", but if you're paying a mortgage off then are you that much more secure than a renter?


Than private renting, yes, you are. You're not subject to yearly rent increases, and as long as you keep your job, you're not subject to the threat of eviction with a couple of months' notice. That's a big difference. (Plus, you know you are likely to have a government that will act in the interests of homeowners, generally, to the extent of borrowing massively to prop up the market.)

Social housing renting can be different. But in the UK, private renting laws are so terrible that you never have any security.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 12, 2022)

And now anyone who has a property is forced to pay for their old age care with it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 2/3 of Britain being middle class sounds about right to you??


If you widen the idea to one in which many people have a mixed status, yes. As ever, depends on your definitions.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 2/3 of Britain being middle class sounds about right to you??


We've clearly been concentrating on the wrong class


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 12, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Than private renting, yes, you are. You're not subject to yearly rent increases, and as long as you keep your job, you're not subject to the threat of eviction with a couple of months' notice. That's a big difference.
> 
> Social housing renting can be different. But in the UK, private renting laws are so terrible that you never have any security.


Fair enough, yeah, I was thinking of the way that mortgage-holders were hit after the 2008 crash, but I suppose that was relatively exceptional whereas tenants are just in that situation all the time. And similarly I suppose being in a permanent job with a proper contract is very different to being on some zero-hours bogus-self-employed shit, but some of the underlying power relations are still the same?
Dunno, I'd think of the PAH in Spain as being something worthwhile and that feels like class struggle to me:








						Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



But then I suppose the fact that I have to give a Spanish example says something about the UK not being great at articulating those interests in a class struggle way?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2022)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Fair enough, yeah, I was thinking of the way that mortgage-holders were hit after the 2008 crash,


Most mortgage holders did very well out of the 2008 crash. Interest rates came crashing down.

Some people were unable to move for a while due to negative equity, but otherwise, as long as you kept your job, you were totally fine, and as I say, your costs came down.

ETA: This was surely an important factor in keeping people voting tory during the pay cuts of the 'austerity' years.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, dunno really. Is it worth making a further distinction between mortgage-havers and people who haven't paid their mortgages off? I suppose it's easy to roll both into the same category of "homeowner", but if you're paying a mortgage off then are you that much more secure than a renter?


I hate to keep banging the same drum but even if you own the house, once you hit old age and start getting ill that's really not secure as an asset any more, or even if you're not old but you need full time care long term after a serious accident or something. I would be very suprised if anyone's pension can actually cover full time care fees. Most of us (including some of the middle class) have common interests here but people don't realise it's too late.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 12, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes agreed. I think to go back to Brainaddict's point though, I do think this is where 'the left' hasn't been very successful in recognising the difference in those different interests. I'm thinking maybe around homeownership more than landlordism really. I mean it's fine to say, as people have here, that being a homeowner doesn't make you middle class and lots of working class people own homes but don't you then have to recognise that conflict of interest exists within the group still? Obviously the Tories have successfully appealed to those interests and Labour have lost votes, but even if you're coming at it from a more radical left viewpoint, working class homeowners aren't likely to be attracted to 'abolish all property' type approaches are they?



There is no doubt that Thatcher was correct to identify home ownership as a critical issue for working class voters and also that the sale of council houses was an important symbol of the new order she intended to impose on Britain. But some of the arguments on here are straying into Galbraith's Affluent Society territory.

As for your last point, do we say a worker who has a mortgage is more or less likely to challenge the established order than those who once lived in a house rented from their employer and where the roof over their head was often clearly linked to avoiding workplace militancy? This was once a commonplace set of arrangements in mining communities, shipbuilding and much of industry. My dad grew up in a house rented off his dad's bosses. I really think you need to be careful about ascribing too much into people who have managed to obtain a mortgage. Landlords, I would accept is a different matter.


----------



## Storm Fox (Apr 12, 2022)

muscovyduck said:


> Hate to go #notalllandlords but there's a significant minority who are just people who've had to do some maneuvering to hold onto a home that should 'belong' to someone whose in long term care, people going through nasty divorces, etc. The same way the stock market holds everyone's pensions hostage, the rental market holds a lot of vulnerable people hostage. You can't claim someone whose rented out a house so they can afford the literal extortion of care for the elderly is middle class. They're just being exploited by the people profiting off the care system, as is the tenant.
> 
> Whether the landlord involves understands this, and is proactive in doing as little harm as possible, is a different question.
> 
> My sister lives in a (relatively) wealthy area in an otherwise down on its luck bit of Birmingham. The amount of empty houses is shocking, like the equivalent of what you get with retail units up a high street. The arseholes who own these houses are class traitors imo. Just full on hoarding houses they've inherited, often while they have a sibling who grew up in the house who wants to move in (or often whose entitled to money from the sale or something).


I was a landlord few a couple of years, I couldn't afford my flat so had to move back in with my parents and needed to rent it out to cover the mortgage. The tenant asked for a couple of things to be added to the flat, which I didn't have when I was living there which I gladly did. I wasn't a dick and would have been happy to do more if requested, I also gave the tenant the option of leaving my washer dryer for them to use, (which was safety tested). 
When they moved out then it was vacant for about 6 six months while I sold it.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 12, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, dunno really. Is it worth making a further distinction between mortgage-havers and people who haven't paid their mortgages off? I suppose it's easy to roll both into the same category of "homeowner", but if you're paying a mortgage off then are you that much more secure than a renter?


Depends what sort of renter. 

If someone is a council/social/affordable housing renter, then their tenure is relatively secure.

If someone is a private sector renter, they have very little security, beyond the initial... six or 12 months? of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. So many private sector tenants get served with possession notices/evicted, because the landlord wants to sell up, which is happening more and more. 

iirc, private sector landlords can no longer offset mortgage interest on their profits, and the regulatory requirements are becoming more and more onerous in terms of quality and safety, (gas and electricity safety tests, Energy Performance Certificates, etc), which is no bad thing, of course, from the tenants perspective, but for many landlords the additional costs, coupled with substantial losses if they get a bad tenant who stops paying the rent, they incur the legal costs of eviction, and then often the bad tenant has trashed the place, causing £thousands of damage, and the deposit doesn't cover those costs...

Not all landlords are bad, just as not all tenants are bad. And don't forget, many Buy To Let landlords are relatively ordinary people in relatively ordinary jobs who have invested in property as their 'pension', because they saw what happened to the Maxwell media pensioners, the Rover pensioners, and so many other people who'd worked all their lives and then got fucked over by thieving fuckers who raided their pension schemes. So many people have ended up figuring they've got to look after Number One, because the company you work for isn't going to, the government isn't going to either.

But all that means is that private sector renters are vulnerable to the knock-on effect of being susceptible to the changing circumstances in the life of their landlord, and the risks and amount of work that landlord is prepared for.

I'm in a couple of landlord groups on Facebook, because I was thinking about renting out my flat if I end up working away, or maybe getting a lodger. 

Lots of landlords are either selling up, or thinking about doing so. So renting in the private sector is going to become more and more unstable over the next few years, I think. 

The best kind of stability, I think, is still 'getting on the property ladder' and aiming to be mortgage free in a freehold property, not leasehold. But I know that's not an option for everyone. It's bad enough when it's adults who are impacted by the whims of landlords, but when families with children are having to move every couple of years, it's awful. 

I don't think the government has properly studied or taken account of the impact of insecure housing on small children especially in their formative years. I have friends who moved four times in the first six years of their daughter's life, because of landlords selling up and them having to move, only for the same thing to happen again. And I know someone else who ended up homeless and living in an hotel room then temporary accommodation with their primary school age daughter, after their landlord wanted the property back that they'd rented for years, paying the rent promptly, no problems. The landlord probably wanted to either sell or maybe renovate and rent out for a lot more money, which is another thing they do when rents are increasing rapidly, ie get rid of the current tenant, give it a lick of paint, then rent it out for an extra couple of hundred a month.

Private sector renters are screwed, and it's only going to get worse.


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2022)

I think for a few of the posters on this thread the British working class in 2022 consists of:

The poster
The posters wife*
Their dog, Susan.



(*For such a level of idiocy is invariably male.)


----------



## ouirdeaux (Apr 12, 2022)

_Nobody _calls their dog Susan. Particularly if they believe that they're working class.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 12, 2022)

ouirdeaux said:


> _Nobody _calls their dog Susan. Particularly if they believe that they're working class.



I met a cat called Susan once, the owner was a beach vendor on a Caribbean island, which no doubt made him and his cat petite bourgeoisie.


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I met a cat called Susan once, the owner was a beach vendor on a Caribbean island, which no doubt made him and his cat petite bourgeoisie.


First against the wall.

ETA. Susan the cat faces the firing squad come the revolution.


----------



## chilango (Apr 12, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> We've clearly been concentrating on the wrong class


I suspect in a number of ways that's truer than you intended.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 12, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is no doubt that Thatcher was correct to identify home ownership as a critical issue for working class voters and also that the sale of council houses was an important symbol of the new order she intended to impose on Britain. But some of the arguments on here are straying into Galbraith's Affluent Society territory.
> 
> As for your last point, do we say a worker who has a mortgage is more or less likely to challenge the established order than those who once lived in a house rented from their employer and where the roof over their head was often clearly linked to avoiding workplace militancy? This was once a commonplace set of arrangements in mining communities, shipbuilding and much of industry. My dad grew up in a house rented off his dad's bosses. I really think you need to be careful about ascribing too much into people who have managed to obtain a mortgage. Landlords, I would accept is a different matter.


This is a bit irrelevant though, because we're talking about the differences in society _now_, and almost no-one has tied accommodation now. The class groupings around housing are roughly: landlord, ownership(secure), ownership(insecure), secure tenancies, private rented tenancies. Those groups all have different interests, but I'd argue that the biggest faultline is between those who own and those who rent. The Tories keep winning elections because they picked a side. Most of the left still hasn't worked out there are sides, even though it's about clear material interests.

Really not very interested in hearing from the 'not all landlords' gang. Come on, this is very unsophisticated thinking. When people talk about bosses being exploitative do you start talking about someone you know who has a small business and is really nice to their employees, or someone you know who accidentally ended up owning their mum's flower shop? Of course there are all sorts of edge cases and gradients within the class alignments, but that doesn't stop there being large power blocs or voting blocs who want different, often opposing things.


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2022)

ouirdeaux said:


> _Nobody _calls their dog Susan. Particularly if they believe that they're working class.


The Queen did, and Princess Margret thought she (the Queen not the dog) was common.





__





						Susan (dog) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ouirdeaux (Apr 12, 2022)

You added the bit about Margaret, though


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 12, 2022)

chilango said:


> I suspect in a number of ways that's truer than you intended.


My favourite quote is from Joe Reilly, previously of this manor who once said*, "If nobody is working class any more, who is doing the work?"

*Paraphrased somewhat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My favourite quote is from Joe Reilly, previously of this manor who once said*, "If nobody is working class any more, who is doing the work?"
> 
> *Paraphrased somewhat.


And by that definition surely the working class is the majority. Those who have no choice but to sell their labour in order to survive. That's most of us.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 13, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And by that definition surely the working class is the majority. Those who have no choice but to sell their labour in order to survive. That's most of us.



Hang on, I thought you said that 66% of the population being middle class ‘felt about right’?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 13, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Those groups all have different interests, but I'd argue that the biggest faultline is between those who own and those who rent. The Tories keep winning elections because they picked a side. Most of the left still hasn't worked out there are sides, even though it's about clear material interests.



What evidence is there that ‘the biggest fault line is between those who own and those who rent’? How do you take this idea forward without setting to set up another set of generational divides?

As for picking sides why would ‘the left’ want to write off 63% of the population on the basis that it possesses one particularly form of material interest?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Not all landlords are bad, just as not all tenants are bad.



And yet...



AnnO'Neemus said:


> Private sector renters are screwed, and it's only going to get worse.



Maybe not all landlords do overtly evil shit like evicting people just to put the rent up but if you're in a position of constantly worrying if they're going to turf you out it doesn't really matter, because 'good' or 'bad' they've still put themselves in that position where they can fuck up someone else's life to make a few bob extra or to spare themselves the hassle of phoning the agency twice, three times a year.

I don't think there's anything preventing landlords from offering long term tenancies. But none do. Because they're all out for themselves at the end of the day. So maybe they're nice people, but they might as well not be for all the difference it makes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What evidence is there that ‘the biggest fault line is between those who own and those who rent’? How do you take this idea forward without setting to set up another set of generational divides?
> 
> As for picking sides why would ‘the left’ want to write off 63% of the population on the basis that it possesses one particularly form of material interest?



Because homeowners have multiple parties chasing their votes and renters have none? 

Because that one particular form of material interest is the single biggest material factor affecting a person's quality of life? Because neoliberal capitalism is now entirely focussed on property speculation and there can be no challenge to it that doesn't address homes and housing?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because homeowners have multiple parties chasing their votes and renters have none?
> 
> Because that one particular form of material interest is the single biggest material factor affecting a person's quality of life? Because neoliberal capitalism is now entirely focussed on property speculation and there can be no challenge to it that doesn't address homes and housing?



None of that is evidence that the biggest political fault line is between renters and home owners. It’s also not persuasive as to why the left should ‘pick a side’ (homeowners v renters)
rather than seeking to advance a set of ideas and praxis that brings the widest possible group together around shared interests.

By the way. Presumably, one of the most immediate demands of renters would be the resources and means to buy their own place. Would the left support this and thereby drain it’s potential reservoir of support further?

I generally agree about the centrality of housing in peoples lives. But, I’m not sure branding all mortgage holders as middle class and arguing for the left to ‘pick sides’ is a particularly convincing programme to engage or get a hearing in the debate


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.

Opposing landlordism could also mean supporting the rest of the economy. The proportion of working folk's income that goes on rent keeps going up, which means they have less to spend on everything else. None of the 'common sense' economics types appear to have spotted this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.
> 
> Opposing landlordism could also mean supporting the rest of the economy. The proportion of working folk's income that goes on rent keeps going up, which means they have less to spend on everything else. None of the 'common sense' economics types appear to have spotted this.


If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I generally agree about the centrality of housing in peoples lives. But, I’m not sure branding all mortgage holders as middle class and arguing for the left to ‘pick sides’ is a particularly convincing programme to engage or get a hearing in the debate


You may disagree that house owners are middle class, and maybe it makes more sense to think of them as a subset of the working class, but to me there's no doubt that home ownership, particularly once you are secure in it (i.e. not struggling to pay a mortgage and that being your main worry) puts you in a different relationship to asset price inflation - something that generally benefits the rich and is a major part of the Tory project.

I think having a materialist analysis of class at the moment requires using the idea of stratification within classes, rather than just two (or three according to preference) classes. Like I say, having a good pension also puts you in a certain relationship to asset prices, even if you got that pension by being a dustman. Did working class pensioners in Marx's time (the few who existed) benefit from stock market growth? Generally no. So he didn't talk about it. But now they do. So maybe we should talk about it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.



Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?


Man, this has been keeping the economy afloat for years. People release equity by remortgaging, or by downsizing, or through inheritance _all the time_. This is a lot of what is keeping consumption afloat in this country as wages sink and sink. That and personal debt.


----------



## andysays (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up...



The idea that tenants and home owners are inherently two groups with directly opposing interests needs a bit more discussion, TBH. Owners don't necessarily want prices to go up, and they certainly don't all benefit from it.

It's not as obviously the case as the idea that tenants and landlords (or workers and employers) have directly opposing interests.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> By the way. Presumably, one of the most immediate demands of renters would be the resources and means to buy their own place.


Agree with much of that, but not totally convinced about that most immediate demand. Quite a few of my kids' generation appear to have seen through the Thatcherite/neoliberal transformation of the basic human need for shelter into a 'taxable' asset class. They most immediately want (more) affordable rents, greater security of tenure, safer/healthier stock and greater intervention from the (local) state. And those that have heard of/get the idea of council housing like the idea of that. 

tbh, it seems quite healthy to question the 'benefits' of home ownership when so many working class families are debt farmed by the banks on the promise of an inheritable asset that the neoliberal state gobbles up in "care" funding/inheritance tax.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You may disagree that house owners are middle class, and maybe it makes more sense to think of them as a subset of the working class, but to me there's no doubt that home ownership, particularly once you are secure in it (i.e. not struggling to pay a mortgage and that being your main worry) puts you in a different relationship to asset price inflation - something that generally benefits the rich and is a major part of the Tory project.
> 
> I think having a materialist analysis of class at the moment requires using the idea of stratification within classes, rather than just two (or three according to preference) classes. Like I say, having a good pension also puts you in a certain relationship to asset prices, even if you got that pension by being a dustman. Did working class pensioners in Marx's time (the few who existed) benefit from stock market growth? Generally no. So he didn't talk about it. But now they do. So maybe we should talk about it?


Could you say some more about the working class pensioners of Marx's time, pls, few tho they may have been?

The average pension payout from a private pension was in 18/19 £175 per week. So half of the 69% of pensioners with a private pension are receiving less than that. Any actual benefit they're receiving from stock market growth seems marginal. Maybe if we're going to talk about it, you might like to bring some of your actual evidence into the discussion. I daresay Marx would have done.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As for picking sides why would ‘the left’ want to write off 63% of the population on the basis that it possesses one particularly form of material interest?


On this I do agree that of course politically no-one can afford to see houseowners as 'the enemy'. But since most houseowners are also wage-earners, there is a way that you can oppose their interests as houseowners while making sure they are overall winners: namely to support wage increases over asset price increases. But there's no question that to do this you have to downgrade the expectations of house owners that they can treat their house as a piggy bank. You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house. You have to oppose them as a homeowner bloc by supporting them as salaried workers. It's a tricky political act because house price growth appears to people as 'free money', and acrues to many people after retirement when they aren't salaried any more anyway. So there's a large number of owners who won't see wage growth as sufficient compensation for the loss of house price growth (particularly if it comes with deflation of other assets that back their pensions) and that's a problem politically.

Okay, I'm done for now trying to persuade marxists to be materialists. If you don't want to get it you don't, but the Tories (or Blairite Labour) will keep winning if you can't undo this knot.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house.



You think working class home owners prefer being able to withdraw money from their homes (how often btw?) over wage increases?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.



Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> On this I do agree that of course politically no-one can afford to see houseowners as 'the enemy'. But since most houseowners are also wage-earners, there is a way that you can oppose their interests as houseowners while making sure they are overall winners: namely to support wage increases over asset price increases. But there's no question that to do this you have to downgrade the expectations of house owners that they can treat their house as a piggy bank. You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house. You have to oppose them as a homeowner bloc by supporting them as salaried workers. It's a tricky political act because house price growth appears to people as 'free money', and acrues to many people after retirement when they aren't salaried any more anyway. So there's a large number of owners who won't see wage growth as sufficient compensation for the loss of house price growth (particularly if it comes with deflation of other assets that back their pensions) and that's a problem politically.
> 
> Okay, I'm done for now trying to persuade marxists to be materialists. If you don't want to get it you don't, but the Tories (or Blairite Labour) will keep winning if you can't undo this knot.



There's a difference between 'the enemy' and 'not the most urgent priority'. Anyone claiming to be progressive should surely focus their attention on those whose need is greatest surely? So people with no homes, then people with precarious or unsafe homes, then people with little or no prospect of owning a home, then when all those people are OK maybe 'ordinary' homeowners. 

Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.


----------



## andysays (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.


But saying "no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none" isn't something contrary to the material interests of most people who own their own home (and even more people who are currently paying off a mortgage).

Your class enemy is your landlord, not the people living in the house next door who are "lucky" enough to have been able to get a mortgage which they struggle to pay every month.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.


No doubt some will, and some won't.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You think working class home owners prefer being able to withdraw money from their homes (how often btw?) over wage increases?


They absolutely do when they're retired.

As for wage increases when you're not retired, you'd have to fight for those, and low organisation of the workforce means you might be barely capable of doing so. While house values just accrue without you having to do anything (except vote in governments committed to house price growth). So yes, in terms of the life choices they might want to make (start a union in their non-unionised workplace? Nah), even many people in work are happy to rely on house price growth.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.



"This modest increase is due to market conditions and increased overheads..."


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> "This modest increase is due to market conditions and increased overheads..."


Rent controls should return


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 13, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's a difference between 'the enemy' and 'not the most urgent priority'. Anyone claiming to be progressive should surely focus their attention on those whose need is greatest surely? So people with no homes, then people with precarious or unsafe homes, then people with little or no prospect of owning a home, then when all those people are OK maybe 'ordinary' homeowners.
> 
> Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.



I don't know that you can to be honest, no. If you want people on board you have to be able to offer them something that appeals to their interests. That's not to say you can't focus on those groups as well but taken to it's ultimate logic that tends towards a sort of version of that Tory logic that's always pointing out someone who's got something you don't.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 13, 2022)

Something I think defines the difference from wc to mc is paying for your kids to have a different type of education in fee paying schools. The toffs at the top do this as a matter of course, but mc and aspiring wc have a definite choice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

Chilli.s said:


> Something I think defines the difference from wc to mc is paying for your kids to have a different type of education in fee paying schools. The toffs at the top do this as a matter of course, but mc and aspiring wc have a definite choice.


7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class. A difference imo between being working class and middle class around schools is working class people not enjoying the mobility many middle class parents do to move to the catchment areas of good schools


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.


I suspect that in that scenario, rents would rise. 

At the moment, rents seem to be pitched at the point where the donor is weakened, but not quite fatally.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> 7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class



Except Edinburgh, where it is 25%.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Except Edinburgh, where it is 25%.


It's high in hackney too, some years back it was about 20% but many of those being religious schools iirc. Nonetheless overall it's about 1/14


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> I suspect that in that scenario, rents would rise.
> 
> At the moment, rents seem to be pitched at the point where the donor is weakened, but not quite fatally.


This is true. There is not as much housing scarcity as some people say, but there is a little housing scarcity, and even that is enough to put landlords in the driving seat. They can essentially demand as much as people can afford, and for the most part they do. So in order for wage increases to not disappear in rent you need to either end housing scarcity with massive social housing building, or enact rent controls. Preferably both.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> 7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class. A difference imo between being working class and middle class around schools is working class people not enjoying the mobility many middle class parents do to move to the catchment areas of good schools


Dunno really, just an observation of the group of people that i know personally


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It's high in hackney too, some years back it was about 20% but many of those being religious schools iirc. Nonetheless overall it's about 1/14



Aye, Edinburgh is an outlier in this respect.

Now, I must give up the joyous pastime of posting on Urban, and go to the gym. I'm sitting here naked, post shower, and Mrs Sas is telling me that if I don't move now, certain appendages are going to be used as marbles.


----------



## rubbershoes (Apr 13, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Man, this has been keeping the economy afloat for years. People release equity by remortgaging, or by downsizing, or through inheritance _all the time_. This is a lot of what is keeping consumption afloat in this country as wages sink and sink. That and personal debt.



That's a by product of rising house prices. Unless someone is stepping out of the housing market completely, then rising prices are of no benefit to them.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?



It matters because the landlord is getting an income from the property, in percentage terms, as house prices rise, so do rents to maintain the landlord's profit.

House price rises don't matter so much when the landlord has held the house for twenty years, but for someone buying now, the same standard of property needs a bigger rent to sustain the % profit. This then becomes the rent for that type of property, so the 20 year landlord raises their rent to match the new landlord. The 20 year landlord's % profit is of course huge in comparison to initial outlay, the new landlord not so much.

Really must aaaaarrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

rubbershoes said:


> That's a by product of rising house prices. Unless someone is stepping out of the housing market completely, then rising prices are of no benefit to them.



And certainly not a benefit to those who have kids that can no longer get on the ladder because of such rises.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> It matters because the landlord is getting an income from the property, in percentage terms, as house prices rise, so do rents to maintain the landlord's profit.
> 
> House price rises don't matter so much when the landlord has held the house for twenty years, but for someone buying now, the same standard of property needs a bigger rent to sustain the % profit. This then becomes the rent for that type of property, so the 20 year landlord raises their rent to match the new landlord. The 20 year landlord's % profit is of course huge in comparison to initial outlay, the new landlord not so much.
> 
> Really must aaaaarrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh



I wasn’t referring to landlords let alone defending them. We were discussing working class home owners.


----------



## A380 (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My favourite quote is from Joe Reilly, previously of this manor who once said*, "If nobody is working class any more, who is doing the work?"
> 
> *Paraphrased somewhat.


People in China?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Rent controls should return


stringing up the rentiers with piano wire might help accelerate that process


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Now, I must give up the joyous pastime of posting on Urban, and go to the gym. I'm sitting here naked, post shower, and Mrs Sas is telling me that if I don't move now, certain appendages are going to be used as marbles.


There is just so much wrongness in this post that I just don't know where to start


----------



## Sue (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> People in China?


'We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just stick our hand in the next guy's pocket.”


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> People in China?



Not sure that outsourcing came about because the UK became fully middle class. I appreciate the joke though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> There is just so much wrongness in this post that I just don't know where to start


Start at the bottom


----------



## _Russ_ (Apr 13, 2022)

> 'We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just stick our hand in the next guy's pocket.”



Thats the most accurate description of British Business in the 21st century Ive heard.
Its a bit shit when your one of the millions at the far end of that line of pockets


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> Thats the most accurate description of British Business in the 21st century Ive heard.
> Its a bit shit when your one of the millions at the far end of that line of pockets


The trick is to be one of the hundreds at the other end


----------



## _Russ_ (Apr 13, 2022)

No shit


----------



## A380 (Apr 13, 2022)

The ironic thing about some of the idiot ideas on this thread  ( let’s get people renting to see people paying their mortgage as their enemy, to simplify) is that most real world successful revolutions, unlike the ones in the Puffin Big Book of Revolutionary Fairytales, were organised and run, and in many cases faught, by people who would definitely be considered’the middle class’ if not often mixed with the ‘bourgeoisie ’. In the same way as most revolutions don’t come when the society/ economy is at rock bottom, but when things have started to get better. It’s fairly basic history.

Marx knew this BTW.


----------



## A380 (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Aye, Edinburgh is an outlier in this respect.
> 
> Now, I must give up the joyous pastime of posting on Urban, and go to the gym. I'm sitting here naked, post shower, and Mrs Sas is telling me that if I don't move now, certain appendages are going to be used as marbles.


Top image. Thanks for that!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> Top image. Thanks for that!



If I have to suffer, everyone has to suffer! 

I've not long started back at the gym, post plague, so it is still very hard going.


----------



## rubbershoes (Apr 13, 2022)

Sue said:


> 'We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just stick our hand in the next guy's pocket.”



True dat


----------



## surreybrowncap (Apr 13, 2022)

Sasaferrato said:


> Aye, Edinburgh is an outlier in this respect.
> 
> Now, I must give up the joyous pastime of posting on Urban, and go to the gym. I'm sitting here naked, post shower, and Mrs Sas is telling me that if I don't move now, certain appendages are going to be used as marbles.


_Marbles...?  _Tennis balls surely..


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 13, 2022)

surreybrowncap said:


> _Marbles...?  _Tennis balls surely..



Thank you.


----------



## campanula (Apr 13, 2022)

Ah, I am totally on board with looking at home ownership as a class marker purely because we are currently living in an insane asset bubble. When annual equity  rises creates more material profit than wages (which it certainly does in my part of the UK) then home -ownership should absolutely be considered as a middle class phenomenon. I get that there are a number of people on here who are buying/own their own, no doubt modest properties, but a refusal to take the current skewed and frankly insanely unsustainable asset inflation around ownership of property, as a class distinction, is just disingenuous. I also see that potential profit is basically meaningless since one has to live somewhere, but the property market is untethered to any actual wages or ability to get on it (13 x average salary for a mortgage in my town...whereas only 30  or so years ago, the average mortgage was around 3x wages/salary). Home ownership has basically been a bribe to counteract wage stagnation...as Brainaddict infers...and under current conditions of artificially skewed supply and demand, with property as a prime 'investment opportunity, it would be odd to fail to consider home ownership as an essential distinction in definitions of social class.

Afaic, the solution is obviously the abolishment of private property and a programme of state funded housing as a human right.
However... the current social engineering in council house properties, as with any rentals which rest on social contracts such as 'behaviour', is dubious and has significance in power relations. I can be evicted from my supposedly secure tenancy if I am deemed an 'anti-social risk'...regardless of whether I have paid the rent or not. These restrictions do not pertain in a situation of home ownership...so I recognise the complexities of using home ownership as a simplified class descriptor...but nonetheless, this should indeed be part of a materialist left analysis, (I think).

Confession - I own a small wood, which I bought for 32K, 10 years ago. It is currently valued at around 75K which means I have 'earned' 4K a year from simply owning this material asset. It isn't unusual for a small family home to increase in value more than 30K a year, in the wealthy and privileged town where I live...but even houses in the NW have become wildly disconnected from the 'real' economy of wages and earnings.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

I’m a renter but, given the choice, I’d rather be a home owner and mortgage free in retirement than still having to find rent money which potentially could mean me not retiring at all.
To call that middle class and something that should be opposed as being materially bad for the working class is mad if you ask me.
Owning your own home isn’t the problem, but how properties continually rise in value definitely is. But I don’t think the answer is to throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## pbsmooth (Apr 13, 2022)

"confession - I own a small wood" is an incredible way to end a rant against property ownership


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> To call that middle class and something that should be opposed as being materially bad for the working class is mad if you ask me.


I don't think anyone is saying that. We're talking about class as a process of differing relationships with the economy, and not making moral judgements on house ownership by individuals, just saying that the partial alignment of many people with the economic goals of the rich (assets over wages) is causing a problem and should be faced on a collective level.


----------



## campanula (Apr 13, 2022)

Yeah, I know, pbsmooth but firstly, I didn't think I was 'ranting" and secondly, it only seems fair to admit to my own interests/bias in an analysis of material assets and social class.
I don't own a house though...and have opened the wood to anyone who wants to be in it (unlike most of my neighbours who still display 'private land' signs.


----------



## pbsmooth (Apr 13, 2022)

sounds good. it just made me smile.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Rent controls should return



Or a landlord tax. With a personal allowance of everything below the neck, and a basic rate of 100% on anything above that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

If they built more housing and/or made it illegal to own a property that remains empty it would be a start.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 13, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> If they built more housing and/or made it illegal to own a property that remains empty it would be a start.



Again, homeowners will often fight bitterly against new houses getting built near them. So you can't sit on the fence there. You're either on the side of those without homes or those with homes.

Granted some homebuilding projects are shit and opposed for good reasons, but that's not least because nobody in politics has any interest in or ideas about effective urban planning. Because they're all on Team Homeowner, a team which fundamentally doesn't want new homes built.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 13, 2022)

There’s been loads of new homes built in my home town and I can’t recall any opposition to it. Don’t tar everyone as nimby Tory twats.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> The ironic thing about some of the idiot ideas on this thread  ( let’s get people renting to see people paying their mortgage as their enemy, to simplify) is that most real world successful revolutions, unlike the ones in the Puffin Big Book of Revolutionary Fairytales, were organised and run, and in many cases faught, by people who would definitely be considered’the middle class’ if not often mixed with the ‘bourgeoisie ’. In the same way as most revolutions don’t come when the society/ economy is at rock bottom, but when things have started to get better. It’s fairly basic history.
> 
> Marx knew this BTW.


Good to see there is still some future salvation for people who have  been 'leeches of unearned income' ie had lodgers


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> The ironic thing about some of the idiot ideas on this thread  ( let’s get people renting to see people paying their mortgage as their enemy, to simplify) is that most real world successful revolutions, unlike the ones in the Puffin Big Book of Revolutionary Fairytales, were organised and run, and in many cases faught, by people who would definitely be considered’the middle class’ if not often mixed with the ‘bourgeoisie ’. In the same way as most revolutions don’t come when the society/ economy is at rock bottom, but when things have started to get better. It’s fairly basic history.
> 
> Marx knew this BTW.


True, and therein lies another problem. Can you imagine how effective the black liberation struggle in South Africa or the gay liberation fight in America and Britain would have been if the respective leaderships were white, straight well meaning types rather than those at the sharp end? Who would it have been able to mobilise? Or speak for? In who's interests would it have acted?

Yet, nobody bats an eyelid at the persistent middle class tail wagging the working class dog.

Given everyone is now middle class landlords I suppose we needn’t worry though…


----------



## A380 (Apr 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> True, and therein lies another problem. Can you imagine how effective the black liberation struggle in South Africa or the gay liberation fight in America and Britain would have been if the respective leaderships were white, straight well meaning types rather than those at the sharp end? Who would it have been able to mobilise? Or speak for? In who's interests would it have acted?
> 
> Yet, nobody bats an eyelid at the persistent middle class tail wagging the working class dog.
> 
> Given everyone is now middle class landlords I suppose we needn’t worry though…


Hate to tell you this, but a lot of people in the South African campaign, especially early on, were white and well meaning ( and a fair few English) Read London Recruits - will check the details when I get home.

ETA home now, it’s actually London Recruits, Ken Keable. 

I knew a few of them when I was a kid, not that I knew what they had got  up to at the time. And was more interested in if they were going to give me sweets.

History isn’t simple.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 13, 2022)

A380 said:


> Hate to tell you this, but a lot of people in the South African campaign, especially early on, were white and well meaning ( and a fair few English) Read London Comrades - will check the details when I get home.
> 
> I knew a few of them when I was a kid, not that I knew what they had got  up to at the time. And was more interested in if they were going to give me sweets.
> 
> History isn’t simple.


That's true but that isn't what Smokeandsteam is saying


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> That's true but that isn't what Smokeandsteam is saying



Yup. I’d also add that we seem to have reached a new moment now, where the middle class vanguard has decided that those they profess to speak and act for are now also middle class. 

Strange days.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 14, 2022)

Perhaps we need a Workers' Committee for the Determination of Class to ascertain the True Class of each and every person prior to the commencement of the revolution.


----------



## seeformiles (Apr 14, 2022)

When we bought our house, it was a purely financial decision rather than a class aspiration. The mortgage payments were half that of renting a similar property so it was an easy choice. Of course this was in much saner times when anyone on a small income could secure a mortgage (& house prices to match) and 30 years on it’s all paid off. It’s first and foremost a home and it’s surreal to see what it’s currently valued at. I’d welcome a price correction if it meant we could return to a saner property market where people don’t have to work themselves to death to purchase a basic human need and right. Recent purchases in our street have largely been made by affluent London families who made huge profits selling up and find after moving North that they could easily outbid locals and push prices even further out of their reach. Despite our very modest wages and frugal ways, I’ve never felt so middle class! The joys of accidentally being born at the “right” time.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because homeowners have multiple parties chasing their votes and renters have none?
> 
> Because that one particular form of material interest is the single biggest material factor affecting a person's quality of life? Because neoliberal capitalism is now entirely focussed on property speculation and there can be no challenge to it that doesn't address homes and housing?


In what way do multiple parties particularly chase homeowners' votes ?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 14, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> how many of them are working people who are approaching (or past) retirement age and have paid their mortgage off?
> 
> because house prices 30+ years ago were such that working people who had a steady job could get a mortgage?
> 
> do they suddenly change class now?


when there was a big class questionnaire test thing a few years back owning your own home/mortgage plus other stuff made you "traditional working  class" exactly for the reasons you say








						The Great British class calculator
					






					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## A380 (Apr 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps we need a Workers' Committee for the Determination of Class to ascertain the True Class of each and every person prior to the commencement of the revolution.


And anyone deemed ‘not working class enough’ can be made to wear a placard round their necks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> In what way do multiple parties particularly chase homeowners' votes ?


By doing all they can to prop up the housing market, to the extent of borrowing billions in order to do so. Labour and Tories will both do this.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 14, 2022)

A380 said:


> And anyone deemed ‘not working class enough’ can be made to wear a placard round their necks.



I think forcing them to shop at Iceland should be sufficient.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By doing all they can to prop up the housing market, to the extent of borrowing billions in order to do so. Labour and Tories will both do this.


Yes, including some very obvious things like 'help to buy', which should be called 'help to push up house prices'. Also they refuse to follow rational policies that would clearly be for the greater good, like limiting foreign ownership by people who don't live in the country, meaning we have money coming in from all over the world to prop up house prices.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

The idea that public money could be put into the private housing market ought to be just totally out of the question. How could that ever be acceptable use of public money? Yet both Labour and Tories do it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The idea that public money could be put into the private housing market ought to be just totally out of the question. How could that ever be acceptable use of public money? Yet both Labour and Tories do it.


Yet the private rented sector receives billions of pounds of public money every year in the form of benefits. What would you propose replaces that component of UC, seeing as you're dead set against public money going into private housing?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By doing all they can to prop up the housing market, to the extent of borrowing billions in order to do so. Labour and Tories will both do this.


I appreciate that they do this but in what way is that actually ‘chasing the homeowners vote’ ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I appreciate that they do this but in what way is that actually ‘chasing the homeowners vote’ ?


In what way is it not?

To give one example out of many: Gordon Brown and his attitude towards the rapid rise in house prices that was going on at the time of the 2005 election. Rather than apologising for it and promising measures to stop prices from rising further, he boasted about it, encouraging schemes like 'part-rent part-buy', which were a public subsidy targeted at propping the whole edifice up by providing a continuing supply of first-time buyers.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 14, 2022)

I do think a lot of the deal with homeowners is implicit. Governments of both parties know that if house prices go down they will lose the next election, and the Tories know that if prices go up, that will help the economy run without wage or benefits increases, thus making them look like succesful managers of the economy. But it isn't often that a party will make an explicit pitch to homeowners to say they'll keep prices going up because that would piss off some other potential voters too much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I do think a lot of the deal with homeowners is implicit. Governments of both parties know that if house prices go down they will lose the next election, and the Tories know that if prices go up, that will help the economy run without wage or benefits increases, thus making them look like succesful managers of the economy. But it isn't often that a party will make an explicit pitch to homeowners to say they'll keep prices going up because that would piss off some other potential voters too much.


I think you're largely right. However, Gordon Brown did make that explicit pitch in the 2000s. And the Tories didn't counter it by saying 'house price boom is bad news'. And also much of this stuff is expressed in a somewhat coded form, such as 'this is how we will help people onto the housing ladder' when announcing a policy that also has the effect of propping/driving up prices.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what way is it not?
> 
> To give one example out of many: Gordon Brown and his attitude towards the rapid rise in house prices that was going on at the time of the 2005 election. Rather than apologising for it and promising measures to stop prices from rising further, he boasted about it, encouraging schemes like 'part-rent part-buy', which were a public subsidy targeted at propping the whole edifice up by providing a continuing supply of first-time buyers.


Maybe its just semantics about what chasing votes looks like but even that example doesn't look like chasing votes to me, more a reflection of an established orthodoxy that is regrettably built around homeownership.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I do think a lot of the deal with homeowners is implicit. Governments of both parties know that if house prices go down they will lose the next election, and the Tories know that if prices go up, that will help the economy run without wage or benefits increases, thus making them look like succesful managers of the economy. But it isn't often that a party will make an explicit pitch to homeowners to say they'll keep prices going up because that would piss off some other potential voters too much.



I still don’t see how rising house prices benefits working class home owners. Unless they’re planning on selling up and having their retirement in Goa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Maybe its just semantics about what chasing votes looks like but even that example doesn't look like chasing votes to me, more a reflection of an established orthodoxy that is regrettably built around homeownership.


Ok. I'm not going to argue over that particularly. But it's been clear since at least the 1990s that whichever of the main parties gets in, voters can be confident that they will be acting in ways that will keep house prices up - and drive up private rents. (And suppress wages.) It's one of Thatcher's enduring victories.

ETA: And I think Frank is right to say that nobody is chasing/cares too much about alienating the votes of people in private renting, aside from offering new ways to get them their first mortgage.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Maybe its just semantics about what chasing votes looks like but even that example doesn't look like chasing votes to me, more a reflection of an established orthodoxy that is regrettably built around homeownership.


Yeah, I think there's a distinction to be made between supporting the housing market and supporting individual home owners. 

There's obviously some overlap, but some measures which claim to be about  the latter are actually far more about the former.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I think there's a distinction to be made between supporting the housing market and supporting individual home owners.
> 
> There's obviously some overlap, but some measures which claim to be about  the latter are actually far more about the former.


This isn't a very Urban thing to say, but I don't think there's any major disagreement here.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I still don’t see how rising house prices benefits working class home owners. Unless they’re planning on selling up and having their retirement in Goa.


People moving from higher value areas to lower value areas (shitloads of Londoners have made shitloads of money moving out*). People downsizing their properties when their kids leave home (you might easily get £200k cash out of it in many areas, moving say from a 500k family house into a 300k retirement house). People remortgaging their properties to subsidise expansion of the property, or doing equity release to fund consumption. Also people do of course sell up and go to live abroad, not just at retirement.

*To give an example I know something about, the property my co-op bought in London a couple of years back cost £500k. It was bought from a working class family who had bought it in the mid 2000s for £120,000. They were moving out to a cheaper location on the edge of London where they could now buy without a mortgage and have cash left over.


PS I'm trying not to exaggerate the scale of winnings here. In fact a fairly normal family home with 4 bedrooms round me now costs more like £700k but £500k is 'normal' in a lot of the south east and other expensive urban and rural pockets around the country.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Friends of mine sold up their house in Brixton, bought in the 70s for about £3k, for three quarters of a million. Moved into a much bigger house in Bedford with a pile of cash left over. This was a few years ago. They'd probably have got a million plus for it now. 

I totally don't blame them. They were retired and cash-poor (his pension was stolen by Maxwell). But they wouldn't have moved had it not been for the cash incentive, and it was sad to see them go. 

It's a common phenomenon in London.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Friends of mine sold up their house in Brixton, bought in the 70s for about £3k, for three quarters of a million. Moved into a much bigger house in Bedford with a pile of cash left over. This was a few years ago. They'd probably have got a million plus for it now.
> 
> I totally don't blame them. They were retired and cash-poor (his pension was stolen by Maxwell). But they wouldn't have moved had it not been for the cash incentive, and it was sad to see them go.
> 
> It's a common phenomenon in London.



I’ve never been able to get on the property ladder in London. I could in my home town, if there was actually a job there that would facilitate it.


----------



## Sue (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Friends of mine sold up their house in Brixton, bought in the 70s for about £3k, for three quarters of a million. Moved into a much bigger house in Bedford with a pile of cash left over. This was a few years ago. They'd probably have got a million plus for it now.
> 
> I totally don't blame them. They were retired and cash-poor (his pension was stolen by Maxwell). But they wouldn't have moved had it not been for the cash incentive, and it was sad to see them go.
> 
> It's a common phenomenon in London.


A friend bought his place in London 30+ years ago. (He's a gardener and his ex did similar work which shows just how much things have changed...) He used to know everyone on his street but they've been slowly moving out over the last few years and are being replaced by a completely different demographic.

He's desperate to stay but has very little pension provision and is approaching 60 so I suspect he'll end up selling up and moving. 

In the scheme of things, having a house that's worth a lot is a nice problem to have but think he's a bit depressed that his settled community -- most people had been there as long as him if not even longer -- has pretty much disappeared.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> People moving from higher value areas to lower value areas (shitloads of Londoners have made shitloads of money moving out*). People downsizing their properties when their kids leave home (you might easily get £200k cash out of it in many areas, moving say from a 500k family house into a 300k retirement house). People remortgaging their properties to subsidise expansion of the property, or doing equity release to fund consumption. Also people do of course sell up and go to live abroad, not just at retirement.
> 
> *To give an example I know something about, the property my co-op bought in London a couple of years back cost £500k. It was bought from a working class family who had bought it in the mid 2000s for £120,000. They were moving out to a cheaper location on the edge of London where they could now buy without a mortgage and have cash left over.
> 
> ...



I think London is kind of exceptional. A £500k house in London would cost perhaps £150k further up the country.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I think London is kind of exceptional. A £500k house in London would cost perhaps £150k further up the country.


London and a few other places such as Brighton and Cambridge. It is exceptional but also it's a fair old chunk of people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> London and a few other places such as Brighton and Cambridge. It is exceptional but also it's a fair old chunk of people.



In terms of the working class it will be those who managed to buy before it went insane or those who benefitted from the right to buy scheme. There’ll be a vanishingly small number able to buy now with lots seemingly getting bulldozed out of what’s left of social housing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> In terms of the working class it will be those who managed to buy before it went insane or those who benefitted from the right to buy scheme. There’ll be a vanishingly small number able to buy now with lots seemingly getting bulldozed out of what’s left of social housing.


Yep.


----------



## A380 (Apr 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think forcing them to shop at Iceland should be sufficient.


But Iceland sells Vienettas nowadays so, according to some, must be middle class.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 14, 2022)

and very hmm at the idea somewhere in the thread that any retired person with a work pension (probably achieved at least in part as a result of worker / union action) is somehow middle class and exploiting the working class by having that pension.

until not that long ago, jobs like postman, bus worker, railway worker, local authority / civil service manual worker, NHS staff in jobs like porters and cleaners (many of these jobs have since been privatised and / or had their pension scheme closed or reduced) came with a decent pension scheme.  as (i think) did coal miners and workers in other nationalised industries that have either been sold off or shut down altogether.

most railway workers have kept theirs and have put up the occasional fight to do so (TFL / Underground workers' pensions are currently under attack)

seeing these workers / retired workers as the problem strikes me as going right along with the tories' divide and rule / race to the bottom / level down agenda.

and another angle on working class home ownership - for the 'windrush generation' and some time beyond, it was pretty close to impossible for anyone without an 'established local connection' even to get on the list for council housing, and even if they did, there are a number of accounts of councils having unwritten racist allocations procedures...


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 14, 2022)

A380 said:


> But Iceland sells Vienettas nowadays so, according to some, must be middle class.



Vienettas were reclassified as working class in about 2004


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 14, 2022)

Homes are being built.

Just the wrong sort.

Winchburgh is a £1 billion development encircling the historic village in West Lothian, some seven miles from Edinburgh Airport. The masterplan will create at least 3,450 homes including 700 affordable houses, *400 of which will be for social rent*.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 14, 2022)

seeformiles said:


> When we bought our house, it was a purely financial decision rather than a class aspiration. The mortgage payments were half that of renting a similar property so it was an easy choice. Of course this was in much saner times when anyone on a small income could secure a mortgage (& house prices to match) and 30 years on it’s all paid off. It’s first and foremost a home and it’s surreal to see what it’s currently valued at. I’d welcome a price correction if it meant we could return to a saner property market where people don’t have to work themselves to death to purchase a basic human need and right. Recent purchases in our street have largely been made by affluent London families who made huge profits selling up and find after moving North that they could easily outbid locals and push prices even further out of their reach. Despite our very modest wages and frugal ways, I’ve never felt so middle class! The joys of accidentally being born at the “right” time.



Our house is worth exactly zero to us. It isn't going to be sold until the last of us goes, so we will not benefit.

I'm seriously thinking about leaving it to our sole grandchild.


----------



## A380 (Apr 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Vienettas were reclassified as working class in about 2004


I can see you need more time in a re-education centre.


----------



## pbsmooth (Apr 14, 2022)

to the answer the question, I just think it makes me seem cooler.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 14, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> seeing these workers / retired workers as the problem strikes me as going right along with the tories' divide and rule / race to the bottom / level down agenda.



Are people doing that though? Isn't it possible to say 'homeowners (of whatever class) have certain material interests' without that meaning 'these people are the enemy/problem/scumbags/whatever'? I think that's what people are trying to get at at least.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Are people doing that though? Isn't it possible to say 'homeowners (of whatever class) have certain material interests' without that meaning 'these people are the enemy/problem/scumbags/whatever'? I think that's what people are trying to get at at least.


Yep. And the problem is the system that creates those conflicting sets of interests, often coexisting and contradicting each other within the same individual or family's circumstances. That's where the 'divide and rule' comes in. 

To me, this kind of analysis is attempting to do the opposite - it is identifying and stressing common interests between the majority of the population, even where certain differences may exist. The Corbynite slogan 'for the many, not the few' may have sounded trite, but I don't think it necessarily is. Seems to me to be a pretty good way to try to build a movement. After all, what we have seen over the last 40-odd years is an acceleration in wealth of a minority away from, and at the expense of, the rest of the population. 

Plus of course, it is silly to have a go at individuals for making certain choices when all they were presented with was a set of rotten options and they just chose the least rotten one. I don't see anyone doing that, though.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Vienettas were reclassified as working class in about 2004


It really did. Growing up we had a vienetta about twice a year on a Sunday and it was the most fanciest thing ever.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

Doctor Carrot said:


> It really did. Growing up we had a vienetta about twice a year on a Sunday and it was the most fanciest thing ever.



Pah, deserts you say? The closest we got to deserts were a digestive biscuit at Christmas.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2022)

Doctor Carrot said:


> It really did. Growing up we had a vienetta about twice a year on a Sunday and it was the most fanciest thing ever.


My rents made sure we had viennetta as much as possible - not on race to the bottom.


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2022)

Never had one, mum made our puddings from scratch except for Angel Delight. Used to love excavating interesting landscapes in the bowl with my spoon.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

My mother could knock up amazing puddings. Her cheesecakes were lush and did actually use digestives in the base iirc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2022)

My gran made the best Swiss rolls, never had one that's matched hers


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My mother could knock up amazing puddings. Her cheesecakes were lush and did actually use digestives in the base iirc.


Ooh yeah, forgot those, was remembering the bread and butter pudding and stewed fruit. She even made ice cream a few times, think it involved powdered milk.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

JimW said:


> Never had one, mum made our puddings from scratch except for Angel Delight. Used to love excavating interesting landscapes in the bowl with my spoon.


Best bit of the job


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

Before Vienettas there was of course the never fully defrosted Artic Roll .


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2022)

My mum told me custard was meant to have _some_ lumps in it. Even her angel delight had unmixed bits but they were nice, like the 70s version of cookie dough ice cream.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Before Vienettas there was of course the never fully defrosted Artic Roll .


Cream or icecream dilemma.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2022)

What does DotCommunist  think of Vienettas these days.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My mother could knock up amazing puddings. Her cheesecakes were lush and did actually use digestives in the base iirc.



Mine too. And lemon meringue pie, rubarb crumble etc.

Weirdly I rarely eat puddings these days.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

cesare said:


> Cream or icecream dilemma.



I used to attack a bowl of ice cream with my spoon to try and partially melt it as I thought it tasted better. My sister did also. My dad would get annoyed and called it “a pig’s trick.” 😂
Not sure what his problem was. Probably the sound of the spoons hammering against the bowls annoyed him as he was trying to watch Match of the Day or whatever.


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2022)

xenon said:


> Mine too. And lemon meringue pie, rubarb crumble etc.
> 
> Weirdly I rarely eat puddings these days.


Crumble was another staple, apple as well as rhubarb.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

JimW said:


> Crumble was another staple, apple as well as rhubarb.



And pretty cost effective given you can grow both and forage the former. There’s quite a few wild cooking apple trees in my home town. And brambles can be foraged also.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 14, 2022)

Vienneta's law - "Any discussion of class on Urban75, if it goes on for long enough, will eventually become a discussion of food in the '70s and '80s."

Maybe it should be "Cole's law."


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And pretty cost effective given you can grow both and forage the former. There’s quite a few wild cooking apple trees in my home town. And brambles can be foraged also.


Yeah, mum was feeding four kids on a tight budget rather than being Nigella before her time.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2022)

Oh yeah apple crumble as well. Our neighbour used to give my mum a couple of bags of cooking apples every year. We had a quince tree in the garden. Was a normal suburban south London terrace house.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 14, 2022)

We had an apple tree and while I hated the filling the crumble bit was always lush. Got used to baked apples now though, maybe it was just the tree in garden.


Rhubarb can fuck off.


----------



## Elpenor (Apr 14, 2022)

Vienetta was always a treat - usually at Boxing Day round my uncles. Doesn’t taste the same now. Probably Blair’s fault.


----------



## Sue (Apr 14, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> My gran made the best Swiss rolls, never had one that's matched hers


How did she make a Swiss roll..?


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2022)

Sue said:


> How did she make a Swiss roll..?


My Grannie always said the best way to make a Swiss roll was to push them down the Alps...


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 14, 2022)

Sue said:


> How did she make a Swiss roll..?


Push them down Dufourspitze?


----------



## Sue (Apr 14, 2022)

andysays said:


> My Grannie always said the best way to make a Swiss roll was to push them down the Alps...


I set 'em up... 😉 

(Pre-decimal) Greek urns coming up next.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Rhubarb can fuck off.


I always thought that. But it's delicious.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I always thought that. But it's delicious.


My mum made rhubarb crumble quite often. I refused to eat it. I think the bitterness puts kids off? Now rhubarb is one of my favourite things. 

Kids don't know shit.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My mum made rhubarb crumble quite often. I refused to eat it. I think the bitterness puts kids off? Now rhubarb is one of my favourite things.
> 
> Kids don't know shit.


I didn't eat it simply because I didn't like the look of it. Some weird purply thing off The day of the Triffids.
Then when I finally tried it in adulthood I was pretty surprised at how nice it was.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

Can I just say, all this ice cream/cake talk is by far some of the most interesting stuff in this thread - what with all the you're not working class if you pay a mortgage, eat avocado, vote Tory, type stuff.

By the way, when I was growing up, we had shitloads of cake every day at ours. How very posh we were. To be fair though, my dad used to nick it off his bread van


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Just remembered that my Dad used to wind us up by saying he had a vienetta to himself every day for lunch at work.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 14, 2022)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Just remembered that my Dad used to wind us up by saying he had a vienetta to himself every day for lunch at work.


And did you consider him upper class for doing so?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And did you consider him upper class for doing so?



I was just very indignant and jealous I think, so maybe, in a way.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2022)

Apparently my Grandfather once asked his Dad if they were posh...because they were always having pheasant.


----------



## extra dry (Apr 17, 2022)

nogojones said:


> Was it Lenin who described the British as a nation of coupon clippers?


That was Churchhill, right?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 18, 2022)

extra dry said:


> That was Churchhill, right?



Napoleon


----------



## nogojones (Apr 18, 2022)

extra dry said:


> That was Churchhill, right?


No, though I seem to have misquoted a bit, but it was Lenin whinging about GB in _Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism_



> _Hence the      extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of      rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons,” who take      no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is      idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential      economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates      the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on      the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several      overseas countries and colonies.
> 
> 
> “In 1893,” writes Hobson, “the British capital invested abroad      represented about 15 per cent of the total wealth of the United    Kingdom.”    Let me remind the reader that by 1915 this capital had increased      about two and a half times. “Aggressive imperialism,” says      Hobson further on, “which costs the tax-payer so dear, which is      of so little value to the manufacturer and trader ... is a      source of great gain to the investor.... The annual income Great      Britain derives from commissions in her whole foreign and      colonial trade, import and export, is estimated by Sir R. Giffen      at £18,000,000 (nearly 170 million rubles) for 1899, taken      at 2 1/2 per cent, upon a turnover of £800,000,000.” Great      as this sum is, it cannot explain the aggressive imperialism of      Great Britain, which is explained by the income of £90      million to £100 million from “invested” capital, the      income of the rentiers._





			VIII. PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2022)

Was it Gandhi? 😂


----------



## extra dry (Apr 20, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Was it Gandhi? 😂


It may of been Caesar, while walking through the muddy streets of Londinium


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 20, 2022)

extra dry said:


> It may of been Caesar, while walking through the muddy streets of Londinium



Which Caesar because Londinium didn't exist until after Claudius invaded


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Which Caesar because Londinium didn't exist until after Claudius invaded


I think it's fair to say there's disagreement over this Introduction: London in A.D. 43 | British History Online


----------



## _Russ_ (Apr 20, 2022)

Why?, for many it simply so they can project the fake image of the self made man, the lie that they got where they are purely through their own sweat and anyone who doesnt get to the same place has only themselves to Blame, snort... chortle


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> Why?, for many it simply so they can project the fake image of the self made man, the lie that they got where they are purely through their own sweat and anyone who doesnt get to the same place has only themselves to Blame, snort... chortle those from privilege


Really? Don't think that those from privileged backgrounds admire "self-made men"; it's more about disguising their own privilege, isn't it?


----------



## petee (Apr 21, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think it's fair to say there's disagreement over this Introduction: London in A.D. 43 | British History Online



that was very interesting, thanks. but it argues that there was very likely no or only a very small pre-Claudian settlement

"The evidence as a whole, therefore, has failed to prove the existence of a native London. But, if it has left a margin of doubt, it has at least set a limit to conjecture. It has shown clearly that we have in any case no reason for suspecting the existence of a settlement on the site more than a decade before the conquest"


----------



## _Russ_ (Apr 21, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Really? Don't think that those from privileged backgrounds admire "self-made men"; it's more about disguising their own privilege, isn't it?


That was my point


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> That was my point


Apologies; clearly too subtle for me.


----------



## Rimbaud (Apr 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Than private renting, yes, you are. You're not subject to yearly rent increases, and as long as you keep your job, you're not subject to the threat of eviction with a couple of months' notice. That's a big difference. (Plus, you know you are likely to have a government that will act in the interests of homeowners, generally, to the extent of borrowing massively to prop up the market.)
> 
> Social housing renting can be different. But in the UK, private renting laws are so terrible that you never have any security.



Also you are actually paying towards something you own in the end. Pay a mortgage for 30 years and you will fully own a house. Pay rent for 30 years and you will have nothing to show for it.

Also, renting is always more expensive than a mortgage, because rent is generally cost of paying the landlords mortgage (which is by itself profit because they are gaining a home on the back of someone else's labour) plus additional profit.

A landlord absolutely cannot be working class by definition. They are in the property game, even if they aren't rich, they can't be proletarians, just like a small business owner may not be rich but nor are they proletarian.


----------



## Rimbaud (Apr 21, 2022)

A380 said:


> The ironic thing about some of the idiot ideas on this thread  ( let’s get people renting to see people paying their mortgage as their enemy, to simplify) is that most real world successful revolutions, unlike the ones in the Puffin Big Book of Revolutionary Fairytales, were organised and run, and in many cases faught, by people who would definitely be considered’the middle class’ if not often mixed with the ‘bourgeoisie ’. In the same way as most revolutions don’t come when the society/ economy is at rock bottom, but when things have started to get better. It’s fairly basic history.
> 
> Marx knew this BTW.



I agree with this - bourgeois liberal revolutions happened when the bourgeois class became more competent and better organised than the landowning classes.

The economy becoming based more on asset prices than wages could have a similar result in causing the skilled classes to become proletarianised and the property classes to become deskilled. I posted an article some years ago from Financial Times which I can't find now unfortunately, but it was some wallowing about how the poor rich people don't feel motivated to get jobs as they aren't rewarding enough compared to returns on property investments, shares and so on. Anecdotally I know a few rich people like this who pretend to run businesses but actually live off investments and are pretty useless people in most ways.

On the other end of the spectrum, you are starting to see lawyers, doctors and engineers who are starting to struggle to get on the property market if they live in somewhere like London, and so long as political parties prioritise keeping house prices rising at all costs, this phenomenon is only going to become widespread.

If things don't change with regards to assets being more important than wages, then in a few decades you could end up with a useless and incompetent propertied class who have merely inherited wealth and haven't had to work for it, and a highly skilled and well educated proletariat who are locked into renting. 

Tbh this is already how things look to some extent for millennials and below and is only going to become more pronounced as time goes by if assets continue to inflate relative to wages. This will probably end in revolution, but it is more likely to be organised, not by people at the very bottom as you say, but by professionals who are well paid but locked out of the property market. 

Of course it is desirable to get onto the property market, but those who get onto the property ladder are essentially the middle class which plays the function of a stable source of support for the system as a whole. However, so long as asset prices continue to inflate, each successive generation will become more proletarian than the last. A revolution will start when a tipping point is reached and home owners become outnumbered by renters, and highly skilled jobs are no longer sufficent to get on the property ladder even in less expensive cities like Newcastle or Liverpool.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 21, 2022)

Its not a ladder, unless you continue to maintain a mortgage and move to more expensive property. All of that adds costs, a concept that is not lost on the lenders and others that get a profit from it.


Thing is you gotta live somewhere, and whilst it is fun to move around it does cost. If kids are added to the equation then providing stability as well as all the other costs has to be considered. How long do people want to keep paying a loan for, age 70 and still paying? The nutty thing is that through luck and stupid property ladder inflation my house has increased in value some years by more than I earnt.

All working class worries really, house is still a hovel, but my hovel.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2022)

Rimbaud said:


> . A revolution will start when a tipping point is reached and home owners become outnumbered by renters, and highly skilled jobs are no longer sufficent to get on the property ladder even in less expensive cities like Newcastle or Liverpool.


 Hovering under 20 pc for a few years now









						England: private rented households 2021 | Statista
					

The proportion of households occupied by private renters in England from 2000 to 2021 generally increased during this period, from a share of ten percent of households in 2000 to a share of  20.3 percent of households as of 2017.




					www.statista.com
				




Not sure if these stats include council houses?     Or housing association?


----------



## iona (Apr 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Not sure if these stats include council houses? Or housing association?


No, that's separate. That site you quoted puts social rents at around 17% of households currently (link at the bottom of the page)


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2022)

iona said:


> No, that's separate. That site you quoted puts social rents at around 17% of households currently (link at the bottom of the page)


Thanks.. posting in the sunshine, can barely read the screen!

Getting on for 40pc total then ... ?


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 21, 2022)

Rimbaud said:


> A revolution will start when a tipping point is reached and home owners become outnumbered by renters, and highly skilled jobs are no longer sufficent to get on the property ladder even in less expensive cities like Newcastle or Liverpool.



The shift seems well underway, with home ownership having fallen from a peak nearly 20 years ago, according to this study.  Things might start accelerating if there is a bigger move towards hedge funds, banks etc. buying large amounts of residential properties, as seen in the US - it's even harder to buy a property when you're competing against massive institutions that want to buy it and keep you renting instead of owning.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> The shift seems well underway, with home ownership having fallen from a peak nearly 20 years ago, according to this study.  Things might start accelerating if there is a bigger move towards hedge funds, banks etc. buying large amounts of residential properties, as seen in the US - it's even harder to buy a property when you're competing against massive institutions that want to buy it and keep you renting instead of owning.


that a useful graph


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 21, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> The shift seems well underway, with home ownership having fallen from a peak nearly 20 years ago, according to this study.  Things might start accelerating if there is a bigger move towards hedge funds, banks etc. buying large amounts of residential properties, as seen in the US - it's even harder to buy a property when you're competing against massive institutions that want to buy it and keep you renting instead of owning.



Leasehold and shared ownership to


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 21, 2022)

The big safety valve though is inheritance/family help. Most of the people who can't buy now but would have been able to buy in the past do have parents/grandparents who either die or are even willing to remortgage to help out their kids. Everyone I know who has bought a house in London did so with the help of parents - parents who are asset-rich partly because of the never-ending housing bubble. So  I'm not sure any tipping point will be reached any time soon while the middle class youngsters have a lot of housing wealth in their families.


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> The big safety valve though is inheritance/family help. Most of the people who can't buy now but would have been able to buy in the past do have parents/grandparents who either die or are even willing to remortgage to help out their kids. Everyone I know who has bought a house in London did so with the help of parents - parents who are asset-rich partly because of the never-ending housing bubble. So  I'm not sure any tipping point will be reached any time soon while the middle class youngsters have a lot of housing wealth in their families.


Now anyone who lives long enough will have such high care costs that many properties will be sold to cover that. Other constraints will be student loans, preventing people from getting mortgages and taking a chunk out of property their parents give them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 21, 2022)

There’s only so much family wealth will stretch between more than two kids, especially if housing costs increase and wages stay as flat as they are


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 21, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> There’s only so much family wealth will stretch between more than two kids, especially if housing costs increase and wages stay as flat as they are


Sure, and some people will be left out in the cold, but there are a lot of families with only one or two children and my experience is that many of them will go to some lengths to help their kids. The point is the numbers of kids of middle class parents who won't be able to buy is significantly smaller than I think some people are implying. Meanwhile I've been getting adverts from a specialist mortgage company that allows you to add your parents to the mortgage - not just as a guarantor but as a payer. Which will help the game keep going a while longer if they take off.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Hovering under 20 pc for a few years now
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a probably fairly substantial subset of that though made up of people for who shorter term housing genuinely does meet their needs at that point. When I moved to London in 2003 for a few months to give it a go I didn't feel excluded from the housing market - my flatshare was fine then.

Not to dispute the general point which I agree with but I don't think there's a magical tipping point at 50%.


----------



## Rimbaud (Apr 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> The big safety valve though is inheritance/family help. Most of the people who can't buy now but would have been able to buy in the past do have parents/grandparents who either die or are even willing to remortgage to help out their kids. Everyone I know who has bought a house in London did so with the help of parents - parents who are asset-rich partly because of the never-ending housing bubble. So  I'm not sure any tipping point will be reached any time soon while the middle class youngsters have a lot of housing wealth in their families.


It might still take a couple of generations.

My surviving Grandma has 3 children and 7 grandchildren, but only one house, so inheritance won't necessarily help her grandchildren. My surviving Grandpa has only 1 child and 2 grandchildren - however his dementia is getting worse quite quickly and government removing the cap on social care costs means he will likely have to sell his house to pay for care, as will happen to many pensioners:









						UK minister refuses to rule out people having to sell homes to fund care
					

Paul Scully sends mixed messages about impact of government plans to scale back English social care cap




					www.theguardian.com
				




So his house will likely go to some institutional investor based in the Cayman Islands or similar.

Scenarios like the above mean that inheritance won't necessarily guarantee a consistent supply of property owners. Some people will inherit but many more won't, and institutional investors will take an ever greater share of housing to turn into rentals.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 21, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There is a probably fairly substantial subset of that though made up of people for who shorter term housing genuinely does meet their needs at that point. When I moved to London in 2003 for a few months to give it a go I didn't feel excluded from the housing market - my flatshare was fine then.
> 
> Not to dispute the general point which I agree with but I don't think there's a magical tipping point at 50%.


The profile of renters going forward is going to be important I think. If you're young and single then renting is fine. It's when we end up with a high proportion of couples and especially families renting that there will be disquiet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> The profile of renters going forward is going to be important I think. If you're young and single then renting is fine. It's when we end up with a high proportion of couples and especially families renting that there will be disquiet.


Even that doesn't matter so much, in a well-regulated housing market. Look at Germany, for example, where many more people rent than here.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 21, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> The profile of renters going forward is going to be important I think. If you're young and single then renting is fine. It's when we end up with a high proportion of couples and especially families renting that there will be disquiet.



We could already be close to a tipping point tbh. I rent a room in London for mortgage prices elsewhere in the country. Every room in the house except mine now has a couple in with one couple even having a child to stay (I assume contact following a breakup). 
It isn’t right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We could already be close to a tipping point tbh. I rent a room in London for mortgage prices elsewhere in the country. Every room in the house except mine now has a couple in with one couple even having a child to stay (I assume contact following a breakup).
> It isn’t right.


Maybe. I thought similar 20 years ago, though, and we weren't.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe. I thought similar 20 years ago, though, and we weren't.



Well presumably couples are now in rooms as they can’t afford flats. What happens when they can no longer afford rooms?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well presumably couples are now in rooms as they can’t afford flats. What happens when they can no longer afford rooms?


theres historical precedent for this kind of housing crisis- im not expert  - Japan perhaps?






						Does Japan have 100 year mortgages? | EveryThingWhat.com
					

JAPAN'S 100-YEAR BANK LOANS - May 21, 1990. (FORTUNE Magazine) – The Japanese, famous for saving, are now loading their future generations with debt. Nippon Mortgage and Japan Housing Loan, two big home lenders, are offering 99- and 100-year multigeneration loans with interest rates from 8.9% to...




					everythingwhat.com
				




without a political alternative people are forced to put up with less space and more debt


----------



## scifisam (Apr 22, 2022)

Home ownership meaning you can't be working class doesn't really work for some generations across the country, and probably for some areas even now. My mother bought a flat on her sole wage as an auxiliary nurse, what would now be called an HCP, a job you could then get without any O levels or CSEs. She then owned it alongside my Dad and subsequent stepdads, who were a hospital porter, a supervisor at a power plant, and a pub landlord. My best friend's home was also owned, by her Dad who was a mechanic at Ford's and out of work for several years after the redundancies - her Mum never worked. 

They'd all left school at 15 or earlier, were all in skilled working class jobs, and it would be really fucking odd to claim they weren't working class. Houses were cheap, mortgages were easy, council estates were often underfunded places that you wouldn't want to live if you could pay literally the same amount on a mortgage.

And that was on the outskirts of London - lots of places made homeowning cheap if you had a basic, regular job, until very recently.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 22, 2022)

scifisam said:


> Home ownership meaning you can't be working class doesn't really work for some generations across the country, and probably for some areas even now. My mother bought a flat on her sole wage as an auxiliary nurse, what would now be called an HCP, a job you could then get without any O levels or CSEs. She then owned it alongside my Dad and subsequent stepdads, who were a hospital porter, a supervisor at a power plant, and a pub landlord. My best friend's home was also owned, by her Dad who was a mechanic at Ford's and out of work for several years after the redundancies - her Mum never worked.
> 
> They'd all left school at 15 or earlier, were all in skilled working class jobs, and it would be really fucking odd to claim they weren't working class. Houses were cheap, mortgages were easy, council estates were often underfunded places that you wouldn't want to live if you could pay literally the same amount on a mortgage.
> 
> And that was on the outskirts of London - lots of places made homeowning cheap if you had a basic, regular job, until very recently.


But I was trying to talk about class as process rather than identity or purely job function. All those relatives of yours have gone through a process by which their material interests are now partially re-aligned with those of the ruling class because they all have some interest in rising asset prices. The asset isn't always realised in the form of cash, but that doesn't mean it can't be - the great hyper-gentrification of London has had as one of its mechanisms working class people moving out in order to put often upwards of £100k in their pockets (or get rid of the mortgage). They can be cast as 'victims' of gentrification, but they are also beneficiaries, and the lucky ones who could buy their dream car or boat or whatever would probably not see themselves as victims and are instead saying 'thank god for crazy house prices'. I am arguing that a process like that changes the class position of a hospital porter (or whatever) to - at the very least - a more blended position. 

It was widely reported that in the last year many homeowners earned more than their annual salary in house price growth. Despite what some people here seem to think, remortgaging, downsizing or moving areas to realise that cash is pretty common. What do we call someone who lives partially on salaried income and partially on unearned income from assets?


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe. I thought similar 20 years ago, though, and we weren't.


There is definitely going to be a massive crisis at some point but I think it is years and probably decades away yet. The number of people totally excluded from home ownership is nowhere near big enough as a proportion of the population.
Two thirds still "own", nearly half of the remainder are in social housing which is broadly secure once you've got one. The 20% of the population in private renting is going to include students, young singles etc.  It's when that number is 'mostly' families and probably even worse a large number of people trying to rent on a pension that things will tip and that isn't going to be soon.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well presumably couples are now in rooms as they can’t afford flats. What happens when they can no longer afford rooms?


In my town it goes flats-double room-caravan-tent/tipi/yurt-van-sofa surf-leave area

I have actually watched this process, at the same time people I know on universal credit are being offered 8 separate jobs with barely any selection/interview by desperate service industry managers
The town is eating itself, tourism needs workers and tourists, Tourists drive up the accommodation costs, home owners rent out their house for huge amount in summer and hoover up all the reasonably priced rentals, the workers are thrown out of their winter accommodation to make way for air B and B summer rentals and can’t find accommodation as each property has up to 80 applicants and they want six months in advance rent 

Pure absolute greed

Now hotels are buying HMO up to guarantee accommodation for their seasonal staff, taking more HMOs off the market

Owner of a taxi firm asked if I wanted a job on my way to airport, desperate for drivers 

Eventually tourists will stop turning up as they aren’t getting waited on hand and foot by a
Missing army of minimum wage service staff 

Somethings got to break/give


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 22, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> All those relatives of yours have gone through a process by which their material interests are now partially re-aligned with those of the ruling class because they all have some interest in rising asset prices.



The idea that the people that the poster was talking about have had their interests ‘re-aligned’ with those of the ruling class purely through the act of owning a flat is hugely reductive. 

Trying to isolate one thing and then separating it from a nexus of overlapping, interlinked and often highly complex and contingent economic, social, cultural and historical ‘processes’ is, in my view, spectacularly wide of the mark as a method of inquiry or explanation.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 22, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> But I was trying to talk about class as process rather than identity or purely job function. All those relatives of yours have gone through a process by which their material interests are now partially re-aligned with those of the ruling class because they all have some interest in rising asset prices. The asset isn't always realised in the form of cash, but that doesn't mean it can't be - the great hyper-gentrification of London has had as one of its mechanisms working class people moving out in order to put often upwards of £100k in their pockets (or get rid of the mortgage). They can be cast as 'victims' of gentrification, but they are also beneficiaries, and the lucky ones who could buy their dream car or boat or whatever would probably not see themselves as victims and are instead saying 'thank god for crazy house prices'. I am arguing that a process like that changes the class position of a hospital porter (or whatever) to - at the very least - a more blended position.
> 
> It was widely reported that in the last year many homeowners earned more than their annual salary in house price growth. Despite what some people here seem to think, remortgaging, downsizing or moving areas to realise that cash is pretty common. What do we call someone who lives partially on salaried income and partially on unearned income from assets?



If you exclude those people from the definition of working class, for whatever reason you do it, most actual working class people will laugh at you. They do benefit from not continuing to pay rent; I did think of adding that, but thought it was too obvious to be worth mentioning.

I never made any claims that they were victims of gentrification, and they don't live in areas where there's been much, if any, gentrification anyway.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 22, 2022)

scifisam said:


> If you exclude those people from the definition of working class, for whatever reason you do it, most actual working class people will laugh at you. They do benefit from not continuing to pay rent; I did think of adding that, but thought it was too obvious to be worth mentioning.
> 
> I never made any claims that they were victims of gentrification, and they don't live in areas where there's been much, if any, gentrification anyway.


I'm wondering if people talk past each other because it's very location specific. It's much easier to own your own home in the NE than it is in London nowadays. London has great job prospects but little home ownership prospects where as it's also difficult to get on the ladder in the NE; it's easier than London but shitter wages and fewer jobs.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I'm wondering if people talk past each other because it's very location specific. It's much easier to own your own home in the NE than it is in London nowadays. London has great job prospects but little home ownership prospects where as it's also difficult to get on the ladder in the NE; it's easier than London but shitter wages and fewer jobs.



It is, and yeah, those areas are the ones where people on ordinary (or even low) incomes can still buy a place, especially if they're a couple rather than a single person buying. 

But actually the specific people I referenced bought their homes 40 or 50 years ago, which is another thing maybe I should have specified, but thought referring to them as my parents and my friend's parents would give a hint.  Loads of boomers own homes but spent their entire working lives earning not that much in jobs that don't require even a CSE. It does mean they benefit from house prices rising, in theory, but as a metric for saying "you're not working class" it excludes enormous numbers of people who fit in every other way.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 22, 2022)

scifisam said:


> It is, and yeah, those areas are the ones where people on ordinary (or even low) incomes can still buy a place, especially if they're a couple rather than a single person buying.
> 
> But actually the specific people I referenced bought their homes 40 or 50 years ago, which is another thing maybe I should have specified, but thought referring to them as my parents and my friend's parents would give a hint.  Loads of boomers own homes but spent their entire working lives earning not that much in jobs that don't require even a CSE. It does mean they benefit from house prices rising, in theory, but as a metric for saying "you're not working class" it excludes enormous numbers of people who fit in every other way.


Loads of people owned their own home where I was from in the NE in the late 70s early 80s. But I guess that was the start of Thatcherite Neoliberalism. She wanted that. What we have now is where it has led. Nobody wanted this.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 23, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The idea that the people that the poster was talking about have had their interests ‘re-aligned’ with those of the ruling class purely through the act of owning a flat is hugely reductive.
> 
> Trying to isolate one thing and then separating it from a nexus of overlapping, interlinked and often highly complex and contingent economic, social, cultural and historical ‘processes’ is, in my view, spectacularly wide of the mark as a method of inquiry or explanation.


You're right, it's complex, but one of the things I'm trying to do is talk about how we can't use the same class categories as a hundred and fifty years ago (pretty sure too that Marx would be outraged at the idea that we could). The inability to talk about these new more conflicted or ambiguous class positions in any nuanced way results not only in people (on this thread for example) trying to simplify things by referring constantly to culture (because the cultural rifts in British society are much simpler than the crazy paving of structural class rifts), but also the left's inability to grasp their constant defeat at the hands of a Tory voting bloc that has been kept together by the simple expedient of protecting pensions and house prices. 

I could talk about other tensions too. In theory the working class of the UK might have the same interests as the Chinese working class, but that is on such an abstract level as to mean almost nothing. In fact we benefit from low wages in China. Our working class live in China, to a large extent, and 'our' (British) working class lifestyles are subsidised by their immiseration. This is not to blame anyone for anything, but we need to admit that there is no existing (or planned, to my knowledge) level of international organising by which the elevation of Britain's working class in China and the elevation of the working class in Britain can be tied together.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You're right, it's complex, but one of the things I'm trying to do is talk about how we can't use the same class categories as a hundred and fifty years ago (pretty sure too that Marx would be outraged at the idea that we could). The inability to talk about these new more conflicted or ambiguous class positions in any nuanced way results not only in people (on this thread for example) trying to simplify things by referring constantly to culture (because the cultural rifts in British society are much simpler than the crazy paving of structural class rifts), but also the left's inability to grasp their constant defeat at the hands of a Tory voting bloc that has been kept together by the simple expedient of protecting pensions and house prices.
> 
> I could talk about other tensions too. In theory the working class of the UK might have the same interests as the Chinese working class, but that is on such an abstract level as to mean almost nothing. In fact we benefit from low wages in China. Our working class live in China, to a large extent, and 'our' (British) working class lifestyles are subsidised by their immiseration. This is not to blame anyone for anything, but we need to admit that there is no existing (or planned, to my knowledge) level of international organising by which the elevation of Britain's working class in China and the elevation of the working class in Britain can be tied together.


You don't engage here with recent publications on class, well not really recent but this century, like Michael savage and others' 2015 social class in the 21st century which proposes a rather different way of seeing things. And one of the disappointing things about discussions of class here is the dominance of Marx to the detriment of other analysts of stratification like weber.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well presumably couples are now in rooms as they can’t afford flats. What happens when they can no longer afford rooms?



Smaller rooms, dodgier landlords.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> Smaller rooms, dodgier landlords.


Smaller cages shorter chains


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 23, 2022)

Someone on here has ratted to The Guardian 









						‘We’re not all terrible’: the landlords who keep rents low
					

Tales of misery for tenants hit the headlines but there are property owners who go the extra mile




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Our working class live in China, to a large extent, and 'our' (British) working class lifestyles are subsidised by their immiseration.



The working class is builders, nurses, bartenders, retail workers, bus drivers, data inputters, taxi drivers, bin men, etc, etc. - while a lot of manufacturing has shifted to China and other countries, I don't think it represents a transfer of the working class. Automation has probably killed just as many jobs as outsourcing.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> It was widely reported that in the last year many homeowners earned more than their annual salary in house price growth.



This suggests to me far more that their salaries are shit, rather than being beneficiaries of some great asset growth.



Brainaddict said:


> Despite what some people here seem to think, remortgaging, downsizing or moving areas to realise that cash is pretty common.


I think you should think much harder about this than you apparently have.

I own a house, or rather, I pay a mortgage on one. It has gone up significantly since I bought it. But what am I supposed to do with that?

Let's say I can successfully downsize or move to a cheaper area (with proportional growth) and that will release some cash. And then what? This is a card I can play once or twice, at best.



Brainaddict said:


> What do we call someone who lives partially on salaried income and partially on unearned income from assets?


But you can't live off your one-off windfall for very long, can you? What you're hinting at is a different group of people who have assets that _continuously _produce income.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 23, 2022)

(Obviously when we allow this to accrue beyond the individual via inheritance, and that lump sum wealth gets put to different uses like BTL or company ownership, that's a different story)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You're right, it's complex, but one of the things I'm trying to do is talk about how we can't use the same class categories as a hundred and fifty years ago (pretty sure too that Marx would be outraged at the idea that we could). The inability to talk about these new more conflicted or ambiguous class positions in any nuanced way results not only in people (on this thread for example) trying to simplify things by referring constantly to culture (because the cultural rifts in British society are much simpler than the crazy paving of structural class rifts), but also the left's inability to grasp their constant defeat at the hands of a Tory voting bloc that has been kept together by the simple expedient of protecting pensions and house prices.
> 
> I could talk about other tensions too. In theory the working class of the UK might have the same interests as the Chinese working class, but that is on such an abstract level as to mean almost nothing. In fact we benefit from low wages in China. Our working class live in China, to a large extent, and 'our' (British) working class lifestyles are subsidised by their immiseration. This is not to blame anyone for anything, but we need to admit that there is no existing (or planned, to my knowledge) level of international organising by which the elevation of Britain's working class in China and the elevation of the working class in Britain can be tied together.


Our working class live in Britain. The term British working class alludes to the complex of national and social tensions around the working class in this country. The Chinese working class has its own complex of tensions, its own separate cultures. If you want to go down this avenue then British working classes of the past live in the former colonies, be they descendants of slaves or whatnot. You accentuate certain aspects of class while understating or omitting the vital interplay between the working class in this country and the state/ruling class. Yeh your post sounds good but it is a victory for style over substance


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Someone on here has ratted to The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"I own 14 properties and that's ok, I even fix things when they break."

Listen to yourself you fuck, earn an actual living


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 23, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> "I own 14 properties and that's ok, I even fix things when they break."
> 
> Listen to yourself you fuck, earn an actual living





			Richard Blanco – Property Expert


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 23, 2022)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I thought it was quite an interesting paper though not particularly conclusive. As well as the parts mentioned above was some stuff about perceptions of class as a historical, generational thing, as well as connection to perceived regional prejudices. (ETA: To be fair I don't know how much of that would already be familiar to anyone who's studied the sociology of this.)



I blame the Americans.  In America, you are middle class no matter what your income.  If you make $20K a year or $300K a year, you will list yourself as middle class.  It's a weird way of pretending that class-lines do not matter.  Would you like a little denial with a side of economic insecurity?


----------



## danski (Apr 23, 2022)

We are not other. We are not fucking bacteria in a petri dish to be observed and commented on. 

We are just people trying to get by.


----------



## Ming (Dec 19, 2022)

Thought of a place to put this comment. 

Just weird really.

life history

1. Private prep school, British bulldogs, Latin, elocution,etc

2. Selective education (passed to Birkenhead and Wellington schools and the local grammar).

3. Universities. 

4. Got into hard drugs .

5. Ended up in Vancouver.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

Ming said:


> Thought of a place to put this comment.
> 
> Just weird really.
> 
> ...


I don’t know what class I fall into, so I don’t worry about it. I’ve thought about it, but I’ve never worried about it. I’m just me. You might be similar.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I don’t know what class I fall into, so I don’t worry about it. I’ve thought about it, but I’ve never worried about it. I’m just me. You might be similar.


You don't need to 'know what class you fall into' (viz identity), you still have one anyway (viz socio-economics).


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> You don't need to 'know what class you fall into' (viz identity), you still have one anyway (viz socio-economics).


I know that. I just don’t worry about it or feel secure or insecure about it. I’m indifferent to it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I know that. I just don’t worry about it or feel secure or insecure about it. I’m indifferent to it.


That's lovely for you, but that's not what this thread is about really.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> That's lovely for you, but that's not what this thread is about really.


I know. I was responding to a particular poster with what was meant to be kindness towards him, as he laid out his story with what seemed like he wasn’t sure where he fitted. What’s your point, apart from being dismissively rude for no real reason?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I know. I was responding to a particular poster with what was meant to be kindness towards him. What’s your point?


That feelings have nothing to do with class as explored in this thread.

You can feel class is irrelevant, not worry about it or whatever, but centering that misses the point. Class is not about feelings, that's exactly what this whole discussion is about.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I blame the Americans.  In America, you are middle class no matter what your income.  If you make $20K a year or $300K a year, you will list yourself as middle class.  It's a weird way of pretending that class-lines do not matter.  Would you like a little denial with a side of economic insecurity?


I’m not sure the context is similar.

I would say that many middle class people claim to be working class for the same reason that suburban or exurban kids identify with the nearest big city instead - where they actually come from is just not considered very cool.

There’s an inverse snobbery too, which can’t be discounted. And the more mixed a persons background is, the less likely the are to comfortably fit into any social class entirely - particularly in Europe, where so much about class rests on heritage rather than the money you make - which is problematic for those who like to place others in neat boxes.

I do think this might be one area where what happens in the USA actually doesn’t and can’t translate across the Atlantic very much.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> That feelings have nothing to do with class as explored in this thread.
> 
> You can feel class is irrelevant, not worry about it or whatever, but centering that misses the point. Class is not about feelings, that's exactly what this whole discussion is about.


Christ, then tell the person I was trying to be nice to instead of jumping all over me. Fucking hell. I haven’t missed any point - don’t be so bloody patronising.

I actually didn’t say class was irrelevant. I said I was indifferent to it in the particular case of myself, and I said that to be of what I hoped might be help to someone who seemed slightly puzzled about what their own background made them. I didn’t say class itself was ’irrelevant’.

First you castigate me for trying to offer a kind word of support to someone, and then you come back to correct me on a point I didn’t even make!


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Christ, then tell the person I was trying to be nice to instead of jumping all over me. Fucking hell. I haven’t missed any point - don’t be so bloody patronising.


I think I'll do what I want ta.

Read the thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Christ, then tell the person I was trying to be nice to instead of jumping all over me. Fucking hell. I haven’t missed any point - don’t be so bloody patronising.


yeh but what you were saying is 'i don't know what class i am and i don't care' whereas they were saying 'i know where i started out but fuck knows now'. sure you were trying to be nice but you've made something of a bollix of it on anyone's terms


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I think I'll do what I want ta.
> 
> Read the thread


Yeah, do you. Just try to make it actually logical if you’re going to aim it at me.

I’ll read what I want. If that’s just one post that I then respond to in a specific way, that’s what I’ll do.

Is Pickman’s Model always online, with some kind of active alert? Regardless of the subject, the hour of day, there he is, frantically liking any posts that appear to be contrary to my own, just so I’m continually (if dimly)  aware of him as I scroll through. It’s all I ever see of him. Weird. No class. Still, everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Yeah, do you. Just try to make it actually logical if you’re going to aim it at me.


My posts in this little exchange have been both logical and on topic. You're just being rude and snide now**, which seems to be something of an MO, so I'll let you get on with it. I'm not much for having the last word anyway, I've said all I need to on this derail.

** as well as an edit machine lol


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

Ming said:


> Thought of a place to put this comment.
> 
> Just weird really.
> 
> ...


I’ll tell you one thing Ming - this is the last time I’ll put my neck above the parapet for you!  

No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> My posts in this little exchange have been both logical and on topic. You're just being rude and snide now**, which seems to be something of an MO, so I'll let you get on with it. I'm not much for having the last word anyway, I've said all I need to on this derail.
> 
> ** as well as an edit machine lol


Mad projection.

And there’s Wolfshead too now.

This has been a total waste of time and energy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Is Pickman’s Model always online, with some kind of active alert?


no


----------



## Sue (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I know that. I just don’t worry about it or feel secure or insecure about it. I’m indifferent to it.


It's easy to be indifferent to class when it's not negatively affecting your life. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 19, 2022)

People may be indifferent to class, but it is the development of our own class awareness and what, as a class, we must become that is probably the most crucial thing if we ever want to see a world better than the current barbaric and planet destroying shithole.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 19, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> People may be indifferent to class, but it is the development of our own class awareness and what, as a class, we must become that is probably the most crucial thing if we ever want to see a world better than the current barbaric and planet destroying shithole.


Exactly. So often people on these boards completely misunderstand what class means to those of us with a class politics, as Tanya has done here, especially this post.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. So often people on these boards completely misunderstand what class means to those of us with a class politics, as Tanya has done here, especially this post.


I didn’t misunderstand anything Danny. I’m not looking for an argument. I was trying to be nice to someone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I didn’t misunderstand anything Danny. I’m not looking for an argument. I was trying to be nice to someone.


the road to hell is paved with good intentions


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I didn’t misunderstand anything Danny. I’m not looking for an argument. I was trying to be nice to someone.


I’m not looking for an argument either, I’m just saying the things you say in that post show your understanding of the concept class is different to mine. That’s simply a fact.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m not looking for an argument either, I’m just saying the things you say in that post show your understanding of the concept class is different to mine. That’s simply a fact.


Fine.


----------



## Sue (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I didn’t misunderstand anything Danny. I’m not looking for an argument. I was trying to be nice to someone.


Tanya1982, in the Politics forum, it's all about discussion of Politics, not about being nice. Debate tends to be more robust here than some of the other bits of the boards.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Dec 19, 2022)

Sue said:


> Tanya1982, in the Politics forum, it's all about discussion of Politics, not about being nice. Debate tends to be more robust here than some of the other bits of the boards.


Robust debate is fine, and enjoyable. That’s not this. But I’m not looking for an argument, despite the accusation that I am (which isn’t robust debate, it’s a personal dismissal).


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 19, 2022)

Is it just me who still can't work out what being in Vancouver means for someone's class position?


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I know that. I just don’t worry about it or feel secure or insecure about it. I’m indifferent to it.


How can you be indifferent to your most fundamental economic interests?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 19, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Is it just me who still can't work out what being in Vancouver means for someone's class position?


No.


----------



## Sue (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Robust debate is fine, and enjoyable. That’s not this. But I’m not looking for an argument, despite the accusation that I am (which isn’t robust debate, it’s a personal dismissal).


So if you say stuff in here, you're expected to be able to back it up and if you can't, that's not personal dismissal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Robust debate is fine, and enjoyable. That’s not this. But I’m not looking for an argument, despite the accusation that I am (which isn’t robust debate, it’s a personal dismissal).


So often in life it's when we're not looking for something that we be find it, be that a missing top, love or as in this case an argument


----------



## A380 (Dec 19, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> But I’m not looking for an argument...


I think I might have spotted the issue*...

It's ludicrous to suggest Pickman's model is on here all the time. He logs off every other Tuesday between 0315 and 0400 regular as clockwork.



(*TBF P&P is a different place to General and suburban. It's like bare knuckle boxing  compared to folk dancing (except instead of hard as nails, incredibly fit and stupidly courageous pugilists it's populated by wheezy late middle aged and elderly revolutionary types and pale politics nerds. And of course wanky reformists.)


----------



## A380 (Dec 19, 2022)

Athos said:


> How can you be indifferent to your most fundamental economic interests?


90% of the world's population seem to manage TBF.


----------



## ouirdeaux (Dec 19, 2022)

Remember what Arnold Bax said about folk dancing.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2022)

A380 said:


> 90% of the world's population seem to manage TBF.


There's a difference between being indifferent to your economic interests (which nobody is) and being ignorant of the role of class.


----------



## A380 (Dec 19, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's a difference between being indifferent to your economic interests (which nobody is) and being ignorant of the role of class.


I'd like to see sources for that...


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2022)

A380 said:


> I'd like to see sources for that...


Everyone cares how much they make/have, but not everyone understands the role of class in dictating that.


----------



## A380 (Dec 19, 2022)

Athos said:


> Everyone cares how much they make/have, but not everyone understands the role of class in dictating that.


I don't care that much about how much I make or have. But I obsess about the role of  class.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2022)

A380 said:


> I don't care that much about how much I make or have. But I obsess about the role of  class.


Lol


----------



## Elpenor (Dec 19, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Is it just me who still can't work out what being in Vancouver means for someone's class position?


Depends if Ming lives in West Vancouver or not I suppose.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 19, 2022)

Sue said:


> Tanya1982, in the Politics forum, it's all about discussion of Politics, *not about being nice.*


Heaven forbid!


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 19, 2022)

A380 said:


> 90% of the world's population seem to manage TBF.


And that's why we can't have nice things


----------



## Ming (Dec 20, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Depends if Ming lives in West Vancouver or not I suppose.


Kitsilano? Where the old hippies got lucky and rich with their choice of real estate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m not looking for an argument either, I’m just saying the things you say in that post show your understanding of the concept class is different to mine. That’s simply a fact.


This was unhelpful of me. I should have taken the time to explain the differences.  I think I felt I had explained my understanding many times over the years, but I realise Tanya1982 is new here and hasn’t heard it.

I’ll try to do so later.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Here goes.

I haven't really contributed to this thread because the question didn't apply to me. I don't come from a privileged class background.  

It's important to point out, though, that class is primarily a relationship.  Your class (one's class) is the relationship one has with the means of production.  It is not the relationship your parents had.  It is the relationship you have.  This of course comes with caveats, not least that class mobility is limited.  So the relationship your parents had with the means of production is likely to be the same as your own, but not necessarily so.  It is not hereditary in the sense that many people seem to believe it to be. 

The point of a class analysis is not to say people who went to private school are bad people, but to ensure clarity about what the structure of power in society is. 

It suits capital for us to be confused about class, so they make sure that there is confusion on the matter. One misconception is that “working-class” describes white men who work in iron foundries, and another is that “working-class” is an identity. While neither of those is exactly wrong, they are not the full picture either.

Class is primarily an economic relationship. In the times when the powerful were those who had a monopoly on land, the ruling class was the aristocracy, and peasants and others paid tribute in rent, often paid in kind: a share of crops or livestock and in military service. It was easy then to see who had power and who did not. These days the powerful elite wants us to be less clear about that division, because if we realise that _they_ have a monopoly of the wealth, but _we_ have the strength of numbers, they fear we will use those numbers against them.

Working-class just means that you have to work for a living. You sell your labour power in order to survive. That includes those who work in retail, in catering, as care workers, baristas, bar tenders, call centre workers, cashiers, delivery drivers, cleaners, secretaries, janitors, teachers. What these people have in common is an economic relationship. They don’t own the “means of production”. The “means of production” could be a factory, a call centre, the machinery and infrastructure needed to produce commodities or refine raw materials, and so on, in other words the assets of the company you work for. Nor do they have ownership or control over the surplus produced. They work for a wage, and the profit goes to the capitalist. In short, class is about ownership. It is the division between those who own and therefore have power and those who do not own and therefore do not have power.

The powerful don’t want us to see that, though, so they’re happy for us to be confused. This is where identity comes into play. We all have identity. It’s impossible not to: we are social animals, and we create our sense of self through interaction with others. Our relationships, interests and interactions inform who we are.

Although class is an economic relationship, the power structures in society are maintained by a web of oppressions. Racism, patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia; all these forms of discrimination and oppression have been used by the powerful to maintain their power. For example, industrial capitalism was built on the labour of slaves in the cotton fields. This cruel violence was an economic exploitation, but it was rationalised by an ideology: racism. Sexism, on the other hand is what rationalises the role of women in the domestic setting as unpaid cleaners, cooks, carers, and so on, work which isn’t then paid for by the capitalist system. And so on. These stories about identities are used by capital to justify why people fulfil certain roles in society, to the continued benefit of those with wealth and power. Not only that, but all these identities can then be used to ensure that working class people don’t see their common cause. The fact that the hand of capitalism is behind all these oppressions is obscured and made to seem complicated if we are divided from each other, but also our ability to combine and fight back is weakened if our differences are played up.

This is why I am critical of what identity politics has become. This criticism is widely misunderstood. We should of course oppose all these forms of oppression. We should of course celebrate the diversity of identity that enriches human existence. But when those who are fighting back against oppression divide the working-class into identities _who they say cannot understand each other_, then the working-class is weakened and the capitalist class is strengthened. Although it was intended as a way of addressing issues of representation in the revolutionary movement, identity politics have become an impediment to emancipatory politics: the restructuring of capitalism that led to neoliberalism, and the political strategy of the right in co-opting emancipatory movements and substituting the language of equalities for the language of freedoms: these developments have completely scrambled everybody’s political language. Emancipatory politics was manoeuvred into territory we didn’t realise we were now operating in.

We are divided into our different interest ghettoes and supposedly cannot understand each other’s oppression unless we have experienced it. 

And that’s when working-class as an identity comes into play. If we cannot recognise ourselves as the white male iron foundry worker, then we are less likely to take common cause with a category we think describes that person. “It’s not just bosses who oppress me, it’s also racist white working-class people. I do not see myself in that category”.

It has also become impossible to discuss class without the cultural signifiers of class overshadowing the economic relationship that defines it. People will start talking about what they eat, what their interests are, and so on. These cultural signifiers are important. We don’t have the space to properly discuss “cultural capital” here, but it has a role to play in how power is maintained. Marxists will be keen to discuss “base and superstructure” here, too: the ways in which the economic structure of society is maintained by its cultural aspects (and vice versa, in a feedback loop). However, the idea that you are not working-class if you eat avocadoes and read Charles Dickens is mistaken. That is a category error. That is not what being working-class means.  This is the error Urban75 often talks into.

The powerful want us to believe “we are all middle class now”, hoping we mistake access to an exotic diet for power in our lives. To imagine that by eating humus we have climbed a social ladder. The implication being that you might be an Uber Eats delivery person, but you sometimes have sushi for lunch, so you can’t be working-class.

The UK is no longer an economy of heavy industry. People do not typically work in steel works or coal mines any longer. But traditional blue-collar jobs are not the only working-class jobs. Care workers, bar tenders, cleaners, flight attendants, call centre workers are all occupations that working class people find themselves in. The economic relationship is the same. Their surplus value is still extracted by the bosses.

I speak now for those of us with a class struggle politics. As revolutionaries we need people - people like us in jobs like ours - to know we are speaking to them. We need people to understand what being working class is, and to identify themselves with it.  To value our class’s strengths, its creativity, its autonomy.  This is sometimes called “self-valorisation”, but it just means that communism is not to be seen as  not as a some-day-to- be-achieved utopia but as a living reality to be nourished in our own working class communities, and whose growth only needs to be freed of the constraints placed upon it by the norms manufactured by the social mores that benefit and maintain the ruling class. To do that we need to nurture working class unity, working class belonging. 

We need to hear and amplify working class voices, but we also need to help our fellow workers see our class as it is, and yes that it might be black, gay, trans, and that their jobs include delivery driver, gig economy worker, office worker, education worker. This is not to say that class is important, but race or gender identity isn’t. This is to say that when we understand the history and structure of society, we need to look at the material circumstances people are in. It doesn’t matter whether the Home Secretary is white or Asian. It doesn’t matter whether a CEO is a man or a woman. What matters is the material circumstances of the mass of the population. And we respond to that by saying that what is missing is proper democratic control in the hands of the masses, which means cooperation governed by solidarity; direct democracy; needs being met rather than wealth being unequally hoarded; and realising that through common ownership and control of the means of production. We need to overturn ownership as the basis for power and control and replace it with _humanity_ as the basis for control.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 21, 2022)

Took all my self-control not to immediately reply with



> Tl;dr Danny is well middle class


🤣🤣🤣

BUT INSTEAD I WAS A GOOD COMRADE 🫡


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Here goes.
> 
> I haven't really contributed to this thread because the question didn't apply to me. I don't come from a privileged class background.
> 
> ...


Can you define middle class?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Can you define middle class?


Yes.  I have posted about that on here before.  Hold on…


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Can you define middle class?


Here: 
Post in thread 'Are these people middle class?'
https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-these-people-middle-class.346881/post-14676967


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Can you define middle class?


Better paid members of the working class?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Here:
> Post in thread 'Are these people middle class?'
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-these-people-middle-class.346881/post-14676967


I can think of many people who imo don't fit into those definitions neatly. Would like to come back to the thread when I get a chance and post a bunch of work/ownership situations which I don't think fit into either and see what you and others think.

I think modern structural class positions have become much more complicated and contradictory and so the classic Marxist definitions struggle to contain the new reality.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Better paid members of the working class?


Danny says 'supervisors'. Seems limited imo


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 21, 2022)

Supervisors still don't own (or even control) the means of production. They are still subject to the whims of the capitalist class.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> I can think of many people who imo don't fit into those definitions neatly. Would like to come back to the thread when I get a chance and post a bunch of work/ownership situations which I don't think fit into either and see what you and others think.
> 
> I think modern structural class positions have become much more complicated and contradictory and so the classic Marxist definitions struggle to contain the new reality.


I agree that it's more complicated now, but I'd add that many such complications are smoke and mirrors that serve the same ends.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> I can think of many people who imo don't fit into those definitions neatly.


Happy to discuss those.  I think it’ll turn out to be more straightforward than you think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> I agree that it's more complicated now, but I'd add that many such complications are smoke and mirrors that serve the same ends.


In a way, but since this has stemmed from a post of mine about Marx’s Capital, I should say there’s a funny thing that often happens when people discuss Marx. And I don’t just mean on here; it happens in the published media too. And that is that they say ‘but of course what applied then doesn’t apply now’, and so Marx’s analysis is out of date. But they never say exactly how. They don’t say what it is he said then that doesn’t apply now. That might be because they feel this just _should_ be the case with something written in the 19th century, or it might be because they heard it said before and vaguely think it seems the sort of thing one should say. Like saying about Beethoven: “he was quite deaf towards the end, you know”.

There’s another funny thing that happens. People sometimes think that the examples Marx gives in order to explain his point _are_ the point. So if he mentions weaving looms, he means only weaving looms. That somehow any economic structure involving weaving looms only applies to weaving looms, nothing else.

I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be happening here.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> In a way, but since this has stemmed from a post of mine about Marx’s Capital, I should say there’s a funny thing that often happens when people discuss Marx. And I don’t just mean on here; it happens in the published media too. And that is that they say ‘but of course what applied then doesn’t apply now’, and so Marx’s analysis is out of date. But they never say exactly how. They don’t say what it is he said then that doesn’t apply now. That might be because they feel this just _should_ be the case with something written in the 19th century, or it might be because they heard it said before and vaguely think it seems the sort of thing one should say. Like saying about Beethoven: “he was quite deaf towards the end, you know”.
> 
> There’s another funny thing that happens. People sometimes think that the examples Marx gives in order to explain his point _are_ the point. So if he mentions weaving looms, he means only weaving looms. That somehow any economic structure involving weaving looms only applies to weaving looms, nothing else.
> 
> I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be happening here.


"What we need is a new Marx , something more modern that isn't Marxist type but in the meantime  lets pick holes in the old Marx"


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> In a way, but since this has stemmed from a post of mine about Marx’s Capital, I should say there’s a funny thing that often happens when people discuss Marx. And I don’t just mean on here; it happens in the published media too. And that is that they say ‘but of course what applied then doesn’t apply now’, and so Marx’s analysis is out of date. But they never say exactly how. They don’t say what it is he said then that doesn’t apply now. That might be because they feel this just _should_ be the case with something written in the 19th century, or it might be because they heard it said before and vaguely think it seems the sort of thing one should say. Like saying about Beethoven: “he was quite deaf towards the end, you know”.
> 
> There’s another funny thing that happens. People sometimes think that the examples Marx gives in order to explain his point _are_ the point. So if he mentions weaving looms, he means only weaving looms. That somehow any economic structure involving weaving looms only applies to weaving looms, nothing else.
> 
> I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be happening here.



Well I think there's a few that are fairly well discussed on here that are actual examples: 

 - The degree of wealth/security/whatever that's provided these days through housing and the impact that has on people's circumstances that aren't just their working life/relation to the means of production
 - The number of people who have interests in stocks/shares etc, largely through pension funds
 - The number of jobs in supervisory/lower management type roles which really don't come with any particular power at all beyond a bit of doing the rota or whatever

Not saying these are totally new of course, I suspect the answer will be that this isn't all that different from the 19th Century in a lot of ways, but I think those are the sorts of things that people mean.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Well I think there's a few that are fairly well discussed on here that are actual examples:
> 
> - The degree of wealth/security/whatever that's provided these days through housing and the impact that has on people's circumstances that aren't just their working life/relation to the means of production
> - The number of people who have interests in stocks/shares etc, largely through pension funds
> ...


Happy to go through those, but they don’t contradict anything I’ve said.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

Another issue these days is workers who get paid very highly without any supervisory responsibilities. So you can get paid 100k for software development without any managerial role. Working class? Maybe briefly, but for most people who aren't totally profligate that high salary starts to convert into assets. Stocks and shares, a second and third house. They get to a point where maybe they can't retire at 40, but they can, say, take a year off work without it straining their finances. And maybe they retire 10 years earlier than you or I, with a fat pension that they can then travel the world on. To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.


yes and crucially ownership of assets has the potential to change your allegiance to the system overall. the classic example is people voting tory as they get older as they amass more assets, particularly housing

someone who is working class in terms of work as defined by a simple classic marxist category who owns property, has a healthy private pension, hell even a second holiday home, why not, can no longer be relied on to relate materially to a working class person with fuck all but a shit job


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

Conversely, you can have supervisory responsibilities and be on only a slightly larger wage than those you're supervising.

Here in the UK in 2022, I think your housing situation is a key component of any description of your wealth.


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Another issue these days is workers who get paid very highly without any supervisory responsibilities. So you can get paid 100k for software development without any managerial role. Working class? Maybe briefly, but for most people who aren't totally profligate that high salary starts to convert into assets. Stocks and shares, a second and third house. They get to a point where maybe they can't retire at 40, but they can, say, take a year off work without it straining their finances. And maybe they retire 10 years earlier than you or I, with a fat pension that they can then travel the world on. To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.



There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord). I accept this can get much more complicated in terms of struggle, and where they align themselves when it comes to battles over material conditions though, and that's impacted by what they have to lose in part, but plenty of working class people also will have that contradiction/conflict depending on what's going on and their own politics/position/background etc.

But anyway... surely the point is that this is a _category _and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it _really _matters it's pretty simple surely?


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2022)

It' seems pretty simple to me...and I am a clueless nitwit. Relationship to the means of production is still basically pretty much right on. Along with accumulation of assets/unearned income. All those other signifiers are essentially a nod and a wink (who you know) to reinforce existing relationships and consolidate new ones but going down those same old capitalist tracks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord).
> 
> But anyway... surely the point is that this is a _category _and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it _really _matters it's pretty simple surely?


How about small traders or owners of small businesses? They may earn way less than a top-level programmer, say. And tbh they almost certainly have little or no power within the capitalist system. 

Surely the most reliable indicator of a person's place within any economic system is their income, including both earnings and any assets they may own. 

That is complicated by things like future prospects, so a junior doctor on a relatively modest wage has the prospect of a much more highly paid job in a few years' time. But it's a decent starting point, imo.


----------



## spellbinder (Dec 21, 2022)

It's hard work keeping the main stream media _and _social media fuelled.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production


self employed [tech job / film editor / whatever ] with a computer - do they own the means of production?
self employed handyman with tools and a van - do they own the means of production?
what class are they?
income could vary from below minimum wage to six figures


petit bouj.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

There's a reason why Blair (following Thatcher) went on so much about Stakeholder Society, and sure enough a majority (IIRC) percentage of people in UK society do have significant financial material stakes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about small traders or owners of small businesses? They may earn way less than a top-level programmer, say. And tbh they almost certainly have little or no power within the capitalist system.
> 
> Surely the most reliable indicator of a person's place within any economic system is their income, including both earnings and any assets they may own.
> 
> That is complicated by things like future prospects, so a junior doctor on a relatively modest wage has the prospect of a much more highly paid job in a few years' time. But it's a decent starting point, imo.


Have you never heard the term petit bourgeoisie?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> There's a reason why Blair (following Thatcher) went on so much about Stakeholder Society, and sure enough a majority (IIRC) percentage of people in UK society do have significant financial material stakes.


And they've corroded things further by expecting everyone to fund their own education/training. So you're expected to take out a debt to invest in your own future. It's massively destructive as it turns inequality into a morally good thing. You didn't take out a £50k loan to further your own interests? Don't moan about being poorer than those who did.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you never heard the term petit bourgeoisie?


yes but still cant spell it
and thats no simple matter either

really recommend the anarchist essay called IIRC In Defence of the Petit Bourgeoisie
on libcom
little review of the essay here








						Two cheers for the petite bourgeoisie
					

It's a class with few friends in Britain: dismissed by the left, and sidelined by liberals and conservatives chasing big business. But with the surge in self-employment, the state needs to recognise that the needs and demands of the petite bourgeoisie may be growing.




					www.opendemocracy.net
				



promotes the idea of petit b convincingly
yet petit b can alos be very regressive


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord). I accept this can get much more complicated in terms of struggle, and where they align themselves when it comes to battles over material conditions though, and that's impacted by what they have to lose in part, but plenty of working class people also will have that contradiction/conflict depending on what's going on and their own politics/position/background etc.
> 
> But anyway... surely the point is that this is a _category _and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it _really _matters it's pretty simple surely?



It matters because of the political consequences. It took a while to dawn on me how many people there are on high salaries because for a long time I didn't meet any of them. But travelling round SE England and see the well-off suburbs and exurbs made me realise there are a lot. Latest figure I can find is "545,000 privately employed people earning £100,000 or more" - from this guff article The perils of earning a £100,000 salary . That's not a small number. A lot of them will be managerial as well and fit more into the classic middle class category, but a bunch of them won't be these days. Who pays the high rents in London without blinking? These people.

Meanwhile there are 2 million landlords in the UK, many of whom identify as 'working class' and spend their time making other people's lives a misery and all telling themselves they're a 'good landlord'.


----------



## Sue (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Who pays the high rents in London without blinking? These people.


They're surely more likely to be buying than renting? People paying high rents ime (though with blinking) are often couples/way too many people sharing/subletting small flats


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

This is where I also think ideas about being exploited by your boss under capitalism can get complicated. Does that still apply to someone on £100k a year? Within the narrow context of the company they work for, perhaps. But in a wider context in which that company exists within an economy, you can trace exploitation of other, much less well paid, workers whose work is also needed for your company to exist, including quite possibly sole traders or owners of small businesses. We all exist within networks of exploitation and it's not straightforward to work out where you stand, other than by looking at how much you earn.


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2022)

Was going to try and be clever and write something about the "relationship to the means of* re*production" talking about different forms of Capital as "assets".

...but I'm full of lurgy and in Twitter snark mode, sorry


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

chilango said:


> Was going to try and be clever and write something about the "relationship to the means of* re*production" talking about different forms of Capital as "assets".
> 
> ...but I'm full of lurgy and in Twitter snark mode, sorry


No excuse. I'm also full of lurgy and I'm spouting all kinds of bollocks.


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No excuse. I'm also full of lurgy and I'm spouting all kinds of bollocks.


Yeah, but I planned on writing bollocks with big, French, words in it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where I also think ideas about being exploited by your boss under capitalism can get complicated. Does that still apply to someone on £100k a year? Within the narrow context of the company they work for, perhaps. But in a wider context in which that company exists within an economy, you can trace exploitation of other, much less well paid, workers whose work is also needed for your company to exist, including quite possibly sole traders or owners of small businesses. We all exist within networks of exploitation and it's not straightforward to work out where you stand, other than by looking at how much you earn.


They're still being exploited for labour value if there's profit extracted.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

These "what abouts" come up every time this has been discussed over the years.


what about someone who doesn't live off their capital but earns > £100k a year.  They might not live off their capital, but they _could_. Their interests are aligned with the capitalist class to the extent that those conditions apply.  The more they have earnings that could accumulate as capital the greater the degree that it applies.
What about a small business owner that earns about £21k.  A). Are they a sole trader with no employees? Then they equate to an artisan of Marx's time. They're petit bourgeois.  Their interests should align with the working class, but they may believe themselves to align with the boss class.  B). Do they have employees? Then their income, no matter how small, is (at least in part) derived from the surplus value generated by others.   This is about an economic relationship.  They are not working class.
what about people who have paid off their mortgage and own their own home?  They can't live off that capital without selling their home. They would likely have to rent and find an income. Their home ownership is the result of a working life in employment.  There is another thread in the discussion of the reason that Thatcher sold off Council stock to encourage home ownership and the illusion that gave or sharing interests with the boss class, but unless it led to people able to live off their capital it did not create capitalists.
What about people who have pensions and the pension funds invest in stuff? We all live in the capitalist mode of production. The way this society chooses to "provide" (huge caveats on that use of the word) post working life is by using their savings to create interest as financial capital.  The working class is part of the equation of capital and so are our savings, even those earmarked by tax regulations as being for our retirement. This does not make retired people (necessarily) capitalist class.  It makes them people whose savings have been used by the capitalist class for further profit.

And so on.  Really, all of this is actually in Marx.  It's all there.  His examples were examples based on the times he lived, but the analysis still applies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They're still being exploited for labour value if there's profit extracted.


This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as well if they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.

If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.
> 
> If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.



_I demand a full audit of exploitation! _

That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as well if they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.
> 
> If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.


That's an interesting point that higher earners only do so because other staff get paid less, say cleaners etc. I think I'd stop short of calling them the exploiters though. They're still simply selling their labour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> _I demand a full audit of exploitation! _
> 
> That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?


Or alternatively, I'm looking at the broad context and suggesting that nothing makes much sense if you don't.


----------



## Elpenor (Dec 21, 2022)

Great posts danny la rouge clear and concise. Thank you


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or alternatively, I'm looking at the broad context and suggesting that nothing makes much sense if you don't.



Of course there's some complexities and complicated stuff, but none of that contradicts or negates the useful categorisation Danny and others have outlined does it? It's just a bit of noise around the edges, not fundamental to the overarching view.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> _I demand a full audit of exploitation! _
> 
> That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?


This is what it always comes down to: “do me! Am I one of the ‘bad guys’?”  No, you aren’t. That’s not what it’s about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> This is what it always comes down to: “do me! Am I one of the ‘bad guys’?”  No, you aren’t. That’s not what it’s about.


Not in the slightest. I wish!

I don't think I've said much that contradicts what you've posted fwiw. Where we possibly disagree is on the value of certain sets of labels. As I said, imo the best way to work out your relationship to the means of production (all of them, not just your company's) is to look at your bank account. At the very least, that's a place to start.


----------



## pbsmooth (Dec 21, 2022)

so the 100k guy is working class because he doesn't own the company and still has bosses? hmm.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

pbsmooth said:


> so the 100k guy is working class because he doesn't own the company and still has bosses? hmm.


I refer you to post #833.


----------



## pbsmooth (Dec 21, 2022)

lots of people, in London and SE especially, earn big salaries but certainly couldn't live off their capital. not even close.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.



I work with loads of nurses who own their house, some outright, does that make them not working class? Lol that they're 'hugely protected' by this btw.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.


It’s may be a condition that not all working class people share, but it doesn’t signify a change in _class_ (for the reasons outlined above).  Any more than having a contract while others are on zero hours makes you a different class.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s may be a condition that not all working class people share, but it doesn’t signify a change in _class_ (for the reasons outlined above).  Any more than having a contract while others are on zero hours makes you a different class.


Not so sure about this. If you own your house, even if you still have a mortgage, you have passed over into a group whose interests successive governments, tory and labour, make a point of directing their policies towards protecting. Doesn't really matter what you call it tbh, but it's a significant shift in your position in society.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about this. If you own your house, even if you still have a mortgage, you have passed over into a group whose interests successive governments, tory and labour, make a point of directing their policies towards protecting. Doesn't really matter what you call it tbh, but it's a significant shift in your position in society.


It’s not in itself a change in your relationship to the means of production.  And the extent to which it’s useable capital is addressed above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about this. If you own your house, even if you still have a mortgage, you have passed over into a group whose interests successive governments, tory and labour, make a point of directing their policies towards protecting. Doesn't really matter what you call it tbh, but it's a significant shift in your position in society.


It's this sort of analysis which has gained for you your unenviable reputation


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s not in itself a change in your relationship to the means of production.  And the extent to which it’s useable capital is addressed above.


This ends up being circular though. "I have defined class as being relationship to MOP, so anything else you mention does not define class."  Whereas actually people are using - and are entitled to use - class as a wider description of people's position in society. To defend your position you have to say that only relationship to MOP matters because the conflict between capital and labour is the defining conflict of society etc, but this requires buying into a whole ideological system. 'Marxism has the only valid defn of class because Marxism has the only valid description of society' is not really defensible except to dedicated Marxists. The dishonest move that then goes on is 'Only Marxism has a materialist account of people's interests, everything else is wet liberalism', whereas what a bunch of people on this thread are trying to argue is that there is an account of material interests that does not accord with classical Marxism, and considers things besides relationship to MOP. To reply to that with 'Well that's not true because only relationship to MOP matters' is simply to refer back to the ideological framework that others were trying to challenge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This ends up being circular though. "I have defined class as being relationship to MOP, so anything else you mention does not define class."  Whereas actually people are using - and are entitled to use - class as a wider description of people's position in society. To defend your position you have to say that only relationship to MOP matters because the conflict between capital and labour is the defining conflict of society etc, but this requires buying into a whole ideological system. 'Marxism has the only valid defn of class because Marxism has the only valid description of society' is not really defensible except to dedicated Marxists. The dishonest move that then goes on is 'Only Marxism has a materialist account of people's interests, everything else is wet liberalism', whereas what a bunch of people on this thread are trying to argue is that there is an account of material interests that does not accord with classical Marxism, and considers things besides relationship to MOP. To reply to that with 'Well that's not true because only relationship to MOP matters' is simply to refer back to the ideological framework that others were trying to challenge.


I think you'll find dlr isn't a marxist


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about this. If you own your house, even if you still have a mortgage, you have passed over into a group whose interests successive governments, tory and labour, make a point of directing their policies towards protecting. Doesn't really matter what you call it tbh, but it's a significant shift in your position in society.



If that's what you think is the case, then where does it leave your politics and political struggle, as I assume it then means you must have given up on class struggle as the factor in this as so many of the country are now not working class and have a position that makes them identify with the needs of capital?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This ends up being circular though. "I have defined class as being relationship to MOP, so anything else you mention does not define class."  Whereas actually people are using - and are entitled to use - class as a wider description of people's position in society. To defend your position you have to say that only relationship to MOP matters because the conflict between capital and labour is the defining conflict of society etc, but this requires buying into a whole ideological system. 'Marxism has the only valid defn of class because Marxism has the only valid description of society' is not really defensible except to dedicated Marxists. The dishonest move that then goes on is 'Only Marxism has a materialist account of people's interests, everything else is wet liberalism', whereas what a bunch of people on this thread are trying to argue is that there is an account of material interests that does not accord with classical Marxism, and considers things besides relationship to MOP. To reply to that with 'Well that's not true because only relationship to MOP matters' is simply to refer back to the ideological framework that others were trying to challenge.


Then what you are calling class is not the same thing I’m calling class. In which case we can bring in whether you like avocados and Charles Dickens, because it’s not the same thing we’re talking about.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> someone who is working class in terms of work as defined by a simple classic marxist category who owns property, has a healthy private pension, hell even a second holiday home, why not, can no longer be relied on to relate materially to a working class person with fuck all but a shit job


I'm not sure this is strictly true. Increasingly, those in the second category are the children or grandchildren of those in the first - they literally relate.

Whereas, historically, subsequent generations tented to be better off than their predecessors, that's been turned on its head.

A lot of the people I grew up with had parents who woeked manual jobs but could buy a home on one and a bit incomes (the wife typically working part time), had decent pensions, and could put a bit aside a little bit to pay for a holiday each year.  Their grandkids leave university saddled with massive debt and have shitty insecure jobs, and have no real prospect of owning a home.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you'll find dlr isn't a marxist


Indeed I am not. I’m an anarchist communist. I do accept that Marx’s analysis of capitalism, especially as found in the volumes of Capital, is still the most thorough available, and indispensable.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Then what you are calling class is not the same thing I’m calling class. In which case we can bring in whether you like avocados and Charles Dickens, because it’s not the same thing we’re talking about.


I think he wants you to explain why people should subscribe you your/Marx's conception of class, rather than any other.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> I think he wants you to explain why people should subscribe you your/Marx's conception of class, rather than any other.


They needn’t. But my post #799 explains why I think it’s important to revolutionary communists.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 21, 2022)

At this point, can I just point out that my youngest son gave me an early Xmas present of a Karl Marx money box. Note the slot in the head and inscription.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> If that's what you think is the case, then where does it leave your politics and political struggle, as I assume it then means you must have given up on class struggle as the factor in this as so many of the country are now not working class and have a position that makes them identify with the needs of capital?


He's a famous liberal


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Then what you are calling class is not the same thing I’m calling class. In which case we can bring in whether you like avocados and Charles Dickens, because it’s not the same thing we’re talking about.


Sure, but I think I could make the argument successfully that what matters about class at large scale is material interests, and that this can be quite complex in our society. I don't think avocados will have much analytical power to explain why what happens in society happens, whereas I do think material interests do. The material interests of a worker who will inherit a house are objectively different from those of a worker who will not inherit a house. The latter will e.g. put up with a lower salary if they enjoy a job, the latter can't afford to put up with low salaries, whether or not they enjoy their job. This has serious effects in certain industries - e.g culture industries, which then has an effect, through art, on how people view themselves etc etc


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> The material interests of a worker who will inherit a house are objectively different from those of a worker who will not inherit a house.


Ah, hold on. That’s a different example. That’s not savings from one’s own labour stored as the house you are using, that’s inherited wealth. As the name of the tax that would apply (capital gains tax) suggests.  C/f now my list of responses to “what abouts”.


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2022)

A house is not really an capitalist asset  if you are living in it. (and not acquiring unearned income from subletting). The current mad equity rises are a blip - an artificially inflated bribe and not, in itself, much of an indicator of class (although I rent, and so do my kids and I swear, in the current climate, this does feel a massive disadvantage). As a penniless gardener, I would be a member of the petit bourgoisie (cos I own my own secateurs) but as I don't profit from the labour of anyone else, it is still fairly simple to situate myself within a class system...and prioritise working class interests. I dunno, I did all this at school in the 70s and as far as I can see,  basic principles still apply.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

campanula said:


> A house is not really a capitalist asset  if you are living in it. The current mad equity rises are a blip - an artificially inflated bribe and not, in itself, much of an indicator of class (although I rent, and so do my kids and I swear, in the current climate, this does feel a massive disadvantage). As a penniless gardener, I would be a member of the petit bourgoisie (cos I own my own secateurs) but as I don't profit from the labour of anyone else, it is still fairly simple to situate myself within a class system...and prioritise working class interests. I dunno, I did all this at school in the 70s and as far as I can see,  basic principles still apply.


Exactly.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, hold on. That’s a different example. That’s not savings from one’s own labour stored as the house you are using, that’s inherited wealth. As the name of the tax that would apply (capital gains tax) suggests.  C/f now my list of responses to “what abouts”.


You're behind the times Danny, almost no-one buys a house these days without inherited wealth. The only people buying just from their own labour are those people on £100k.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You're behind the times Danny, almost no-one buys a house these days without inherited wealth. The only people buying just from their own labour are those people on £100k.


say you live in the south east without saying you live in the south east


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

campanula said:


> A house is not really an capitalist asset  if you are living in it. (and not acquiring unearned income from subletting). The current mad equity rises are a blip - an artificially inflated bribe and not, in itself, much of an indicator of class (although I rent, and so do my kids and I swear, in the current climate, this does feel a massive disadvantage). As a penniless gardener, I would be a member of the petit bourgoisie (cos I own my own secateurs) but as I don't profit from the labour of anyone else, it is still fairly simple to situate myself within a class system...and prioritise working class interests. I dunno, I did all this at school in the 70s and as far as I can see,  basic principles still apply.


I'm talking about how material conditions affect the behaviour of people on a large scale. Owning a house is one of the factors, whether or not you are making money on it or profiting from someone else's labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You're behind the times Danny, almost no-one buys a house these days without inherited wealth. The only people buying just from their own labour are those people on £100k.


Er bollocks. 


Brainaddict said:


> Sure, but I think I could make the argument successfully that what matters about class at large scale is material interests, and that this can be quite complex in our society. I don't think avocados will have much analytical power to explain why what happens in society happens, whereas I do think material interests do. The material interests of a worker who will inherit a house are objectively different from those of a worker who will not inherit a house. The latter will e.g. put up with a lower salary if they enjoy a job, the latter can't afford to put up with low salaries, whether or not they enjoy their job. This has serious effects in certain industries - e.g culture industries, which then has an effect, through art, on how people view themselves etc etc


If you think you can make it successfully you can try again


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> They needn’t. But my post #799 explains why I think it’s important to revolutionary communists.


I don't think it does; you've not really made a case for *why* a relationship to the means of production is the *best* measure of material interest in the modern world (and you've slightly glossed over some of the challenges that poses e.g. we all own the means of production by way of shares in pensions).

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but am playing devil's advocate to tease out your excellent analysis.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2022)

killer b said:


> say you live in the south east without saying you live in the south east


I do, it's true, and I was talking about the conditions in the south east (plus a bunch of other cities). But what do we make of the fact that it used to be abnormal to buy your house with inherited wealth but is now for large parts of the country the norm? This is a change to material conditions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I do, it's true, and I was talking about the conditions in the south east (plus a bunch of other cities). But what do we make of the fact that it used to be abnormal to buy your house with inherited wealth but is now for large parts of the country the norm? This is a change to material conditions.


There are a range of definitions of class eg marx, weber etc. But none of them seem to mention home ownership


----------



## andysays (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Sure, but I think I could make the argument successfully that what matters about class at large scale is material interests, and that this can be quite complex in our society. I don't think avocados will have much analytical power to explain why what happens in society happens, whereas I do think material interests do. *The material interests of a worker who will inherit a house are objectively different from those of a worker who will not inherit a house*. The latter will e.g. put up with a lower salary if they enjoy a job, the latter can't afford to put up with low salaries, whether or not they enjoy their job. This has serious effects in certain industries - e.g culture industries, which then has an effect, through art, on how people view themselves etc etc



I suspect the difference, in most cases, is not really as great as you seem to be suggesting.

Relatively few people who inherit a house from their parent(s) will be able to live off the income they gain by renting it out, which is what I suggest they would need to do to actually change their class position significantly.

When my Mum died a few years ago, by the time the proceeds from the sale of her flat were split between me and my two brothers, I was able to give my daughter enough to cover three years of university tuition fees and have a few grand left over for a rainy day. It's hardly been the life changing event you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> This is what it always comes down to: “do me! Am I one of the ‘bad guys’?”  No, you aren’t. That’s not what it’s about.


The problem is not shaming, the problem is appealing to someone politically.
Telling someone well off that they're alienated from their labour or they don't own the means of production gets nowhere if they are comfortable and stakeholders.

Average personal wealth in the UK has vastly increased since the industrial revolution, and the effectiveness of the class based political appeal has inevitably reduced in relation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> If that's what you think is the case, then where does it leave your politics and political struggle, as I assume it then means you must have given up on class struggle as the factor in this as so many of the country are now not working class and have a position that makes them identify with the needs of capital?


No, not at all. It's simply a reality among many that I acknowledge. It can also be helpful in explaining how and why people act the way they do. At the very least, categories are complex and porous.


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2022)

O, and all this chat about people with 100K salaries is just waffle because such a worker is still in a position where they can be sacked/made redundant and find themselves woefully impoverished. At heart, this is about power rather than raw income, (I think) but, tbf, I could be missing any number of points. It always seemed pretty clear to me anyway - who are the shits in this set-up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

campanula said:


> O, and all this chat about people with 100K salaries is just waffle because such a worker is still in a position where they can be sacked/made redundant and find themselves woefully impoverished. At heart, this is about power rather than raw income, (I think).


And a small business owner can go bankrupt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm talking about how material conditions affect the behaviour of people on a large scale. Owning a house is one of the factors, whether or not you are making money on it or profiting from someone else's labour.


OK. Just for the moment let's take this contention as true. What next. how does that answer LDC's question 


LDC said:


> f that's what you think is the case, then where does it leave your politics and political struggle, as I assume it then means you must have given up on class struggle as the factor in this as so many of the country are now not working class and have a position that makes them identify with the needs of capital?


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> The problem is not shaming, the problem is appealing to someone politically.
> Telling someone well off that they're alienated from their labour or they don't own the means of production gets nowhere if they are comfortable and stakeholders.
> 
> Average personal wealth in the UK has vastly increased since the industrial revolution, and the effectiveness of the class based political appeal has inevitably reduced in relation.


I dunno.

Most people's jobs still suck.


----------



## LDC (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> The problem is not shaming, the problem is appealing to someone politically. Telling someone well off that they're alienated from their labour or they don't own the means of production gets nowhere if they are comfortable and stakeholders.





chilango said:


> I dunno.
> 
> Most people's jobs still suck.



Yeah exactly, chatting to people about why things are shit and how they might be better isn't a 'hard sell' at all in my experience, mostly whatever their wage or house owning status is. The harder bit is getting to believe that something better is possible and that there's routes to it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 21, 2022)

BTW this '_Marx's analysis of class no longer really applies nowadays_' is almost as old as Marx's work. Meiksins Wood's _Retreat from Class_ (1986) discusses, and demolishes, it. And as the subtitle alludes to that was not the first 'New Socialism"


----------



## [62] (Dec 21, 2022)

Genuinely interesting discussion.

I'm way out of my depth and a bit too pissed to coherently comment, but it just sticks in my head that I've had a walk today and went past the house of a mate who lives in what would be described by estate agents as a delightful period property in a well situated unspoilt village. His neighbours are wealthy, retired types from the professions, but he was a train driver with no O-levels who joined BR in the early 80s when it was a shit job but he didn’t care because he liked trains. 

30 years later he retires on nearly £60,000 a year plus good pension and benefits, thanks in combination to the guild union clout of ASLEF and privatisation freeing (until recently and DfT reabsorption) them from public sector wage restraint. 

He's a good bloke who's never forgotten his roots, but there are plenty in his former job who think they've done very well out of capitalism in public services and will never feel an affinity with the kids today with university degrees struggling in admin jobs that previously would have been two GCSE positions.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I do, it's true, and I was talking about the conditions in the south east (plus a bunch of other cities). But what do we make of the fact that it used to be abnormal to buy your house with inherited wealth but is now for large parts of the country the norm? This is a change to material conditions.


I _think_ it's only really a change to material conditions in one very specific way, ie you have an interest in the continued expansion of the housing price bubble. I'm not sure if Marx had anything to say about that particular material condition tbf.


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2022)

I think it's worth reflecting upon the reasons for discussing "class" in the first place.

For some, it's a lens through which to understand the structures and processes of society, perhaps with a view to changing them.

For others, it's a way of describing identity.

Often people are trying a bit of both, and that's when it gets confusing.

And that's without accounting for the confusion between wealth, income, power and class.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

killer b said:


> I _think_ it's only really a change to material conditions in one very specific way, ie you have an interest in the continued expansion of the housing price bubble. I'm not sure if Marx had anything to say about that particular material condition tbf.


Even then your interest in the housing price bubble is limited unless you own a second home.  You'll need to sell your place to buy somewhere else, so  prices going up or down don't mean much - if you make more on the sale you'll pay more for the purchase, and vice versa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> Even then your interest in the housing price bubble is limited unless you own a second home.  You'll need to sell your place to buy somewhere else, so  prices going up or down don't mean much - of you make more in the sale you'll pay more for the purchase, and vice versa.


A lot of people in London and the SE who bought pre-boom have cashed in by selling up and moving to a cheaper area, retiring to Jamaica, etc. Equity on your home gives you options.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> I don't think it does; you've not really made a case for *why* a relationship to the means of production is the *best* measure of material interest in the modern world (and you've slightly glossed over some of the challenges that poses e.g. we all own the means of production by way of shares in pensions).
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but am playing devil's advocate to tease out your excellent analysis.


To the extent that I have shown the nature of power, who holds it, their numerical inferiority, and how it is to be overthrown, and what the class relationship should be replaced by, I think it does.

I don’t demand that people agree with me. But I do wish they wouldn’t say this model doesn’t cover things it clearly does cover.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A lot of people in London and the SE who bought pre-boom have cashed in by selling up and moving to a cheaper area, retiring to Jamaica, etc. Equity on your home gives you options.


Yeah, that's why I said limited. There are those people, but it's a small minority of homeowners who are willing and able to cobbler uproot their lives to cash in equity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that's why I said limited. There are those people, but it's a small minority of homeowners who are willing and able to cobbler uproot their lives to cash in equity.


In London, it's loads of people.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> The problem is not shaming, the problem is appealing to someone politically.
> Telling someone well off that they're alienated from their labour or they don't own the means of production gets nowhere if they are comfortable and stakeholders.
> 
> Average personal wealth in the UK has vastly increased since the industrial revolution, and the effectiveness of the class based political appeal has inevitably reduced in relation.


I think what’s reduced it’s appeal (and I agree its appeal is reduced) is the fact that it suits those in power if people are prevented from seeing where their class interests lie.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You're behind the times Danny, almost no-one buys a house these days without inherited wealth. The only people buying just from their own labour are those people on £100k.


Whether that’s correct or not, it’s not what was initially asked.


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2022)

Soz, forgotten how this works - meant to reply to LBJ
Indeed...and for the longest time, I would have been very insistent that the discrepancy between value and equity had a distinct place in discussions about class and wealth. However, I gotta say, I am looking at things through different lens since I pay a smallish rent to a local council and have enjoyed huge security and relative freedom for over 40 years. Not at all the same formy kids, renting on the private market. Social housing for all seems a much better way than stumping up for a demented amount of money to be mortgaged for years and years. All in all, I would really prefer to see an end to private ownership of property in favour of community ownership of all housing (cloud cuckoo land)


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2022)

LDC said:


> I work with loads of nurses who own their house, some outright, does that make them not working class? Lol that they're 'hugely protected' by this btw.


I've known miners, plasterers, printers, train drivers, steel erectors who not only had their own houses but went abroad on foreign holidays.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

campanula said:


> Soz, forgotten how this works - meant to reply to LBJ
> Indeed...and for the longest time, I would have been very insistent that the discrepancy between value and equity had a distinct place in discussions about class and wealth. However, I gotta say, I am looking at things through different lens since I pay a smallish rent to a local council and have enjoyed huge security and relative freedom for over 40 years. Not at all the same formy kids, renting on the private market. Social housing for all seems a much better way than stumping up for a demented amount of money to be mortgaged for years and years. All in all, I would really prefer to see an end to private ownership of property in favour of community ownership of all housing (cloud cuckoo land)


For clarity, I'm not advocating any of this. I think the property boom of the last 20-odd years is a massive social evil and one that it will be very difficult to reverse. But ime a lot of people who found themselves on the lucky side of the boom tend not to agree with me. That's a problem.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I think what’s reduced it’s appeal (and I agree its appeal is reduced) is the fact that it suits those in power if people are prevented from seeing where their class interests lie.


A big part of capital's success is selling the idea that the interests of the relatively well-off working class i.e. home-owners, decent wage, established careers, good pension, and a little bit of savings - and of those who aspire to that - are more aligned with the interests of capitalists than with those of poorer working class people.  Of course, *under capitalism* they might be e.g. low taxation, low benefits, markets stable,  controlled inflation etc., etc.

But the elephant in the room is that we don't need to live under capitalism - it's not an inevitable permanent state of affairs.

But one of the left's failings* is that the idea of a radical shift seems so far away that many in the w/c would rather take their chances on getting the best from the _status quo_.

*It accepted the logic of neoliberalism and pivoted away from a broad based economic movements of, by, and for workers, to atomised identarian causes (essentially radical liberalism) led by middle-class careerists.


----------



## cesare (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> A big part of capital's success is selling the idea that the interests of the relatively well-off working class i.e. home-owners, decent wage, established careers, good pension, and a little bit of savings - and of those who aspire to that - are more aligned with the interests of capitalists than with those of poorer working class people.  Of course, *under capitalism* they might be e.g. low taxation, low benefits, markets stable,  controlled inflation etc., etc.
> 
> But the elephant in the room is that we don't need to live under capitalism - it's not an inevitable permanent state of affairs.
> 
> ...


I would have thought that * was social liberalism rather than radicalism. Or is this just a labelling issue?


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2022)

cesare said:


> I would have thought that * was social liberalism rather than radicalism. Or is this just a labelling issue?


It was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jibe at what passes for the self-defined radical left.   But the point remains the same.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> It matters because of the political consequences. It took a while to dawn on me how many people there are on high salaries because for a long time I didn't meet any of them. But travelling round SE England and see the well-off suburbs and exurbs made me realise there are a lot. Latest figure I can find is "545,000 privately employed people earning £100,000 or more" - from this guff article The perils of earning a £100,000 salary . That's not a small number. A lot of them will be managerial as well and fit more into the classic middle class category, but a bunch of them won't be these days. Who pays the high rents in London without blinking? These people.
> 
> Meanwhile there are 2 million landlords in the UK, many of whom identify as 'working class' and spend their time making other people's lives a misery and all telling themselves they're a 'good landlord'.


There are over 67 million people in the UK so 545k is still significantly less than 1 percent.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> . 'Marxism has the only valid defn of class because Marxism has the only valid description of society' is not really defensible except to dedicated Marxists.


Its not even just Marxism, its a Marxist analysis made at a very particular point in history. Post industrial Britain, with an economy built on factory workers being exploited in poorer countries further complicate the picture.


chilango said:


> I think it's worth reflecting upon the reasons for discussing "class" in the first place.
> 
> For some, it's a lens through which to understand the structures and processes of society, perhaps with a view to changing them.
> 
> For others, it's a way of describing identity.


A really porous definition of class doesn't do a good job of defining society, in fact it airbrushes out all kinds of differences.

More important to me is how to make a political case to people for 'socialism' within a rich country like the UK.
Oops hit post too early... Have more to add but can't be arsed now  my stop coming up


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2022)

Athos said:


> Even then your interest in the housing price bubble is limited unless you own a second home.  You'll need to sell your place to buy somewhere else, so  prices going up or down don't mean much - if you make more on the sale you'll pay more for the purchase, and vice versa.



It goes much deeper than bubbles, it changes ideology... Becomes about the right to private property and the individualism that goes with being a stakeholder, and what I Have Earned etc


campanula said:


> ts. All in all, I would really prefer to see an end to private ownership of property in favour of community ownership of all housing (cloud cuckoo land)


A good example of how home owning changes ideology, in general people who own property will likely think you are dangerous and wrong, people without will see the merit more readily


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> More important to me is how to make a political case to people for 'socialism' within a rich country like the UK.



This is it for me as well, and I genuinely think it would benefit a large majority of people. That's a good start. imho the Occupy movement had some decent ideas about how to include the vast bulk of the population under a call for collective provision.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 21, 2022)

chilango said:


> I think it's worth reflecting upon the reasons for discussing "class" in the first place.
> 
> For some, it's a lens through which to understand* the structures and processes of society,* perhaps with a view to changing them.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the conflict is between structure (class as a thing) and process (class as a dynamic relationship)


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 21, 2022)

Rimbaud said:


> Tbh this is already how things look to some extent for millennials and below and is only going to become more pronounced as time goes by if assets continue to inflate relative to wages. This will probably end in revolution, but it is more likely to be organised, not by people at the very bottom as you say, but by professionals who are well paid but locked out of the property market.


This all sounds a bit JG Ballard. It never ends well with that kind of people trying to run the show.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 21, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you'll find dlr isn't a marxist


What makes a Marxist? Because dlr has used Marx's theories to illustrate his point.


----------



## xenon (Dec 21, 2022)

if a worker earning 100,000+ and someone on a zero hours contract are both working class. With the former perhaps paying of a mortgage and the lattter paying through the nose to live in a shared cramped flat, What use is a Marxian Analysis. Insofar as trying to show both there is an alternative to capitalism. both might agree that they are being exploited according to the definition. But the former is likely more Sanguin if not comfortable with it. So what then.


----------



## xenon (Dec 21, 2022)

The left failed to articulate a cohesive alternative. that is the problem. No one is going to notionally give up the little they have. Unless it is less than the other guy. Your guy on 100 K might be perturbed at owners owning the means of production. Zero hours contract friend yeah why not got to be better than this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 21, 2022)

The best explanations for these points can be found in the Bible. 
But I’m not a Christian.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 21, 2022)

xenon said:


> The left failed to articulate a cohesive alternative. that is the problem. No one is going to notionally give up the little they have. Unless it is less than the other guy. Your guy on 100 K might be perturbed at owners owning the means of production. Zero hours contract friend yeah why not got to be better than this.



Back when I was a freshly minted teenage leftist, I articulated similar thoughts about not just criticising and fighting capitalism, but also giving some mind as to the shape of what would replace it. Such thoughts were dismissed as utopian, which I found to be pretty shallow.

While I do now understand there is a good point in not getting bogged down in the details of a society that doesn't even exist yet, I'm still somewhat sympathetic to the idea that socialism needs a positive programme, something to fight _for_ as well to fight _against_.


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 21, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Back when I was a freshly minted teenage leftist, I articulated similar thoughts about not just criticising and fighting capitalism, but also giving some mind as to the shape of what would replace it. Such thoughts were dismissed as utopian, which I found to be pretty shallow.
> 
> While I do now understand there is a good point in not getting bogged down in the details of a society that doesn't even exist yet, I'm still somewhat sympathetic to the idea that socialism needs a positive programme, something to fight _for_ as well to fight _against_.


I agree about the way the question was routinely dismissed on the far left. Something that was repeated in my early days on here when leftie/anarchist theoretical routines and tropes were even mildly challenged ('I don't have a blueprint' etc.)

It was particularly frustrating as an inexperienced youth working in manual labour, among the very people we were supposed to be encouraging to rebel against their present conditions, and who were, however much they could see the sense in certain practical proposals concerning their present conditions, the most sceptical audience you could imagine for ideas of wholesale revolution. Little of substance to say to them was forthcoming from the comrades.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> if a worker earning 100,000+ and someone on a zero hours contract are both working class. With the former perhaps paying of a mortgage and the lattter paying through the nose to live in a shared cramped flat, What use is a Marxian Analysis. Insofar as trying to show both there is an alternative to capitalism. both might agree that they are being exploited according to the definition. But the former is likely more Sanguin if not comfortable with it. So what then.


I don't believe anyone is claiming that the material interests of the working class are completely flat.
Some members of the w/c have more access to social capital than others, some members have high wages, and there are the other modalities that class is lived through (race, gender, sexuality). And some members of the working class who can accumulate capital may start have interests that begin to align with capital.

But that is not some new thing! It has been the case from the start.
Members of the working class sharing the same relationship to the means of production does not mean everyone who is a worker has identical materials interests. It means workers share the material interest that is key to fighting capital.

The reason why a 'Marxian Analysis' (using this in a very wide sense, I would not call myself a Marxian) is crucial is not (just) because it shows there is an alternative to capitalism, or it provides a better analysis of capitalism but because it provides a structure for organising the destruction of class, and capitalism.
Ever since the publication of _Capital_ there have been those who argue for replacing class with some alternative, but none of these political philosophies have been able to identify a coherent strategic point for the destruction of capitalism. 

In the strike action we are seeing at the moment there will be some workers that see their interests better aligned with capital than with their fellow labourers. Some members of the working class may see their interests more aligned those of the same race/gender/etc. The challenge is to organise in such a way that builds on the materials interests that workers share, and against those that divide them.


----------



## LDC (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> The left failed to articulate a cohesive alternative. that is the problem. No one is going to notionally give up the little they have. Unless it is less than the other guy. Your guy on 100 K might be perturbed at owners owning the means of production. Zero hours contract friend yeah why not got to be better than this.



Framing the whole political project as about people 'giving things up' is misplaced and never going to get traction. Talk about what we have to gain rather then try to convince people they have to give up the little security and resources they have now.


----------



## LDC (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> if a worker earning 100,000+ and someone on a zero hours contract are both working class. With the former perhaps paying of a mortgage and the lattter paying through the nose to live in a shared cramped flat, What use is a Marxian Analysis. Insofar as trying to show both there is an alternative to capitalism. both might agree that they are being exploited according to the definition. But the former is likely more Sanguin if not comfortable with it. So what then.



The use of a 'marxist analysis' is nothing to do with articulating alternatives, its use is in explaining and understanding the struture of capitalism. And that explanation clearly explains why you have some workers on high wages and some on low, and why they are both exploited by capital. Yes, of course individuals are going to have different positions and reactions to their position under capitalism, with that also complicated by a myriad of other factors as well as wages, but that doesn't negate the general wider analysis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What makes a Marxist? Because dlr has used Marx's theories to illustrate his point.


Using elements of one theory means nothing more than using elements of one theory. Dlr has never hidden his anarchism and never claimed to be  Marxist


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

These conversations are so frustrating.

The Marxist analysis of class (even if the people using it aren't Marxists) points to the essential characteristic that working class people share which, whilst being the source of their oppression, is also the thing which gives then strength and makes them potential agents of revolution.

The other analysis being used in this thread is purely aesthetic and doesn't say anything useful on a structural level. It can't highlight a single thing which makes someone working class or not. Wealth and class are not the same thing.

ETA: people's positions in this are so entrenched I don't actually know why I've bothered to reply


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 22, 2022)

I'm not a Marxist, for a variety of reasons. Mainly historical ones where Marxists in (and out) of power have so often abused human rights etc, and got involved in schismatic ideological battles which have achieved nothing. I also have no head for economics, so can never grasp the Marxist version, even though I know many anarchists who accept it. I try my best but it never quite all sinks in, or not long enough.

So like most people i use the term 'class' in its everyday I'll-defined usage. Which is deeply flawed, and does include such things as eating hummus or your family background or where you live.

Realistically how are we ever going to change our everyday usage of the term 'class'? If we have to explain it every time we have a conversation down the pub.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Realistically how are we ever going to change our everyday usage of the term 'class'? If we have to explain it every time we have a conversation down the pub.


Realistically, how are we going to change anything without constant explanation? You know the "e" bit of _educate, agitate, organise_


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 22, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> how are we ever going to change our everyday usage of the term 'class'



I'd say the trouble is more that it can't be settled at all and is in a constant state of flux. "Working class" is obfuscated in one way or another, deliberately or not, by almost everyone who discusses it and has grey areas in practice which render it more of a a spectrum than a definable box in any case. Meaning its definition is a both an inherent and deliberately stoked point of conflict.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Realistically, how are we going to change anything without constant explanation? You know the "e" bit of _educate, agitate, organise_


Yup. The class war is being waged on us all the time and part of that war is a propaganda war, telling us, amongst other things, that we’ve got common interests with the bosses.  

We can of course give up and say it’s useless, but.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> These conversations are so frustrating.
> 
> The Marxist analysis of class (even if the people using it aren't Marxists) points to the essential characteristic that working class people share which, whilst being the source of their oppression, is also the thing which gives then strength and makes them potential agents of revolution.
> 
> ...


Disappointingly some of the responses on  here are predictably dire


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 22, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> OK. Just for the moment let's take this contention as true. What next. how does that answer LDC's question


It's about trying to read the currents of economics/society at large. Why has flatlining or falling incomes produced relatively little discontent in Western countries until now? There are two main answers to that question. Globalisation, while taking away a lot of jobs, delivered cheap Asia-produced goods to everyone, meaning it didn't always feel like a falling standard of living. And a significant proportion of the population has been 'bought off' by being hitched to the rising asset prices that are the corollary of a falling share of GDP to wages. So for a while if you wanted a mass movement against flatlining wages, you either needed to work primarily with those who don't own houses (who are still a minority in the UK), or wait until house prices started to fall and you'd have a chance of including everyone. Falling wages _and_ rising interest rates together however do create a lot more discontent, as we are now seeing, as that has serious effects on homeowners. I used to be mystified by the lack of reaction to ten years of austerity until I began to understand the role of housing. It has been promoted as the plug to fill the hole left by flatlining wages and a much-reduced welfare state, as this article argues: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2014.951429 Of course it doesn't work in the long term, but for a while you convince people they're winning because their house has doubled in value and now their kids have left home they can downsize. 

What you can also gather from this picture is that rising wages in China etc will result in falls in the standard of living in Western countries, and so will have political consequences that are to some degree predictable - i.e. the government of the day, whoever it is, will get blamed, and people will try to choose a government that promises to restore their standard of living even though that will not be possible without raising wages, which neither major party will in fact aim to do. It will be a political mess of grand proportions and it's a shame 'the left' is not preparing for something so predictable. We're straying a bit from class per se, but I think by focusing so exclusively on the conflict of workers vs capitalists it becomes very difficult to read what is happening in our society and prepare for what is coming.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> These conversations are so frustrating.
> 
> The Marxist analysis of class (even if the people using it aren't Marxists) points to the essential characteristic that working class people share which, whilst being the source of their oppression, is also the thing which gives then strength and makes them potential agents of revolution.
> 
> ...


I agree that Marx's analysis is fundamentally correct in describing the position of people within capitalism. Lets agree on that. It remains something worthy of everyone in the world to understand.

As well describing peoples position in relation to capitalism it is also meant to be a way of understanding oppression within capitalism. And here is where it starts to come undone, because when talking about the UK people in class categories that according to Marxist categories are oppressed may enjoy a range of material conditions to which they are politically committed in protecting.

They have become stakeholders in society, may enjoy significantly valuable assets , have material wealth putting them in the top 10-20% of earners in the world globally, may have experienced (particularly if they are older) that working what would be considered a working class job has been enough to buy them a big house, a villa, and afford to bring up kids <- using Tony Walker that east end cabby in the 7 Up series, coming of working age in the late 70s/early 80s as an example.

You could take a person leaving school now with an identical Marxist structural position as that cabby in 7 Up, get them doing the knowledge and in a cab for life and they will not be able to accrue assets and capital in the same way, their life will be precarious on a completely different scale.

Saying to someone in a precarious/no-asset/scraping rent existence that they are identical class as someone with a villa a big house in the suburbs and two well looked after kids, one who does horse riding IIRC, shows clearly the limits of saying "you are both working class". Tony voted Tory his whole life (although I think in the last episode in his 60s he went off them, forget why now)

Barbara Ehrenreich talks about how nursing was a middle class profession in the 70s/80s and has now become a working class one - the first ever nurses strike backs that change up. The difference between then and now is pay and its relation to costs of assets. I dont see how a Marxist class category on its own can account for that shift in class status <would be keen to hear an answer to that.


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> I agree that Marx's analysis is fundamentally correct in describing the position of people within capitalism. Lets agree on that. It remains something worthy of everyone in the world to understand.
> 
> As well describing peoples position in relation to capitalism it is also meant to be a way of understanding oppression within capitalism. And here is where it starts to come undone, because when talking about the UK people in class categories that according to Marxist categories are oppressed may enjoy a range of material conditions to which they are politically committed in protecting.
> 
> ...



The only answer I can give is that those people are in the same class position. They have different experiences, stresses, privileges and challenges but their relation to capital is the same. 

You've conflated two different things - class as a descriptor of your relationship to capital and class as a social identity - and stripped them both of any value as an analytical tool in the process.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> We can of course give up and say it’s useless, but.


...but _class is_n't giving up. It will continue to place us in certain positions in the * coughs * reproduction of capital regardless of what words we use to describe it


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 22, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> The reason why a 'Marxian Analysis' (using this in a very wide sense, I would not call myself a Marxian) is crucial is not (just) because it shows there is an alternative to capitalism, or it provides a better analysis of capitalism but because it provides a structure for organising the destruction of class, and capitalism.
> Ever since the publication of _Capital_ there have been those who argue for replacing class with some alternative, but none of these political philosophies have been able to identify a coherent strategic point for the destruction of capitalism.


But Marxian thought has also not come up with a coherent strategy that works to destroy capitalism. At the risk of stating the obvious.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> You've conflated two different things - class as a descriptor of your relationship to capital and class as a social identity - and stripped them both of any value as an analytical tool in the process.


??
i havent mentioned identity at all, im looking purely at material position


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> I agree that Marx's analysis is fundamentally correct in describing the position of people within capitalism. Lets agree on that. It remains something worthy of everyone in the world to understand.
> 
> As well describing peoples position in relation to capitalism it is also meant to be a way of understanding oppression within capitalism. And here is where it starts to come undone, because when talking about the UK people in class categories that according to Marxist categories are oppressed may enjoy a range of material conditions to which they are politically committed in protecting.
> 
> ...



Also, getting all of those people to realise they are members of the same class and have the same interests is the only way we're going to make the big changes that will improve life for everyone.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> The only answer I can give is that those people are in the same class position.


on the simplest Marxist level they are the same - i get that.
and yet on a material level they are massively different and their experience leads to having politics in their own interest that couldn't be more opposite


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> The only answer I can give is that those people are in the same class position. They have different experiences, stresses, privileges and challenges but their relation to capital is the same.
> 
> You've conflated two different things - class as a descriptor of your relationship to capital and class as a social identity - and stripped them both of any value as an analytical tool in the process.


How useful is an analytic tool that assigns two people in extremely different circumstances the same value? 

I agree with ska that Marxist analysis is still extremely relevant. But it is a starting point, not an end point. And there are of course many complicating factors in play two centuries later. Analysis now needs to include the assets people can or can't accrue. It needs to take account of the fact that taking out massive debt, whether for a home or for an education, is now a social norm. Plus there is the globalisation aspect in which people in rich countries can benefit materially from the low wages of people in poor countries. I suggest that these are new kinds of thing that didn't exist in the same way in the 19th century. Do they affect notions of class? Yes, I think they really do.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 22, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Using elements of one theory means nothing more than using elements of one theory. Dlr has never hidden his anarchism and never claimed to be  Marxist


This hasn’t answered my question of what makes a Marxist. You mean a Leninist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This hasn’t answered my question of what makes a Marxist. You mean a Leninist?


i mean a marxist - no one's said m-l about dlr. for me what makes a marxist in political terms is someone who accepts marx's view that there _will_ be a proletarian revolution. that when the stars are right or whatever the working class will rise up and seize and destroy power (withering away of the state). ok, that's putting things really simply, but there you go


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

also I think Marxists are tied to an inevitable collapse of capitalism, based on Marx's understanding of capitalist contradictions like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall - that capitalism will inevitably create the conditions for its own demise.  The last century seems to have proven those people wrong and shown that capitalism can be incredibly resilient, though I expect climate change will be the final cost that cant be dodged.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 22, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i mean a marxist - no one's said m-l about dlr. for me what makes a marxist in political terms is someone who accepts marx's view that there _will_ be a proletarian revolution. that when the stars are right or whatever the working class will rise up and seize and destroy power (withering away of the state). ok, that's putting things really simply, but there you go


Thanks. Appreciated.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How useful is an analytic tool that assigns two people in extremely different circumstances the same value?



I think this is a really important point at the heart of the 'problem'.

People from all over the political and social spectrum see class as a (or having a) *value*. That can - obviously - to lead to both idprole nonsense _and_ to the elevation of individual social mobility and and the entrepreneurial self as a virtue.

Similarly, viewing class as individual *circumstances*, rather than as a relational process _leading_ to those circumstances (Maxwell's Demon as Bourdieu put it) quickly leads to the centering of income - or even access to commodities - as somehow definitional rather than 'merely' symptomatic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

chilango said:


> I think this is a really important point at the heart of the 'problem'.
> 
> People from all over the political and social spectrum see class as a (or having a) *value*. That can - obviously - to lead to both idprole nonsense _and_ to the elevation of individual social mobility and and the entrepreneurial self as a virtue.
> 
> Similarly, viewing class as individual *circumstances*, rather than as a relational process _leading_ to those circumstances (Maxwell's Demon as Bourdieu put it) quickly leads to the centering of income - or even access to commodities - as somehow definitional rather than 'merely' symptomatic.


Symptomatic of what, though? At the very least you have an explanatory gap there. If a particular relational process can lead to vastly different individual outcomes, that fact rather demands an explanation, no?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This hasn’t answered my question of what makes a Marxist. You mean a Leninist?


It’s not a very interesting question. I’m also not a Kropotkin-ist or a Paul Mattick-ist.  

I think the term Marxism suggests several things: 
i) adherence to a person rather than a set of ideas. I’m never keen on that. People are fallible. I’m into good ideas, not heroes. 
ii) Marxism as term has been coloured by the split in the first international into authoritarians and libertarians, and has come to signify statists and authoritarian. Unfairly, but still.
iii) I’m not claiming to have read all of Marx’s output, but he did evolve his thought over time. I find several of volumes of his work useful, but I actually don’t know _all_ of it.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Symptomatic of what, though? At the very least you have an explanatory gap there. If a particular relational process can lead to vastly different individual outcomes, that fact rather demands an explanation, no?


Of course.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How useful is an analytic tool that assigns two people in extremely different circumstances the same value?


A ginger woman and a bald man about to be hit by a runaway bus are in the same category for something very significant at that moment.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

"Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" - Marx.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> getting all of those people to realise they are members of the same class and have the same interests is the only way we're going to make the big changes that will improve life for everyone.


agree, but they dont all have the same immediate interests, thats the problem
many people are very keen to maintain the status quo, because of their position within it
its partly why Tories keep winning elections

of course there is a layer of common interest that can be found also


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> A ginger woman and a bald man about to be hit by a runaway bus are in the same category for something very significant at that moment.


Brill pal .


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 22, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Realistically how are we ever going to change our everyday usage of the term 'class'? If we have to explain it every time we have a conversation down the pub.





brogdale said:


> Realistically, how are we going to change anything without constant explanation? You know the "e" bit of _educate, agitate, organise_


Yeah, I know, but I don't want to bore the pants off people I meet and interact with any more than I do already. When 99% of people use a non-Marxist definition of class in their daily lives I can't see myself investing too much effort in trying to change that, when there's so much else to talk about anyway.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s not a very interesting question.


If people are going to use particular terms it’s useful to know what they mean by them. And besides, I was asking Pickman’s.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

Id like to ask that question again: why was nursing once a middle class job and now a working class job (considering in both cases the nurse was living solely from income from their wage)


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How useful is an analytic tool that assigns two people in extremely different circumstances the same value?



It's useful because it demonstrates that people who appear different have a crucial feature in common.

If the objection is it's a bad concept because 'it lumps people who appear different together' then we can't have a conversation because I view that as the point of the analysis.

They do have the same material interest, it's just obscured by the trappings of / the social construction of social class, or race, or gender... Etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> If people are going to use particular terms it’s useful to know what they mean by them. And besides, I was asking Pickman’s.


I thought it was you who brought the term up, asking about me?  It’s not one I’d use about myself.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Id like to ask that question again: why was nursing once a middle class job and now a working class job (considering in both cases the nurse was living solely from income from their wage)


The Social and Cultural Capital required for the job, and acquired in the job, perhaps?


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 22, 2022)

Discussing definitions of class from Marxist perspective with 98% of the U.K. population is probably just as pointless and exhausting as trying to explain critical race theory to my white male 70 year old GBnews streaming expat colleague


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s not a very interesting question. I’m also not a Kropotkin-ist or a Paul Mattick-ist.
> 
> I think the term Marxism suggests several things:
> i) adherence to a person rather than a set of ideas. I’m never keen on that. People are fallible. I’m into good ideas, not heroes.
> ...


to be fair, nor did lenin, don't think he ever encountered eg _the german ideology_


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I thought it was you who brought the term up, asking about me?  It’s not one I’d use about myself.


After you went through some theory I was genuinely interested in what makes someone a Marxist or otherwise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> It's useful because it demonstrates that people who appear different have a crucial feature in common.
> 
> If the objection is it's a bad concept because 'it lumps people who appear different together' then we can't have a conversation because I view that as the point of the analysis.
> 
> They do have the same material interest, it's just obscured by the trappings of / the social construction of social class, or race, or gender... Etc.


I think this is a bit of a weakness, though, because ska wasn't talking about social constructions of the kind you mention and neither was I. Our examples are of material conditions.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

chilango said:


> The Social and Cultural Capital required for the job, and acquired in the job, perhaps?


cant see it, lots of people go into nursing with none of that at the start, and i dont see how nurses are related to socially any different now than 40 years ago

for me the answer is clearly wages and means within the wider economy, - thats the point Barbara Ehrenreich makes too -  but this contradicts people saying its wrong to talk about accumulated wealth and its power, its solely about the ultimate relation to capital


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> After you went through some theory I was genuinely interested in what makes someone a Marxist or otherwise.


a misspent youth


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this is a bit of a weakness, though, because ska wasn't talking about social constructions of the kind you mention and neither was I. Our examples are of material conditions.



Were not going to agree on this. Your position in the class structure is the crucial material condition, not how much money you earn or how many bedrooms your house has. The point is to get people to recognise this. The way wealth impacts people's behaviour, politics, and the way they are treated by others is a social construction.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

Not sure about the idea that nursing used to be a middle class job. My mum became a nurse in the 1950s as it was a job that was open to girls who had to leave school at 15.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

tbh i'd suggest that the majority of people who own houses in eg scunthorpe and the majority of people who own houses in eg hampstead share neither the same material conditions nor the same class


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure about the idea that nursing used to be a middle class job. My mum became a nurse in the 1950s as it was a job that was open to girls who had to leave school at 15.


i never understood it but teachers and nurses were always considered middle class as far as I was aware
i also dont see a difference between a nurse and a doctor other than wage level


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> Were not going to agree on this. Your position in the class structure is the crucial material condition, not how much money you earn or how many bedrooms your house has.


Nah. Your material condition is everything to do with how much money you earn and what assets you own. Your position in the class structure as defined by you isn't a material condition. It's an abstraction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> i never understood it but teachers and nurses were always considered middle class as far as I was aware
> i also dont see a difference between a nurse and a doctor other than wage level


doctors spend five years learning medicine at university, they then continue their education in hospitals Hospital doctor | Explore careers | National Careers Service.


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. Your material condition is everything to do with how much money you earn and what assets you own. Your position in the class structure as defined by you isn't a material condition. It's an abstraction.


I don't think spending the majority of your waking hours going to work for a boss who pays you less than the worth of your labour is an abstraction but I'm out because we're.talking at cross purposes, intentionally or not.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> doctors spend five years learning medicine at university, they then continue their education in hospitals Hospital doctor | Explore careers | National Careers Service.


And? How does that change their relation to capital? They presumably reliant on their wage for income


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> The Marxist analysis of class (even if the people using it aren't Marxists) points to the essential characteristic that working class people share which, whilst being the source of their oppression, is also the thing which gives then strength and makes them potential agents of revolution.


This is what this disagreement comes back to though. This was an assertion of Marx's, which he proved to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of some other people. A hundred and fifty years down the line, when revolution as he described it has not happened, and what revolutions did happen did not abolish capitalism, and the 'working class' is no closer to a revolutionary position in the UK than in his time - in fact considerably further away - do we not reassess his ideas at some point?

For me the useful thing to take from Marx is to examine the material forces in society, particularly against the idea that society progresses mostly through new ideas or enlightened leadership. Shouting at everyone that MY VERSION OF CLASS IS THE ONLY RIGHT ONE and getting upset at people who fail to 'understand' what class really means (we understand, thanks), is achieving what, exactly? Maintaining a blind faith in one person's depiction of society, against 150 years of consequent evidence, as far as I can see.


----------



## JimW (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Id like to ask that question again: why was nursing once a middle class job and now a working class job (considering in both cases the nurse was living solely from income from their wage)


Same as with your Tony, also a function of the balance of class forces at different times and its impact on the allocation of the social wage. So in a sense, Tony becomes an example to us now that when the class has more power it gets a better deal and the question instead becomes how to recapture that under direct attack and with the big changes in industrial patterns.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> And? How does that change their relation to capital? They presumably reliant on their wage for income


medicine, being a doctor, has always been a profession, it's always had greater status than nursing


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 22, 2022)

There are a number of people here who still appear to believe that Marx established a sort of science of how society works, and that this offers a factual description of what happens in the world. Perhaps rather than assuming that these annoying people on urban75_ just don't understand_ Marx, perhaps you could assume that we do not believe he did offer a 'scientific' description of society. Which is not to say he never said anything useful, but quite apart from the usual methods of critique, in the face of which he doesn't always stand up well, everything has to be subject to the searing test of events and history


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> There are a number of people here who still appear to believe that Marx established a sort of science of how society works, and that this offers a factual description of what happens in the world. Perhaps rather than assuming that these annoying people on urban75_ just don't understand_ Marx, perhaps you could assume that we do not believe he did offer a 'scientific' description of society. Which is not to say he never said anything useful, but quite apart from the usual methods of critique, in the face of which he doesn't always stand up well, everything has to be subject to the searing test of events and history


a sort of science of how society works, that would be sociology i suppose. you seem to be thinking of the positivists, rather than marx. i think it was engels who wrote a pamphlet on scientific socialism, maybe you're confusing scientific socialism with sociology


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Id like to ask that question again: why was nursing once a middle class job and now a working class job (considering in both cases the nurse was living solely from income from their wage)


Sorry but when was nursing a middle class job?

Cheers  - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 22, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> medicine, being a doctor, has always been a profession, it's always had greater status than nursing


And doctors in a hospital have a managerial role in relation to nurses.

Cheers  - Louis MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Id like to ask that question again: why was nursing once a middle class job and now a working class job (considering in both cases the nurse was living solely from income from their wage)


I’m adding my dubiety that nursing was a middle class job.  Are you thinking of the war effort?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m adding my dubiety that nursing was a middle class job.  Are you thinking of the war effort?


think he's thinking of florence nightingale


----------



## extra dry (Dec 22, 2022)

If they say our maids took care of that, then you know how lower upper midcle clasx


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2022)

There are various ways of defining class and Marx's isn't the only one that is useful. The contexts of when those various other definitions are useful and to whom is another question. If we are talking about something called the working class it best have something to do with work and if your talking work rather than cottages or hummus Marx's definition is a good starting point for understanding society and for a worker hopefully a useful one.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> think he's thinking of florence nightingale


I think that’s the problem , stuck with an analysis that may have been apt in the years of the Crimean War but not really fit for today


----------



## xenon (Dec 22, 2022)

locomotive said:


> These conversations are so frustrating.
> 
> The Marxist analysis of class (even if the people using it aren't Marxists) points to the essential characteristic that working class people share which, whilst being the source of their oppression, is also the thing which gives then strength and makes them potential agents of revolution.
> 
> ...




But OTOH if trying to frame an alternative you have to address wealth. This is what concerns people more than their class relationship to the MoP. Otherwise it's just a bit describing the water to drowning peple, some of whom have got 2 arms and a leg on a life raft and others barely doggy paddling.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> But OTOH if trying to frame an alternative you have to address wealth. This is what concerns people more than their class relationship to the MoP. Otherwise it's just a bit describing the water to drowning peple, some of whom have got 2 arms and a leg on a life raft and others barely doggy paddling.


That analogy misses the people not in the water.


----------



## xenon (Dec 22, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This is what this disagreement comes back to though. This was an assertion of Marx's, which he proved to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of some other people. A hundred and fifty years down the line, when revolution as he described it has not happened, and what revolutions did happen did not abolish capitalism, and the 'working class' is no closer to a revolutionary position in the UK than in his time - in fact considerably further away - do we not reassess his ideas at some point?
> 
> For me the useful thing to take from Marx is to examine the material forces in society, particularly against the idea that society progresses mostly through new ideas or enlightened leadership. Shouting at everyone that MY VERSION OF CLASS IS THE ONLY RIGHT ONE and getting upset at people who fail to 'understand' what class really means (we understand, thanks), is achieving what, exactly? Maintaining a blind faith in one person's depiction of society, against 150 years of consequent evidence, as far as I can see.



This is my frustration with it. OK. so class in the Marxist sense explains the relationship between worker and owner of the MoP. Fine. If that's all it's for, an accademic framing of one aspect of Capitlism, why does everyone go on about it all the time in 2022 as if it has some practicle use in workers struggles.

It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings. The power to move more freely, turn down certain jobs, buy better quality food, health, etc, etc. However, I did like Redsquirrel's reply to this point up thread.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings.


It’s frustrating that people keep saying this when it has actually been answered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s frustrating that people keep saying this when it has actually been answered.


welcome to urban75


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> This is my frustration with it. OK. so class in the Marxist sense explains the relationship between worker and owner of the MoP. Fine. If that's all it's for, an accademic framing of one aspect of Capitlism, why does everyone go on about it all the time in 2022 as if it has some practicle use in workers struggles.
> 
> It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings. The power to move more freely, turn down certain jobs, buy better quality food, health, etc, etc. However, I did like Redsquirrel's reply to this point up thread.


I don't see how a Marxist analysis makes making those distinctions impossible. No ones stopping anyone from using an analysis based on wealth, power, culture or whatever but if you ignore the relation to the means of production it'll be fucking shit.


----------



## xenon (Dec 22, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> That analogy misses the people not in the water.



Exactly. There's no time to talk about them. Which is what a Marxist would probably do. See you might all 
be in strife even you with the life rafts but it's because those lot on the distant shore have control over liferafts and even boat production. Your labour is exploited to built their shoreside abodes and you see, whilst this fella here is quite dry and floating along nicely whilst you there are almost submerged, you are actually on the same side. yeah? You see. What you need to do is...


----------



## Sue (Dec 22, 2022)

Ming and Tanya1982, not sure if you're still reading but hope you are and this is proving interesting.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> These "what abouts" come up every time this has been discussed over the years.
> 
> 
> what about someone who doesn't live off their capital but earns > £100k a year.  They might not live off their capital, but they _could_. Their interests are aligned with the capitalist class to the extent that those conditions apply.  The more they have earnings that could accumulate as capital the greater the degree that it applies.
> ...


☝️


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> Exactly. There's no time to talk about them. Which is what a Marxist would probably do. See you might all
> be in strife even you with the life rafts but it's because those lot on the distant shore have control over liferafts and even boat production. Your labour is exploited to built their shoreside abodes and you see, whilst this fella here is quite dry and floating along nicely whilst you there are almost submerged, you are actually on the same side. yeah? You see. What you need to do is...


See if you can't give each other a hand out of this and head for those distant shores.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

CNT36 said:


> I don't see how a Marxist analysis makes making those distinctions impossible. No ones stopping anyone from using an analysis based on wealth, power, culture or whatever but if you ignore the relation to the means of production it'll be fucking shit.



It's strange to lump together 'wealth, power, culture or whatever' as if, for example, wealth and culture were the same kind of thing. They're clearly not. Wealth is a measure of your material condition. I'd reverse that and say that an analysis based on the relation to the means of production that ignores wealth is going to be fucking shit. I actually don't think it's even coherent to talk in that way. Your wealth is an important part of your relation to the means of production.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

xenon said:


> This is my frustration with it. OK. so class in the Marxist sense explains the relationship between worker and owner of the MoP. Fine. If that's all it's for, an accademic framing of one aspect of Capitlism, why does everyone go on about it all the time in 2022 as if it has some practicle use in workers struggles.
> 
> It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings. The power to move more freely, turn down certain jobs, buy better quality food, health, etc, etc. However, I did like Redsquirrel's reply to this point up thread.


Income inequality is obviously prominent in people's minds (as of course will be stuff like home ownership, pension status etc.). 

...but, in practice, it often ends up with a smorgasbord of whataboutery and exceptionalism as infinite arbitrary divisions can be conjured.

£100k pa in London is not the same as £100k in the Rhondda. It's not the same for homeowner soon to retire with a good pension as it is for a young family trying to save for a deposit and pay rent. It's not the same for someone is a secure 'career job' as it is for self-employed gig worker and so on and so on.

Doesn't mean it's not important, it is. Obviously. But it does mean as a lens through to analyse (and organize) it's too limited (imo).


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> cant see it, lots of people go into nursing with none of that at the start, and i dont see how nurses are related to socially any different now than 40 years ago
> 
> for me the answer is clearly wages and means within the wider economy, - thats the point Barbara Ehrenreich makes too -  but this contradicts people saying its wrong to talk about accumulated wealth and its power, its solely about the ultimate relation to capital


I've got some research somewhere on the main computer about the proletarianisation of supposedly m/c occupations. Haven't really read it though so can't summarise. Just that people have been looking at this exact question.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's strange to lump together 'wealth, power, culture or whatever' as if, for example, wealth and culture were the same kind of thing. They're clearly not. Wealth is a measure of your material condition. I'd reverse that and say that an analysis based on the relation to the means of production that ignores wealth is going to be fucking shit. I actually don't think it's even coherent to talk in that way. Your wealth is an important part of your relation to the means of production.


Depends on whether "power, culture or whatever" can be exchanged for, or used to access, "wealth" (and vice versa)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

chilango said:


> I've got some research somewhere on the main computer about the proletarianisation of supposedly m/c occupations. Haven't really read it though so can't summarise. Just that people have been looking at this exact question.


the way librarians have seen their role slip down is an interesting one. used to be the librarian of a college would be one of the most important people in the hierarchy, same in local authorities. there used to be a librarian's residence in the palace of westminster. but the status of the profession has diminished over the years, to the point where some institutions (eg london school of hygiene and tropical medicine) have tried to employ people without any library background to run services. not sure that's proletarianisation but it's certainly been the case that librarians are no longer seen as eminent members of institutions - be they heads of service or whatnot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2022)

chilango said:


> Income inequality is obviously prominent in people's minds (as of course will be stuff like home ownership, pension status etc.).
> 
> ...but, in practice, it often ends up with a smorgasbord of whataboutery and exceptionalism as infinite arbitrary divisions can be conjured.
> 
> ...


A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's strange to lump together 'wealth, power, culture or whatever' as if, for example, wealth and culture were the same kind of thing. They're clearly not. Wealth is a measure of your material condition. I'd reverse that and say that an analysis based on the relation to the means of production that ignores wealth is going to be fucking shit. I actually don't think it's even coherent to talk in that way. Your wealth is an important part of your relation to the means of production.


It's strange to comment on a list of things that are different to add that they are too different.


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.


But, if you separate the masses from the elite (the 99% or whatever) you're gonna have an even broader range of incomes and wealth represented, and thus the same potential for those earning (say) £10k seeing those on £30k as having different interests, who in turn see those on £50k...well, you get my point.

For this approach to work, I reckon it would very much have to _not_ be about "wealth".


----------



## cesare (Dec 22, 2022)

For those using material conditions for their point of analysis, you are including those workers overseas that earn a fraction of our minimum wage? Or do you have a material analysis point/range at which you disregard (or re-class) those earning far above or far below?


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

(Edit to add: I'll probably delete this later on so grab 'em while you can)


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 22, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m adding my dubiety that nursing was a middle class job. Are you thinking of the war effort?



I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married.  (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not  compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)

obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.

and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.


----------



## locomotive (Dec 22, 2022)

.

Nope, changed my mind about joining in again!


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> And? How does that change their relation to capital? They presumably reliant on their wage for income





Louis MacNeice said:


> And doctors in a hospital have a managerial role in relation to nurses.


Additionally doctors are in a position to go into private practice, effectively giving them control over their means of production. Nurses almost always have to work for a practice (company, hospital, whatever).

FWIW in terms of means of production (which is a bit of a weird prism to view medicine anyway given the structures around it) I also don't think nurses have ever been middle class.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married.  (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not  compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)
> 
> obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.
> 
> and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.


Did any of them own the hospitals?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Did any of them own the hospitals?


Only a ward or two


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 22, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Did any of them own the hospitals?



absolutely not, hence saying it depends on the definition / line of working - middle class.

there's a vested interest from the 1% in trying to persuade a swathe of people that they are 'middle class' and therefore have more in common with the 1% than they do with the 'working class' who they should fear and look down on.

although there's a few on the left who seem to help by telling most people that they aren't working class enough to join their gang...


----------



## deeyo (Dec 22, 2022)

exploitation and oppression didn't start with bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. to quote the beards:

_the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, *oppressor and oppressed...*_

this is what it boils down to. 

exploitation is central to capitalism - we're all part of this, we all get exploited (barmy army!)  & we all 'benefit' more or less from exploitation.

there's not one single 'middle class' in any meaningful sense. there's layers, some of these might start to act like  'classes' - but i can't see anything close to challenge the status quo - no new french revolution where the 'management class' or the 'vectoralist class' topples the bourgeoisie & takes over.

_the bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. it has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers._

back in the day every town had their own factory owners, shipowners, railroad tycoons, big landlords & so on. the doctor, lawyer & priest might've been invited to fraternise with their betters now & then.

not anymore. power is concentrated , the 'real' ruling class is small & yeah, they've got their lapdogs & allies in the upper stratas - the rest of us are wage labourers plus an bunch of self employed, petty booshwah, underclass/lumpenproles and so on.
there are differences that sets us apart from each other, sure, but these are to be overcome.

_we are many - they are few._


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> absolutely not, hence saying it depends on the definition / line of working - middle class.
> 
> there's a vested interest from the 1% in trying to persuade a swathe of people that they are 'middle class' and therefore have more in common with the 1% than they do with the 'working class' who they should fear and look down on.
> 
> although there's a few on the left who seem to help by telling most people that they aren't working class enough to join their gang...


Tbf though the Waitrose shopper theory does stand up imo


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Tbf though the Waitrose shopper theory does stand up imo


Surely it's Apolónia in your case these days?


----------



## oryx (Dec 22, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.


This. I would argue that the terms 'working class' and 'middle class' have become so debatable and so loaded with (usually) silly cultural signifiers as to be almost meaningless. I believe the term is problematic for some, but I prefer the 99% v the 1% / the many not the few. 

Using this idea and in the current climate, a lecturer/junior doctor (traditionally seen as middle class occupations) has more in common with a postie or rail worker (traditionally seen as working class occupations). The common enemy is the very wealthy who seek to perpetuate the current system as it benefits them. 

To return to nursing, the term 'nurse' potentially covers everyone from healthcare assistants to highly trained and specialised nurses and their are stratas of the traditional class structure within that. I did some nurse training many years ago and there were various bands including within the level of qualification for trained nurses (now changed). They'd all be the 99% anyway


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

Problem is that the 99% also includes your landlord, your boss, your boss's boss and so on.


----------



## seeformiles (Dec 22, 2022)

ska invita said:


> i never understood it but teachers and nurses were always considered middle class as far as I was aware
> i also dont see a difference between a nurse and a doctor other than wage level


My old man (son of a mechanic and a shop worker) did well at school and got his senior school certificate - being good at art and languages. He wanted to join the navy but the school headmaster told his parents that he had the brains to be a teacher - something he wasn’t interested in - but they put pressure on him to do so as it was a much more “respectable” job than what was open to many of his contemporaries who were bound for the shipyard and related jobs. He won a scholarship to Queens University in Belfast in 1954 - something that actually was reported in the paper (“Local Boy Makes Good”) but this parental and scholastic pressure was something he regretted later on. He spent 40 years teaching in a school directly opposite the house where he was born but I don’t recall him ever being happy about it. When he got drunk, he told me never to get married or have kids and how he wished he’d joined the navy. While he appreciated the post war education act - something he saw that enabled a bit more social mobility for WC kids -  he’d done it purely to please his parents but felt alienated from his mates in the process. All I saw was regret and a sense of class betrayal. He was a very conflicted fella.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2022)

chilango said:


> Surely it's Apolónia in your case these days?


Jesus , expensive chain that .


----------



## chilango (Dec 22, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Jesus , expensive chain that .


Isn't it? I don't recommend their sparkling white fwiw either


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 23, 2022)

Lest we all forget, here's some wise words from an alternative life coach:


----------



## Ming (Dec 23, 2022)

Sue said:


> Ming and Tanya1982, not sure if you're still reading but hope you are and this is proving interesting.


Are things getting spicy?


----------



## Ming (Dec 23, 2022)

My dad was an electrician initially (Cammell Laird shipyard), then in the merchant navy for WW2 and then a sales rep for Coles cranes (later Acrow). My mum worked for John Lewis in retail. I was the first member of the family to go to university. I suppose i identify as middle class. I’ve only got a slight NW accent.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.



I currently pay a small mortgage on a small flat. I'm still going to be working until I drop. Due to family problems my savings are miniscule. I'm a retail worker with no tertiary education.  I like sushi.  Come the revolution do I get shot or re-educated? You need to re-read danny's post.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> It's about trying to read the currents of economics/society at large. <snip>.
> We're straying a bit from class per se, but I think by focusing so exclusively on the conflict of workers vs capitalists it becomes very difficult to read what is happening in our society and prepare for what is coming.


Thanks for outlining your theory a bit more. But I'm not contesting it for the moment I'm seeking an answer to LDC s question - what does this mean for your politics.
I understand you identify homeowners as no longer working class, so are renters the key strategic block, how will they dismantle capitalism? Are you arguing for organising on a class (your definition of w/c) basis, or a cross-class basis? If homeowners are no longer part of labour you've significantly shrunk the size of labour, what do you think are the political implications for that? What does your theory mean for countries where renting is much more common? Is Germany less capitalist,  orcloser to a revolutionary situation than the UK?


Brainaddict said:


> But Marxian thought has also not come up with a coherent strategy that works to destroy capitalism. At the risk of stating the obvious.


Bollocks. Marx very clearly outlined why labour was the crucial point in capitalism - the focus on the working class is not a moral, it is because the working class occupy the pivotal strategic point. In the words of EMW "_The particular importance for Marxism of the working class in capitalist society is that this is the only class whose own class interests require, and whose own conditions make possible, the abolition of class itself._"
You can disagree with that but it is a clear coherent politics that builds it base upon the group that is able to dismantle capitalism.

Where is your strategic pivot point? Is it still the working class but redefined to remove homeowners?


Brainaddict said:


> There are a number of people here who still appear to believe that Marx established a sort of science of how society works, and that this offers a factual description of what happens in the world. Perhaps rather than assuming that these annoying people on urban75_ just don't understand_ Marx, perhaps you could assume that we do not believe he did offer a 'scientific' description of society.


I don't know about understanding Marx, but the first sentence shows you don't understand (or are arguing in bad faith) the positions of people posting on this thread. I certainly do not believe Marx 'established a sort of science of how society works' and I'm skeptical that most other posters believe such. Indeed, in contrast to, say ska invita, I absolutely reject economics and political science.

The reason why I tend to believe that some "just don't understand Marx", is because the claims that a class model based on ownership of the MoP does not address X or Y are usually simply wrong (as danny la rouge has pointed out).
The claims that 'Marx did not take X into account' are not some radical new point, they are typically rather old hat. Which does not necessarily make them wrong or incorrect, but does mean that some posters are posting from a certain ignorance when they claim that 'Marx' is wrong because 'things are more complex now'.

I'd also not that at least one of the posters arguing against class and insisting that things are more complicated than in Marxian thought has repeatedly admitted they have read very little Marx. Which is fine, I would not pretend to be some scholar of Marx, but does mean that there is a very good chance they do *not* understand Marx.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2022)

xenon said:


> But OTOH if trying to frame an alternative you have to address wealth. This is what concerns people more than their class relationship to the MoP. Otherwise it's just a bit describing the water to drowning peple, some of whom have got 2 arms and a leg on a life raft and others barely doggy paddling.


I'm not going to say wealth is irrelevant, but think about the logical conclusion of making wealth rather than class the focus. Do we not support the strikes by the RMT, UCU, teachers or (potentially) doctors because they are paid better, (and in some cases have more social capital) than many other workers? 

If you are arguing that it is difficult to get people to see that everyone's interest is served by doctors or university lecturers getting a pay rise, then I would not disagree. But that is where the challenge is. And I think that people can be convinced, and indeed many do understand, that a victory for any group of workers, even the 'well paid' ones, is a victory for all. That a rising tide does raise all boats.


----------



## Almor (Dec 23, 2022)

xenon said:


> This is my frustration with it. OK. so class in the
> It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings.


Isn't this arse about face? 
Wouldn't the point would be to tell the wealthier people that they're in the same class as the poorest workers in society to encourage support for struggling/striking people from those with similar class interests who've been convinced that they're something different despite still being subject to capital's control/exploitation and only a little further from similar problems if they lose jobs or status? 

It feels a bit like danny la rouge /Marx's definition of class is trying to find similarities and other definitions are trying to find differences, both of which are probably useful for different things


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2022)

seventh bullet said:


> I currently pay a small mortgage on a small flat. I'm still going to be working until I drop. Due to family problems my savings are miniscule. I'm a retail worker with no tertiary education.  *I like sushi*.  Come the revolution do I get shot or re-educated? You need to re-read danny's post.



I thought everyone knew the rules by now?

It's OK to like sushi, as long as you don't also like hummus and avocado.

Liking just one of those three is fine, liking two will require re-education, but liking all three qualifies for first up against the wall treatment, I'm afraid.


----------



## [62] (Dec 23, 2022)

This hummous thing is getting on my wick. My hospital porter dad made his own hummous not because he was desperate to join the chattering classes but because he was a Sephardi Jew from an Eastern Mediterranean background.

Please stick with sushi as the middle class cultural signifier from now on. Mick McGahey never ate sushi and neither will I.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.


Says the man who forgets Tony Blair campaigned under the same slogan. There's even pictures of Tony Blair on stage at labour party conference with the bloody slogan on the wall behind him. It's not Jeremy corbyn's slogan, it's been about for a while


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2022)

andysays said:


> I thought everyone knew the rules by now?
> 
> It's OK to like sushi, as long as you don't also like hummus and avocado.
> 
> Liking just one of those three is fine, liking two will require re-education, but liking all three qualifies for first up against the wall treatment, I'm afraid.


It's OK to like sushi as long as you don't like wasabi or pickled ginger


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.


I know I'm late to reply to this, but it's occurred to me on waking up that I'm (for example) very well protected from various ups and downs - because while I don't own my home and probably never will, the house I live in is one I pay very low rent for (substantially below market) and my tenancy is assured, so unless I deal drugs or piss off the neighbourhood or burn the place down or whatever, I basically get to live here indefinitely. Minus is that it's not mine so it's not as asset, fine. But i can do what I want with it within reason, and there are a ton of repairs I'm not responsible for, and unless the HA sell it (which I admit could happen) I'm basically set for life. If anything I think I'm in as good a position in terms of the security of my home, as if I owned it myself. And maybe better, in terms of running costs. I have the right to buy it, but I don't want to because it'd cost me more if I did.

I'm just not sure (outside of the south east maybe) that home ownership is necessarily the class-defining grail you seem to be painting it as. Yes, it's nice to own your home but for a few thousand quid you can buy a perfectly livable van or caravan. I lived in a van for ages instead of renting, I don't think it changed my class except downward to 'itinerant' if that's a thing - but the fact is I did for a while own my own home, outright.

As has been pointed out, even if you own the place you live, you can't sell it and realise that wealth without moving out. And how many people actually do own bricks-and-mortar home of their own but no other wealth or assets except that, I bet its not all that many in a country of ~60million. I think the reason home ownership tops some people's 'middle class' list is not because of the home itself but because it represents an asset to leverage in order to make other wealth-increasing investments - and that can change your class substantially.

Eg. If someone owns more than one and rents out the others, that's class defining. If they own it and give up working, that probably is too. If they remortgage to invest in a business they aren't employed by, that too most likely. And various other 'I don't have to sell my labour anymore' scenarios, no doubt. If they own one and have lodgers, that may too - but not definitively, and IMO unless they live 100% off of that rent I'm really not sure it fundamentally changes their class, if they still sell their labour and would struggle if they lost their job. I just don't believe Home Ownership is really key to defining Class, not on its own. Other material interests come into it.

Still, I'm glad this thread is alive again. This is proper U75 stuff


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 23, 2022)

I just need to know before the Red Guards kick my door in.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married.  (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not  compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)
> 
> obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.
> 
> and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.



It used to be a job you could go into as a working class person, without funding yourself through years of university, and end up with a good profession and a decent income. That was what my mum did. When I was a kid our whole family lived off her nursing bursary.

Now nursing is university-only, bursaries have been cut and wages have fallen in real terms. That route for people (particularly women) to get themselves a good career without having family money to back them up has disappeared.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

Food choices can fuck off from a class analysis though right? We're so multicultural now that whether someone eats hummous or guacamole or sushi or splashes out on expensive olives or fresh juice or even wine, is down to taste, nutrition, and because its all available these days. As if working class people should stick to stew and beer and rickets.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It's OK to like sushi as long as you don't like wasabi or pickled ginger



Those are the only parts of sushi worth eating.

Cold stodgy rice and seaweed? No, no thanks.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 23, 2022)

I bought my place simply because of the state of renting in the UK. If social housing was plentiful and the private sector was better regulated then I never would've done it. It's not an 'asset,' it's my home, reasonably affordable and cheap to maintain. It doesn't change my thoughts on society and my class. This shite is why we need communism. Shelter in a human society is fundamental. It's baseline stuff like food and fucking water. It's that simple.


----------



## strung out (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Food choices can fuck off from a class analysis though right? We're so multicultural now that whether someone eats hummous or guacamole or sushi or splashes out on expensive olives or fresh juice or even wine, is down to taste, nutrition, and because its all available these days. As if working class people should stick to stew and beer and rickets.


We're ok talking about quinoa though right?


----------



## deeyo (Dec 23, 2022)

seventh bullet said:


> I just need to know before the Red Guards kick my door in.


better stay away from this one then. esp 'filling 2'









						Plant sushi with brown rice and yummy fillings —  Plant based by Thess
					

Everything is okay in sushi making, if you ask me. Fill your rolls with what every you love and everything will be alright. Here are a few of my favourites!




					plantbasedbythess.com


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

strung out said:


> We're ok talking about quinoa though right?


If cocaine is OK, quinoa is OK too  

(ftr I'm not sure cocaine is ok, I'm just equating one exotic, resource-intensive consumer good whose increased overseas consumption has detrimental effects on people in the places it comes from, with another)


----------



## Elpenor (Dec 23, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> It used to be a job you could go into as a working class person, without funding yourself through years of university, and end up with a good profession and a decent income. That was what my mum did. When I was a kid our whole family lived off her nursing bursary.
> 
> Now nursing is university-only, bursaries have been cut and wages have fallen in real terms. That route for people (particularly women) to get themselves a good career without having family money to back them up has disappeared.


My nanna was a midwife and a single mum and raised two kids off her salary in the 50s. She had originally gone into nursing in the 30s I think in part due to there being accommodation as part of the role and also because it allowed her to work in various parts of what was still nominally the empire (Palestine, Hong Kong - travelling there by flying boat!). Not bad for someone from a mining / farming village half way up a mountain.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Food choices can fuck off from a class analysis though right? We're so multicultural now that whether someone eats hummous or guacamole or sushi or splashes out on expensive olives or fresh juice or even wine, is down to taste, nutrition, and because its all available these days. As if working class people should stick to stew and beer and rickets.


Is multi culturalism a major factor in guacamole consumption?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 23, 2022)

Mushy peas is the traditional proley version.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Is multi culturalism a major factor in guacamole consumption?


I've not read any academic studies but I do know all kinds of exotic foodstuffs I never saw as a kid are readily available in asda now. Which may suggest the relationship between class and eg guacamole, sushi, olives, quinoa or live yogurt is tenuous at best.

The role of multiculturalism in this is either unclear or really obvious. I'm going with really obvious, but happy to read over any detailed analysis should it be available.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I've not read any academic studies but I do know all kinds of exotic foodstuffs I never saw as a kid are readily available in asda now. Which may suggest the relationship between class and eg guacamole, sushi, olives, quinoa or live yogurt is tenuous at best.
> 
> The role of multiculturalism in this is either unclear or really obvious. I'm going with really obvious, but happy to read over any detailed analysis should it be available.


Yup there's far more stuff available and consumed ( depending on price ) by all sorts of folks. My question wasn't about class and food styles though it was about the link between multi culturalism and the consumption of things like guacamole ie  could marketing ie promotion of 'super foods' ,  content of films, holidays abroad celebrity tastes etc have helped increase the consumption of some of these products rather than multiculturalism? 

Btw I can remember avocados being marketed as avocado pears  in the 1970's.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 23, 2022)

Been reading since just before danny la rouge ’s excellent long post (which I’ll refer back to in a moment).

I’m not well read on this, as many of you obviously are, but I’ve increasingly thought that there’s a difference between class, which we define as categorical data, and financial privilege and/or security, which is surely continuous data. Not only that but financial privilege can be assessed across several different continuum scales, eg wages, owned assets, debt, parental finances etc. That’s why discussions of where the employee who earns 100k/employed homeowners/new professional roles that didn’t need degrees and now do etc. come up. Class and financial privilege intersect in some areas and not in others, thus it’s not always easy to assign class in a meaningful way to individuals or subgroups. There almost needs to be a duel way of judging cases in order for it to make sense.

Danny, the one thing I’d disagree with you on is that the race/cultural background/gender/sexuality/disability status etc. of people in charge doesn’t matter. Yes they’re just a part of a person’s experience, and class and/or financial privilege also create huge differences in experiences and the lens you develop for understanding the world. And yes, when people get into arguments about not being able to understand the other’s challenges it can be very counterproductive. But these facets of our identity are still important as there’s a whole wealth of data showing how in multiple domains, the needs of PoC and/or women have suffered because White men in charge have taken Whiteness and maleness to be norm, and haven’t noticed (or cared about) the issues that other groups face on a day to day basis.



Louis MacNeice said:


> And doctors in a hospital have a managerial role in relation to nurses.
> 
> Cheers  - Louis MacNeice



This is getting a bit off track here, but I’m not sure that’s always true. Directly anyway. Doctors in hospitals definitely have more power but they don’t actively manage nurses or other MDT professionals unless they’re the service lead. At least in community service MDTs (emergency medicine is no doubt different and fits more).


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Mushy peas is the traditional proley version.


Seem to remember the mushy peas/advocado issue as being a joke told by Militant in some by election.


----------



## Sue (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Seem to remember the mushy peas/advocado issue as being a joke told by Militant in some by election.


I heard the mushy peas/chippy/ guacamole joke about Mandelson (in Hartlepool I think?) but sure it's done the rounds a few times...


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

Sue said:


> I heard the mushy peas/chippy/ guacamole joke about Mandelson (in Hartlepool I think?) but sure it's done the rounds a few times...


I think you are right


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Seem to remember the mushy peas/advocado issue as being a joke told by Militant in some by election.



Mandelson wasn't it?

He'd feel right at home with the bourgeois taste in comestibles paraded by various posters on this thread...


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Danny, the one thing I’d disagree with you on is that the race/cultural background/gender/sexuality/disability status etc. of people in charge doesn’t matter. Yes they’re just a part of a person’s experience, and class and/or financial privilege also create huge differences in experiences and the lens you develop for understanding the world. And yes, when people get into arguments about not being able to understand the other’s challenges it can be very counterproductive. But these facets of our identity are still important as there’s a whole wealth of data showing how in multiple domains, the needs of PoC and/or women have suffered because White men in charge have taken Whiteness and maleness to be norm, and haven’t noticed (or cared about) the issues that other groups face on a day to day basis.


I don't want to speak for danny la rouge but I don't think think anyone is claiming race/gender/disability/etc do not matter. They absolutely do, and the effects of discrimination can be every bit as, or even more, important than class. 
Where class is different from race/gender/etc is that it provides that strategic point under capitalism that is a route to _dismantling_ capitalism. That is why class is not more important but _different_ to race/gender/etc. 

And of course there is the intersection of class and race, gender, sexuality. It is absolutely part of the class war to fight to abolish pay gaps, to recognise that gender is part of casualisation etc


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 23, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't want to speak for danny la rouge but I don't think think anyone is claiming race/gender/disability/etc do not matter. They absolutely do, and the effects of discrimination can be every bit as, or even more, important than class.
> Where class is different from race/gender/etc is that it provides that strategic point under capitalism that is a route to _dismantling_ capitalism. That is why class is not more important but _different_ to race/gender/etc.
> 
> And of course there is the intersection of class and race, gender, sexuality. It is absolutely part of the class war to fight to abolish pay gaps, to recognise that gender is part of casualisation etc


Yes I would absolutely agree 100% with all of that  It has to be about intersectionality.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Yup there's far more stuff available and consumed ( depending on price ) by all sorts of folks. My question wasn't about class and food styles though it was about the link between multi culturalism and the consumption of things like guacamole ie  could marketing ie promotion of 'super foods' ,  content of films, holidays abroad celebrity tastes etc have helped increase the consumption of some of these products rather than multiculturalism?


I don't suppose it's an either/or tbh, I'm sure it's all relevant. And I should really have used _growing cultural diversity_ (because I meant the broad social context behind increasingly available exotic foods) not _multiculturalism_ (as in more specifically a particular approach to cultural diversity).


----------



## Ming (Dec 23, 2022)

[62] said:


> This hummous thing is getting on my wick. My hospital porter dad made his own hummous not because he was desperate to join the chattering classes but because he was a Sephardi Jew from an Eastern Mediterranean background.
> 
> Please stick with sushi as the middle class cultural signifier from now on. Mick McGahey never ate sushi and neither will I.


It's not just about food.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't want to speak for danny la rouge but I don't think think anyone is claiming race/gender/disability/etc do not matter. They absolutely do, and the effects of discrimination can be every bit as, or even more, important than class.
> Where class is different from race/gender/etc is that it provides that strategic point under capitalism that is a route to _dismantling_ capitalism. That is why class is not more important but _different_ to race/gender/etc.
> 
> And of course there is the intersection of class and race, gender, sexuality. It is absolutely part of the class war to fight to abolish pay gaps, to recognise that gender is part of casualisation etc


Well put.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I know I'm late to reply to this, but it's occurred to me on waking up that I'm (for example) very well protected from various ups and downs - because while I don't own my home and probably never will, the house I live in is one I pay very low rent for (substantially below market) and my tenancy is assured, so unless I deal drugs or piss off the neighbourhood or burn the place down or whatever, I basically get to live here indefinitely. Minus is that it's not mine so it's not as asset, fine. But i can do what I want with it within reason, and there are a ton of repairs I'm not responsible for, and unless the HA sell it (which I admit could happen) I'm basically set for life. If anything I think I'm in as good a position in terms of the security of my home, as if I owned it myself. And maybe better, in terms of running costs. I have the right to buy it, but I don't want to because it'd cost me more if I did.
> 
> I'm just not sure (outside of the south east maybe) that home ownership is necessarily the class-defining grail you seem to be painting it as. Yes, it's nice to own your home but for a few thousand quid you can buy a perfectly livable van or caravan. I lived in a van for ages instead of renting, I don't think it changed my class except downward to 'itinerant' if that's a thing - but the fact is I did for a while own my own home, outright.
> 
> ...


The point about how social housing affects people's interests is an interesting one. One could split people into, for example, precariously employed and precariously houses, then precariously employed but securely housed, securely employed and precariously housed, and securely employed and securely housed, and talk about their different interests and the different behavioural tendencies. Who would you want most in a tenants union? Probably securely employed and precariously housed, because they are most likely to risk a fight with their landlord, knowing that they can find other housing again.

I've explained before on here at some length how people can and do extract a lot of cash from their houses over the years, though some people just didn't believe me. Apparently people on urban never remortgage or downsize because it all seems to be an unknown to them. I can assure you a lot of people do it and as a result there is billions in unearned income getting into the pockets of salaried workers. I would say it is one of the defining features of the economy over the last twenty years. Have a read of this if you don't believe me: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673030701731225 The graph on equity release over time is particularly interesting. It's a bit out of date but I think we can all guess the trends since.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> Thanks for outlining your theory a bit more. But I'm not contesting it for the moment I'm seeking an answer to LDC s question - what does this mean for your politics.
> I understand you identify homeowners as no longer working class, so are renters the key strategic block, how will they dismantle capitalism? Are you arguing for organising on a class (your definition of w/c) basis, or a cross-class basis? If homeowners are no longer part of labour you've significantly shrunk the size of labour, what do you think are the political implications for that? What does your theory mean for countries where renting is much more common? Is Germany less capitalist,  orcloser to a revolutionary situation than the UK?
> 
> Bollocks. Marx very clearly outlined why labour was the crucial point in capitalism - the focus on the working class is not a moral, it is because the working class occupy the pivotal strategic point. In the words of EMW "_The particular importance for Marxism of the working class in capitalist society is that this is the only class whose own class interests require, and whose own conditions make possible, the abolition of class itself._"
> ...


If I've argued that homeowners aren't working class it was only by accident. I'm more arguing for class segmentation according to material interests. As for what to call each class segment, I would go for pragmatic naming, or something that fitted a political narrative that people might be likely to buy.

You wrote in the same post that you don't see Marx as having come up with the objectively correct description of society, _and _that Marx outlined a theory of political change that you seem to see as beyond dispute. Perhaps you can reconcile those two claims for me. 

I think it's an indisputable fact that the working class (in Marx's defn) in the UK is avowedly reformist and shows no signs of being otherwise. 150 years of evidence is in and I'm going with that rather than with what Marx said. I actually think Marx would go with the evidence too. You can wait another 150 years for the prophecy of the working class becoming revolutionary to come true if you like. I'm a bit more impatient than that.


----------



## JimW (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> If I've argued that homeowners aren't working class it was only by accident. I'm more arguing for class segmentation according to material interests. As for what to call each class segment, I would go for pragmatic naming, or something that fitted a political narrative that people might be likely to buy.
> 
> You wrote in the same post that you don't see Marx as having come up with the objectively correct description of society, _and _that Marx outlined a theory of political change that you seem to see as beyond dispute. Perhaps you can reconcile those two claims for me.
> 
> I think it's an indisputable fact that the working class (in Marx's defn) in the UK is avowedly reformist and shows no signs of being otherwise. 150 years of evidence is in and I'm going with that rather than with what Marx said. I actually think Marx would go with the evidence too. You can wait another 150 years for the prophecy of the working class becoming revolutionary to come true if you like. I'm a bit more impatient than that.


Surely it's more that Marx is like Darwin and evolution, he did identify and describe something real but wasn't the last word himself. All the subsequent details still fit in the larger rubric though.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> One could split people into, for example,


Yeah sorry but this desire to split people into ever tinier groups is part of the problem IMO. It plays right into the hands of the ruling class, viz 'divide and rule' except while we're dividing ourselves so we each get to feel special in our own little lived experiences we're doing their job for them.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2022)

JimW said:


> Surely it's more that Marx is like Darwin and evolution, he did identify and describe something real but wasn't the last word himself. All the subsequent details still fit in the larger rubric though.


Do they? An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


----------



## A380 (Dec 23, 2022)

" We are many, they are few! but we like to split ourselves into smaller and smaller divisions allowing them to continue to rule."

I mean, the British Empire had a reputation, well deserved, for divide and rule. But the The British left puts that to shame.  It's why I'm a wanky reformist.


----------



## JimW (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Do they? An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


Well, yes. At base it's an observation of the particular social relations that arise under/go to make up capitalism. Just like evolutionary theory was an observation of something happening in the world. That stuff you don't rate was subsequently written by other people has no bearing.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah sorry but this desire to split people into ever tinier groups is part of the problem IMO. It plays right into the hands of the ruling class, viz 'divide and rule' except while we're dividing ourselves so we each get to feel special in our own little lived experiences we're doing their job for them.


You can identify differences in order to bridge them. You could even phrase it in Gramscian terms - knitting together social blocs. Saying that everyone has one set of interests because they need to do salaried work has not been working. Has it?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> You can identify differences in order to bridge them. You could even phrase it in Gramscian terms - knitting together social blocs. Saying that everyone has one set of interests because they need to do salaried work has not been working. Has it?


No it hasn't,  but not because it isn't true. It's been _made_ not to work by and for those whose interests are served by the breaking of w/c solidarity. That's not even up for debate is it?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> No it hasn't,  but not because it isn't true. It's been _made_ not to work by and for those whose interests are served by the breaking of w/c solidarity. That's not even up for debate is it?





Brainaddict said:


> An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Do they? An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


There are many on here that know far better than me, but isn't it a bit tilty at windmills to criticise 'Marxian writing' for not being Marxist?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> If I've argued that homeowners aren't working class it was only by accident. I'm more arguing for class segmentation according to material interests.


I’m arguing against class segmentation. The Common Sense of the established hegemony (to bring in Gramscian terminology) does that pretty effectively already.

I’m arguing for class solidarity and unity.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Do they? An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


I'm not sure what you think is silly? 

fwiw I don't think I'd characterise what I think is needed, as 'revolution'. It sounds wanky but I think evolution is a better word, but not edgy enough for mass appeal and sounds like hippy shit, oops.

Just need a way to express the idea of going forward to a place we've never been as a species / culture / society, rather than the idea of reversion to a prior state of which exactly none have been ideal.

Still "now it's just getting silly" caught my eye. What is?


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Tbf though the Waitrose shopper theory does stand up imo


What about people who go into Waitrose but only get stuff from the reduced section, is that petty-bourgeois?


oryx said:


> This. I would argue that the terms 'working class' and 'middle class' have become so debatable and so loaded with (usually) silly cultural signifiers as to be almost meaningless. I believe the term is problematic for some, but I prefer the 99% v the 1% / the many not the few.
> 
> Using this idea and in the current climate, a lecturer/junior doctor (traditionally seen as middle class occupations) has more in common with a postie or rail worker (traditionally seen as working class occupations). The common enemy is the very wealthy who seek to perpetuate the current system as it benefits them.


...And I'd add to that that a major part of the way that the "wealth rather than relationship to MoP" definition is used in practice is to lump supposedly well-paid rail workers in with supposedly well-paid lecturers and junior doctors as being outside the proper working class.


seventh bullet said:


> I currently pay a small mortgage on a small flat. I'm still going to be working until I drop. Due to family problems my savings are miniscule. I'm a retail worker with no tertiary education.  I like sushi.  Come the revolution do I get shot or re-educated? You need to re-read danny's post.


Yeah, was meaning to mention this - surely if you're looking at home ownership as a key factor then also want to distinguish between "homeowners" who still have mortgages and homeowners who've paid their mortgages off. Having a mortgage means that you have to pay money to someone else every month and if you can't make that payment you lose your home, so it sounds a bit like being a renter with extra steps to me.


Brainaddict said:


> You wrote in the same post that you don't see Marx as having come up with the objectively correct description of society, _and _that Marx outlined a theory of political change that you seem to see as beyond dispute. Perhaps you can reconcile those two claims for me.
> 
> I think it's an indisputable fact that the working class (in Marx's defn) in the UK is avowedly reformist and shows no signs of being otherwise. 150 years of evidence is in and I'm going with that rather than with what Marx said. I actually think Marx would go with the evidence too. You can wait another 150 years for the prophecy of the working class becoming revolutionary to come true if you like. I'm a bit more impatient than that.


I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that a) there is no guarantee that positive social change (or whatever term you want to use) _will_ come about according to the Marxist model, and b) Marxist/Marxian class analysis still points us to the _most likely_ route that could lead to positive change, and no one has yet posited a better one. If you reckon you have a better road to revolution, or to successful wanky reformism, I'd be interested to see it?


Brainaddict said:


> You can identify differences in order to bridge them. You could even phrase it in Gramscian terms - knitting together social blocs. Saying that everyone has one set of interests because they need to do salaried work has not been working. Has it?


Saying "everyone has one set of interests and that's it, that's all you need to know" would indeed be asinine, but if you don't think people ultimately have those shared interests, and that those interests are important, then I don't know how you hope to keep your social blocs knitted together?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Do they? An enormous amount of post-Marx Marxian writing is explaining why the working class haven't become revolutionary yet. That would have been fine for a few decades but now it's just getting silly.


There's a difference between those who see what Marx wrote as a bunch of predictions and those who see it as a way to understand how capitalism works and, importantly, our own class interests.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> What about people who go into Waitrose but only get stuff from the reduced section, is that petty-bourgeois?


Hands up; that was me...but then the fuckers closed our Waitrose in George Street...so now, I guess I'm back to plain old proletarian?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 23, 2022)

Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

A380 said:


> " We are many, they are few! but we like to split ourselves into smaller and smaller divisions allowing them to continue to rule."
> 
> I mean, the British Empire had a reputation, well deserved, for divide and rule. But the The British left puts that to shame.  It's why I'm a wanky reformist.



Really need to look at your PDP tbh you should be looking to develop into a muscular reformist over the next 12 months


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


Cafiero's Compendium of Capital (published by ACG) or the summary of Capital by Engels.


----------



## Athos (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


The David Harvey book and accompanying video lectures make it (relatively) easy to understand.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> What about people who go into Waitrose but only get stuff from the reduced section, is that petty-bourgeois?


Definitely need to revisit the petit bourgeois issue on here tbh. Marx was pretty hard on them, very few admit to being part of them  and the term is used often as a sneer but they are just a minor and often fluctuating class.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


Serge beat me to posting Cafiero, as he says, available as a book from the ACG or if you feel up to reading it online it's all here:


			Carlo Cafiero: Karl Marx's Capital
		

I think Perlman's Reproduction of Daily Life is an excellent readable guide to (what I understand to be) Marxist economics, but then I've never read Capital so I can't say what bits it's missing:





						The reproduction of daily life - Fredy Perlman
					

Fredy Perlman's excellent analysis of alienation and the way in which we as workers reproduce the capitalist economy in our everyday lives.




					libcom.org
				



Is Value, Price and Profit like Marx's own attempt to do a "readable Capital for beginners" thing?





						Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx 1865
					

Value, Price and Profit



					www.marxists.org


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


Yes. Marx himself believed that Value, Price and Profit contained all the relevant ideas and was suitable for a general audience.






						Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx 1865
					

Value, Price and Profit



					www.marxists.org
				




Despite your self-depreciation, you’re more than capable of tackling Capital, which does have far more detail, nuance and texture.  Although I won’t pretend it’s easy reading, certainly the first three chapters of vol 1.  But maybe start with the above.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 23, 2022)

Oh, and also to mention I've not had time to post in this until today but did copy Danny's giant post from pages back to share in a discussion elsewhere and everyone appreciated it, so cheers for that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 23, 2022)

Thanks for the replies. Appreciated.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Yup there's far more stuff available and consumed ( depending on price ) by all sorts of folks. My question wasn't about class and food styles though it was about the link between multi culturalism and the consumption of things like guacamole ie  could marketing ie promotion of 'super foods' ,  content of films, holidays abroad celebrity tastes etc have helped increase the consumption of some of these products rather than multiculturalism?
> 
> Btw I can remember avocados being marketed as avocado pears  in the 1970's.


dp


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Yup there's far more stuff available and consumed ( depending on price ) by all sorts of folks. My question wasn't about class and food styles though it was about the link between multi culturalism and the consumption of things like guacamole ie  could marketing ie promotion of 'super foods' ,  content of films, holidays abroad celebrity tastes etc have helped increase the consumption of some of these products rather than multiculturalism?
> 
> Btw I can remember avocados being marketed as avocado pears  in the 1970's.



Bit of both surely.  The British love affair with Indian/Italian/Chinese food was directly due to those communities opening restaurants often in working class areas and people trying it and liking it.  That was a big shift from the meat and two veg diet many people had been accumstomed to (and some people didn't like the change, my Mum was considered a bit modern and edgy in our family because she cooked spag bol and the odd chilli and one of my grand parents refused to eat it on the grounds it was foreign).  I think the things you mentioned played a role later on but the availability and popularity of different cuisines amongst the working class was initially due to multi-cultural communities and that still plays a big part.


----------



## chilango (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for the replies. Appreciated.


I didn't find Capital (or at least the bits I've read) particularly "academic". It's long, and the references/examples are old so require a bit more concentration, but Marx had a surprisingly (for me) readable tone and turn of phrase.

Personally, I've found Harry Cleaver 's books - _Reading Capital Politically_ and _33 Lessons on Capital_ - the best "companions". I suspect versions are online for free with the author"s blessing.

I also second hitmouse in recommending the Perlman pamphlet. It's lovely and short!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

chilango said:


> Personally, I've found Harry Cleaver 's books - _Reading Capital Politically_ and _33 Lessons on Capital_ - the best "companions". I suspect versions are online for free with the author"s blessing.


These are both excellent. I believe the former is online, although I’m not one for reading books on screen.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 23, 2022)

chilango said:


> I didn't find Capital (or at least the bits I've read) particularly "academic". It's long, and the references/examples are old so require a bit more concentration, but Marx had a surprisingly (for me) readable tone and turn of phrase.
> 
> Personally, I've found Harry Cleaver 's books - _Reading Capital Politically_ and _33 Lessons on Capital_ - the best "companions". I suspect versions are online for free with the author"s blessing.
> 
> I also second hitmouse in recommending the Perlman pamphlet. It's lovely and short!


Thanks, added those to the list. I have the ‘idea’ that it’s daunting because people say that it is. I don’t think it’ll harm to look through some of these as a primer, I do intend reading it though.


----------



## chilango (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks, added those to the list. I have the ‘idea’ that it’s daunting because people say that it is. I don’t think it’ll harm to look through some of these as a primer, I do intend reading it though.


It certainly daunting if you plan on starting at the beginning and reading to the end! Maybe that's the best way, but I dip in and out reading specific bits as interest takes me.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> medicine, being a doctor, has always been a profession, it's always had greater status than nursing


the social status of a job has nothing to do with a marxist class categories (i dont think?)


----------



## LDC (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.



FWIW I avoided it for years, but got a few friends together a bit ago and we committed to doing it. We started with 6 of us, one dropped out pretty early, but we stuck with it. We met fortnightly, in a pub sometimes and online sometimes. We started, as some suggest, with Chapter 26 (the history stuff) which is much easier (and interesting) to read and then once finished went back to Chapter 1. We got someone to present every bit, but the expectations were low and it was OK to do a few minutes, even sometimes being clear that it was all a bit confusing and this what was Wikipedia (or similar) said about it rather than the definitive savage analysis. We did it in small chunks and it took us 2 years pretty much exactly, only missing a few sessions and sometimes going over the same bit twice.

Alongside it I read _33 Lessons on Capital_ by Harry Cleaver and _Companion to Marx's Capital_ by David Harvey section by section as we did _Capital_, both of which were useful in different ways and much easier to read. There's also some really good videos on Youtube that cover some of the chapters (these guys I found very useful https://www.youtube.com/@ChapterbyChapter).

My takeaways from it (as an anarchist that spent years sneering at Marx and Marxists) is that, while not without flaws and bits that are incomplete, it's an incredibly useful and relevant analysis of capitalism that still holds the kernel of how capitalism operates today. I think most of the people critising it have not read it and have no idea of what it says tbh. I also think many of the fundamentals could be covered well in a shorter pamphlet (like the ones mentioned)... as he does like to repeat himself! Suprisingly it isn't academic at all imo, but some of it _is_ complicated and very detailed which can be a bit intimidating, but it's well worth sticking with, and I wish i'd read it a long time ago (although had read some other bits of his and other's opinions on it). It's also quite fun and interesting in parts, and you do get a nice feel of the tumult and insurrection of the time as well.

TLDR: Hard work in parts, but well worth it and sometimes suprisingly fun, but defo could be a pamphlet.

E2A: Oh beaten to it by a few above, should have read before posting!

E2A part 2: I think you'd like it Magnus McGinty for me some of the drive to read it came from a complete despair at the moralist direction parts of the anarchist scene/movement had taken, and their analysis of capitalism that seemed to be reduced to a criticism of consumerism, which led them into an individualist liberal dead end where their analysis and then political program seemed to be reduced to convincing people to make the correct choices about lifestyle issues, and the variety of strategies of the way to do that (petitions and demos on one end vs. arson and riot on the other) was the difference between them rather than having a better structural analysis and understanding of capital, what it is, and how it works.

Ooof, had 2 lagers after a long shift, might not be making complete sense....


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m adding my dubiety that nursing was a middle class job.  Are you thinking of the war effort?


no - i was going with barbara ehrenreich on this and her ananlysis of the changes in the professional middle classes, but yeah teachers, nurses, social workers < middle class - thats was a popular definition in the past. none of htose are managers. but maybe this is folk-class catagories rather than marx-class


Puddy_Tat said:


> there's a vested interest from the 1% in trying to persuade a swathe of people that they are 'middle class' and therefore have more in common with the 1% than they do with the 'working class' who they should fear and look down on.* although there's a few on the left who seem to help by telling most people that they aren't working class enough to join their gang...*


probably where this has come from in fact


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> no - i was going with barbara ehrenreich on this and her ananlysis of the changes in the professional middle classes, but yeah teachers, nurses, social workers < middle class - thats was a popular definition in the past. none of htose are managers. but maybe this is folk-class catagories rather than marx-class


She’s American. Not only is health provision different there, so is the term “middle class”, which tends to mean “not blue collar”.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> She’s American. Not only is health provision different there, so is the term “middle class”, which tends to mean “not blue collar”.


thats true, though shes also well versed in marxism, room for confusion for sure


----------



## chilango (Dec 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> no - i was going with barbara ehrenreich on this and her ananlysis of the changes in the professional middle classes, but yeah teachers, nurses, social workers < middle class - thats was a popular definition in the past. none of htose are managers. but maybe this is folk-class catagories rather than marx-class
> 
> probably where this has come from in fact


Some might argue that teachers, social workers, maybe even nurses, etc. are 'managers' in a social sense...


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

Next week Al Pacino when he led the Miners strike


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2022)

chilango said:


> Some might argue that teachers, social workers, maybe even nurses, etc. are 'managers' in a social sense...


Less Foucault  please


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m arguing against class segmentation. The Common Sense of the established hegemony (to bring in Gramscian terminology) does that pretty effectively already. *I’m arguing for class solidarity and unity.*


you need to argue with the 'rich' parts of the working and middle class, thats where the solidarity is really being lost (is basically my point overall)

handily for resolving the conversation on this thread, the stratifications within the working and middle class are slipping into history - the future of the uk seems to be an immiserationist one of reduced living standard for the considerable majority...Marx will be a lot more right again


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 23, 2022)

If we're talking about Ehrenreich, would she have been using the term PMC rather than middle class? Not that I can claim any great knowledge of what Ehrenreich thought about nurses.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> If we're talking about Ehrenreich, would she have been using the term PMC rather than middle class? Not that I can claim any great knowledge of what Ehrenreich thought about nurses.


yes - she talks about what were PMC jobs in the 70s and how significant chunks of those jobs are slipping into working class territory 50 years later.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 23, 2022)

Yeah, in that case I'd expect her to be using language in a fairly precise sense, unrelated to whatever muddles Americans in general have about the notion of a middle class. I'm still entirely unqualified to judge how her actual argument holds up though!


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, in that case I'd expect her to be using language in a fairly precise sense, unrelated to whatever muddles Americans in general have about the notion of a middle class. I'm still entirely unqualified to judge how her actual argument holds up though!


its a great read IMO


			https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/ehrenreich_death_of_a_yuppie_dream90.pdf
		


(Nursing a somewhat different job in the US with no NHS I guess)


----------



## A380 (Dec 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.


Start with your mum and dad talking you through it on long journeys and at meal times from the age of about eight.

I don't say this is necessarily a good thing BTW...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

A380 said:


> Start with your mum and dad talking you through it on long journeys and at meal times from the age of about eight.
> 
> I don't sya this is necessarily a good thing BTW...


Yes. To be fair both my maternal and paternal grandfathers were Tankies. So there’s that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> you need to argue with the 'rich' parts of the working and middle class, thats where the solidarity is really being lost (is basically my point overall)


I’d agree.  I think a lot of people have bought the story that they’re middle class.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> FWIW I avoided it for years, but got a few friends together a bit ago and we committed to doing it. We started with 5 of us, one dropped out pretty early, but we stuck with it. We met fortnightly, in a pub sometimes and online sometimes. We started, as some suggest, with Chapter 26 (the history stuff) which is much easier (and interesting) to read and then once finished went back to Chapter 1. We got someone to present every bit, but the expectations were low and it was OK to do a few minutes, even sometimes being clear that it was all a bit confusing and this what was Wikipedia (or similar) said about it rather than the definitive savage analysis. We did it in small chunks and it took us 2 years pretty much exactly.
> 
> Alongside it I read _33 Lessons on Capital_ by Harry Cleaver and _Companion to Marx's Capital_ by David Harvey section by section as we did _Capital_, both of which were useful in different ways and much easier to read. There's also some really good videos on Youtube that cover some of the chapters (these guys I found very useful https://www.youtube.com/@ChapterbyChapter).
> 
> ...


I’m libertarian by instinct and can’t see that changing but I’m so unread it’s embarrassing at this point. I find myself nodding in agreement with what others are saying but can’t really join the conversation as I don’t fully understand the concepts so I need to start remedying that.
I’m not really politically active nowadays beyond being a union rep, and more reading can’t harm that either. So I appreciate all the pointers.

I’m pretty well oiled also. Enjoy your Winterval.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 24, 2022)

Okay, briefly, I’ve said it before but it generally doesn’t go down well. I’ve had interludes into political groups and whether it’s because they are academics or whatever I feel a class difference between myself and those people. 
The fact they are talking about how alienated and oppressed they are freaked me out, because I grew up around people who definitely were those things and didn’t end up being post grads discussing it. 
I end up being called IDprole. But these differences are glaring.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> If I've argued that homeowners aren't working class it was only by accident. I'm more arguing for class segmentation according to material interests. As for what to call each class segment, I would go for pragmatic naming, or something that fitted a political narrative that people might be likely to buy.


You previously stated (my bold)


Brainaddict said:


> I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you.* I call that a change in class position.*


If you are not arguing that home ownership changes your class position, but just that it is a material interest that some members of the working class have (and some don't). Well no offence, but durrr.

The importance of home ownership may be questioned but I do not see anyone of this thread (or anyone except those with the most crude interpretation of Marx) arguing that there are not members of the working class who have materials interests that (they see as) align(ing) them more with capital. Quite the contrary

But ok homeowners are working class but a different segment of the w/c - what does that mean practically? I'm really not bothered about "naming", I'm talking about organising. The importance of a class theory based on the ownership of the MoP is as a political tool for changing the world. how does your class segmentation based on home ownership affect this?



Brainaddict said:


> You wrote in the same post that you don't see Marx as having come up with the objectively correct description of society, _and _that Marx outlined a theory of political change that you seem to see as beyond dispute. Perhaps you can reconcile those two claims for me.


What? I've said no such thing. Are you getting confused by my use of 'coherent'? I'm not using it as a synonym for correct (objectively or otherwise).

Marx's fundamental contention that class is the pivotal strategic point in capitalism because of the position it holds, and thus the w/c is the actor that can dismantle capitalism is coherent. One might not agree with it, but it is coherent.
I also think it is the political philosophy that best meets my aims  - hence why I try to organise my actions w.r.t. class struggle.

I've not seen any other 'anti-capitalist' politics that is coherent. Politics that makes ideals, views, race, gender, etc else the pivot point may have good points, organising around such basis may help obtain real benefits for workers. But I have not seen any politics that is able to coherently connect any alternative actor to class with the dismantling capitalism.
There may be an alternative, but I have not seen it so far. Basically what hitmouse and Serge Forward said.

None of the above means that I think Marx is objectively correct or beyond dispute. In fact I think I'd challenge the idea that a political philosophy can be 'objectively correct', and clearly there are disputes about Marx, Marxism, Marxian and class theory.



Brainaddict said:


> I think it's an indisputable fact that the working class (in Marx's defn) in the UK is avowedly reformist and shows no signs of being otherwise. 150 years of evidence is in and I'm going with that rather than with what Marx said. I actually think Marx would go with the evidence too. You can wait another 150 years for the prophecy of the working class becoming revolutionary to come true if you like. I'm a bit more impatient than that.


What has this got to do with the discussion?
The position Marx, myself, and other's give to class can be separated from any reformism vs revolutionary debate. The working class has a particular importance for socialists, it has to. But there is nothing incoherent in being a socialist, organising on a class basis, and pursuing a reformist strategy.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m libertarian by instinct and can’t see that changing but I’m so unread it’s embarrassing at this point. I find myself nodding in agreement with what others are saying but can’t really join the conversation as I don’t fully understand the concepts so I need to start remedying that.
> I’m not really politically active nowadays beyond being a union rep, and more reading can’t harm that either. So I appreciate all the pointers.
> 
> I’m pretty well oiled also. Enjoy your Winterval.


You are not alone


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I'm not sure what you think is silly?
> 
> fwiw I don't think I'd characterise what I think is needed, as 'revolution'. It sounds wanky but I think evolution is a better word, but not edgy enough for mass appeal and sounds like hippy shit, oops.
> 
> ...


150 years of reasons why the working class has not turned out to be a revolutionary class, while still explaining that of course the working class _is_ the revolutionary class.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> You previously stated (my bold)
> 
> If you are not arguing that home ownership changes your class position, but just that it is a material interest that some members of the working class have (and some don't). Well no offence, but durrr.
> 
> ...


This conversation feels difficult. I feel like I am trying to make arguments that your paradigm is wrong, and you present me with evidence that it is right _from within your paradigm_. It's difficult to progress the argument. 

Even the conversation about naming classes: you assumed that a class is either working class or not working class, while I was thinking of naming groups in society (based on material interests) using neither a category of 'working class' nor 'not working class'. This seems to go so strongly against your instincts (developed within your paradigm) that you thought I was saying something contradictory.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> There's a difference between those who see what Marx wrote as a bunch of predictions and those who see it as a way to understand how capitalism works and, importantly, our own class interests.


But the analysis leads to certain assumptions about the route to escaping capitalism. It assumes the labour movement is absolutely key, for example. From my observations I see the labour movement as in many ways a conservative force in British society, particularly on the question of institutions. Having the killer tactic of the strike (which is very alluring to people with radical leanings because it is clearly powerful) does not make people fight for radical change - they in fact strike for a comfortable life, without any intention of changing institutions in any meaningful way. So some people are aware that 'trade union consciousness' is not enough and think that radical agitation is needed to go beyond this. But what happens in practice? The radical agitator says 'ah but next time we'll get them to push for something more radical', but next time is the same, and so change is infinitely deferred.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> 150 years of reasons why the working class has not turned out to be a revolutionary class, while still explaining that of course the working class _is_ the revolutionary class.


So is it 150 years of navel gazing that you think is getting silly, or 150 years of making excuses for not kicking off a revolution, or is it just the notion of a _working class _in general that's getting silly?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> So is it 150 years of navel gazing that you think is getting silly, or 150 years of making excuses for not kicking off a revolution, or is it just the notion of a _working class _in general that's getting silly?


The second, shading into the third, because the conception of working class has certain inbuilt assumptions, based on certain beliefs about dynamics within capitalism.

Look, if all you want to say is that employees and employers have different interests when it comes to determining levels of wages, you don't need Marx for that, and even the idea of class conflict was brewing in English radical journals in the decades before Marx started writing. I'm not disputing that is one way to see the world and that it can be useful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> The second, shading into the third, because the conception of working class has certain inbuilt assumptions, based on certain beliefs about dynamics within capitalism.
> 
> Look, if all you want to say is that employees and employers have different interests when it comes to determining levels of wages, you don't need Marx for that, and even the idea of class conflict was brewing in English radical journals in the decades before Marx started writing. I'm not disputing that is one way to see the world and that it can be useful.


Marx can be attacked for a lot of things. But attacking him from a position of abject ignorance isn't a really good idea. For example you say you don't need marx to tell you the interests of bosses and workers are different. But marx does much more than that, he shows how they are different in eg capital. He describes alienation. He analyses capitalism in a way that is still relevant today. And the notion of class conflict is nothing new - when Adam delved and eve span, who was then the gentleman ring any bells? But marx said explicitly the history of all preexisting society is the history of class conflict.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Marx can be attacked for a lot of things. But attacking him from a position of abject ignorance isn't a really good idea. For example you say you don't need marx to tell you the interests of bosses and workers are different. But marx does much more than that, he shows how they are different in eg capital. He describes alienation. He analyses capitalism in a way that is still relevant today. And the notion of class conflict is nothing new - when Adam delved and eve span, who was then the gentleman ring any bells? But marx said explicitly the history of all preexisting society is the history of class conflict.


Those are some of the things I disagree with.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 24, 2022)

Regarding the working class as *the *revolutionary class my understanding is that as i said earlier in the thread, orthodox marxism posited an 'inevitable' collapse of capitalism, based on Marx's understanding of capitalist contradictions like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall etc - that capitalism will inevitably create the conditions for its own demise ...as the lot of the working class gets ever more desperate and so revolution 'inevitable'.

What would've been a surprise to Marx if he were alive today, and what scuppers the above is the resilience of capitalism + the degree of buying off the working class and integrating within capitalism - welfare state yes but also greatly increased stakeholding within capitalism - a massive change since the 1800s.

That doesn't mean the working class doesn't have a huge amount of latent power if realised - of course it does (though then again so does everyone of any class) - but it does require an update of classical industrial 19thC era marxism to include this stakeholding in the state/economy/system. Obviously those most oppressed are most keen to end their oppression


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

It can be difficult for people to get their heads around the concept of anonymous social forces that they are a part of while also relating to those beyond their particular experiences.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 24, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Obviously those most oppressed are most keen to end their oppression



are they?

there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Okay, briefly, I’ve said it before but it generally doesn’t go down well. I’ve had interludes into political groups and whether it’s because they are academics or whatever I feel a class difference between myself and those people.
> The fact they are talking about how alienated and oppressed they are freaked me out, because I grew up around people who definitely were those things and didn’t end up being post grads discussing it.
> I end up being called IDprole. But these differences are glaring.


 Be interested in hearing more about _what_ these glaring differences are, and _how/why_ they are a *class* difference.


----------



## cesare (Dec 24, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> are they?
> 
> there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...


"False consciousness' according to Marx.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> are they?
> 
> there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...



Yup. Growing up poor you understand the lower reaches of the working class aren't sainted. One thing that has got me anecdotally over the years about anti-union or more widely socialist ideas is that a person would rather see someone have it even shitter than themselves than see their own lot improve along with others. The working class is contested, not to be taken for granted,  poor or more oppresed or not.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This conversation feels difficult. I feel like I am trying to make arguments that your paradigm is wrong, and you present me with evidence that it is right _from within your paradigm_. It's difficult to progress the argument.
> 
> Even the conversation about naming classes: you assumed that a class is either working class or not working class, while I was thinking of naming groups in society (based on material interests) using neither a category of 'working class' nor 'not working class'. This seems to go so strongly against your instincts (developed within your paradigm) that you thought I was saying something contradictory.


OK, so to progress the argument: what do you see as being a better paradigm? I'm not asking you to publish a massive three-volume text that I'm not going to bother reading, just like, do you think there's a better route to escaping capitalism, and what does that look like in a broad sense? I also reckon that it might be worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, fwiw.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> Be interested in hearing more about _what_ these glaring differences are, and _how/why_ they are a *class* difference.



And also interested in the relations of power between varying strata and how they are reproduced.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> OK, so to progress the argument: what do you see as being a better paradigm? I'm not asking you to publish a massive three-volume text that I'm not going to bother reading, just like, do you think there's a better route to escaping capitalism, and what does that look like in a broad sense? I also reckon that it might be worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, fwiw.


I sort of have some half-answers to those questions but U75 isn't really the forum for them. But let me ask another question in return: if one paradigm clearly isn't working, and you don't have another paradigm available, is it better to continue working within the old paradigm, or to spend energy instead on trying to create new paradigms?

There have been a couple of other replies here along the lines of 'Well nothing else works'. But that's not really a good reply to the suggestion your current paradigm isn't working. There's an almost religious ring to it - well you can't come up with any other initiating force for the universe so I choose to continue believing in God. You can't come up with any other force that will overthrow capitalism so I choose to continue believing in the working class.


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

seventh bullet said:


> And also interested in the relations of power between varying strata and how they are reproduced.


Absolutely. And the different & conflicting forms of power within various strata, and how they are used (or not).


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

...and on the theme of power, for me at least the centrality of class - and specifically the working class - is about the _power_ to overthrow capitalism rather than the _motivation _to overthrow capitalism.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> But the analysis leads to certain assumptions about the route to escaping capitalism. It assumes the labour movement is absolutely key, for example. From my observations I see the labour movement as in many ways a conservative force in British society, particularly on the question of institutions. Having the killer tactic of the strike (which is very alluring to people with radical leanings because it is clearly powerful) does not make people fight for radical change - they in fact strike for a comfortable life, without any intention of changing institutions in any meaningful way. So some people are aware that 'trade union consciousness' is not enough and think that radical agitation is needed to go beyond this. But what happens in practice? The radical agitator says 'ah but next time we'll get them to push for something more radical', but next time is the same, and so change is infinitely deferred.



To me that seems like your framing the question as a moral or maybe a practical one, and talking about labour as conservative (or wanting a comfortable life, like that's so wrong?!) rather than thinking about its position and (potential) power within society. But to me that misses the point; it's a _strategic_ position that they have, the ability to stop capitalism and remake society along different lines, and that's due to their position in capitalism. On that level it's nothing to do with their current politics or outlook, conservative or worse, infact that is the whole political project isn't it, to get the class to understand their position, power and then the possibility of something better.

Yes, the strike is limited, and yes everything has failed so far, but that criticism could be leveled at all analysis and attempts at change couldn't it?


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I sort of have some half-answers to those questions but U75 isn't really the forum for them. But let me ask another question in return: if one paradigm clearly isn't working, and you don't have another paradigm available, is it better to continue working within the old paradigm, or to spend energy instead on trying to create new paradigms?



Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes). It's the _political project_ that uses that analysis that 'isn't working'. And why that is can be discussed at length, but you can bet a load of us have got some good reasons, and none of them are to do with the analysis we have.

I'd be interested to know (a) what you think is a better paradigm, but more importantly, (b) how that then leads you to a winning political program for 'working'. (Of course capital's got a pretty winning program right, should we use that?)


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> ...and on the theme of power, for me at least the centrality of class - and specifically the working class - is about the _power_ to overthrow capitalism rather than the _motivation _to overthrow capitalism.


In theory my siblings and I have the power to overthrow my Mum's power in the family. It's a meaningless theoretical power though, because none of us have the desire or intention to do it. Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations _theoretically _have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes). It's the _political project_ that uses that analysis that 'isn't working'. And why that is can be discussed at length, but you can bet a load of us have got some good reasons, and none of them are to do with the analysis we have.
> 
> I'd be interested to know (a) what you think is a better paradigm, but more importantly, (b) how that then leads you to a winning political program for 'working'. (Of course capital's got a pretty winning program right?)


Yup. There seems to be some idea that Class Analysis is some kind of magic incantation to bring about change. It isn’t. It’s an analysis.  I mean the SPGB are waiting for the Inevitable Rapture, but the rest of us think you have to organise.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes).


It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

Imo, David Graeber nailed it with this quote:



> "the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently."


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations _theoretically _have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.


This has actually happened though, right?

(or at least something pretty damned close)


----------



## ska invita (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> ...and on the theme of power, for me at least the centrality of class - and specifically the working class - is about the _power_ to overthrow capitalism rather than the _motivation _to overthrow capitalism.


...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)

motivation seems key to me


----------



## ska invita (Dec 24, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> are they?
> 
> there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...


well yeah there is that too! as a rule of thumb though those most oppressed are much more likely to want a solution to that oppression than continue the system that hurts them


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> Imo, David Graeber nailed it with this quote:


Very much and exactly.


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

ska invita said:


> ...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)
> 
> motivation seems key to me


How would this m/c (who do you mean by this?) use that social, cultural etc. power to overthrow capitalism?

For the w/c it's obviously the withdrawal of their labour power, without it capitalism stops. Dead.

Social and cultural capital also play a role in the reproduction of capitalism, for sure. But, I think we'd need to flesh out how this could be leveraged to halt these cycles of reproduction.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> How would this m/c (who do you mean by this?) use that social, cultural etc. power to overthrow capitalism?


no i mean could withdraw  their labour power + use other forms of power they have (social cultural personal wealth etc)


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

ska invita said:


> no i mean could withdraw  their labour power + use other forms of power they have (social cultural personal wealth etc)


Yeah, I'm interested in these "other forms of power". What they look like, how they work etc.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.


I don't think anyone is confusing a marxist analysis with capital-T Truth - it's just an analysis. I'm one of those people who thinks it's still relevant to my problems, and I think my problems (in terms of wealth and power at least) are not untypical in the UK in 2022.

You're saying it's not relevant to yours - so what would be more relevant? I'm trying to understand your approach a bit better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Those are some of the things I disagree with.


Yeh that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I sort of have some half-answers to those questions but U75 isn't really the forum for them. But let me ask another question in return: if one paradigm clearly isn't working, and you don't have another paradigm available, is it better to continue working within the old paradigm, or to spend energy instead on trying to create new paradigms?
> 
> There have been a couple of other replies here along the lines of 'Well nothing else works'. But that's not really a good reply to the suggestion your current paradigm isn't working. There's an almost religious ring to it - well you can't come up with any other initiating force for the universe so I choose to continue believing in God. You can't come up with any other force that will overthrow capitalism so I choose to continue believing in the working class.


I mean, the whole question of whether someone needs to propose something better in order to criticise an existing thing is one I, like everyone else, go back and forth on, and will surely continue to do so. But in terms of this particular discussion I think it would be helpful if you could share your working-out with the class (pun not consciously intended) here, if we're all creationists or whatever I'd like to hear what the arguments for evolution are.


Brainaddict said:


> In theory my siblings and I have the power to overthrow my Mum's power in the family. It's a meaningless theoretical power though, because none of us have the desire or intention to do it. Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations _theoretically _have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.


Is it meaningless to say that, for instance, security staff at Fawley Oil Refinery are powerful? Or dockers at the port of Felixstowe?


ska invita said:


> ...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)
> 
> motivation seems key to me


Well, we'd need to come up with a working definition of the middle class first, last time I checked we'd got as far as "sometimes nurses, but not all the time".


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.


Could make a decent refrain for a Julie Andrews song, though.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Marx can be attacked for a lot of things. But attacking him from a position of abject ignorance isn't a really good idea. For example you say you don't need marx to tell you the interests of bosses and workers are different. But marx does much more than that, he shows how they are different in eg capital. He describes alienation. He analyses capitalism in a way that is still relevant today. And the notion of class conflict is nothing new - when Adam delved and eve span, who was then the gentleman ring any bells? But marx said explicitly the history of all preexisting society is the history of class conflict.



I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you 

People, just, do, not, get, it.

And have little interest in political and economic theory wrapped up in the esoteric argot of academia 

Unless you are talking to another person with a similar level of knowledge and understanding you are banging your head against a brick wall

British ignorance and lack of interest in the intricacies of these subjects is baked in, systematic stuff 

I say this as someone who distributed 100 plus copies of the ragged trousered philanthropists text and comic editions around my home town in a desperate attempt to “do something” to generate some interest/understanding/engagement


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 24, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, the whole question of whether someone needs to propose something better in order to criticise an existing thing is one I, like everyone else, go back and forth on, and will surely continue to do so. But in terms of this particular discussion I think it would be helpful if you could share your working-out with the class (pun not consciously intended) here, if we're all creationists or whatever I'd like to hear what the arguments for evolution are.
> 
> Is it meaningless to say that, for instance, security staff at Fawley Oil Refinery are powerful? Or dockers at the port of Felixstowe?
> 
> Well, we'd need to come up with a working definition of the middle class first, last time I checked we'd got as far as "sometimes nurses, but not all the time".





danny la rouge said:


> Here:
> Post in thread 'Are these people middle class?'
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-these-people-middle-class.346881/post-14676967


My concern with a middle class-led vanguard is, well, the Labour Party is an example. Reformism. Liberalism. Change-without-change.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 24, 2022)

Also, not to fall back into quoting The Holy Texts or whatever, but I always think that it's useful to refer back to what Martin Glaberman said about some of this stuff:





						Martin Glaberman: Workers' Reality (1997)
					

Martin Glaberman: A Different Sort of Democracy (1997)



					www.marxists.org
				




_And the one thing that I think is an absolute given: workers will resist, because work sucks. Until someone can tell me that work has become real nice under capitalism, whether in the United States or anywhere else, I say that is the fundamental basis of our theory and our practice. Work sucks. And sooner or later workers are going to resist it in whatever way they can...

In other words, what Marx said was: We’re not talking about going door-to-door and making workers into ideal socialists. You’ve got to take workers as they are, with all their contradictions, with all their nonsense. But the fact that society forces them to struggle begins to transform the working class. If white workers realize they can’t organize steel unless they organize black workers, that doesn’t mean they’re not racist. It means that they have to deal with their own reality, and that transforms them. Who were the workers who made the Russian Revolution? Sexists, nationalists, half of them illiterate. Who were the workers in Polish Solidarity? Anti-Semitic, whatever. That kind of struggle begins to transform people._

(And, as above, I still think it's worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, that's another thing Glaberman was good on.)


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

bellaozzydog said:


> I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you
> 
> People, just, do, not, get, it.
> 
> ...



That seems to be a you problem. Approaches are important. People do get it, in their day to day lives. Starting where people are at rather than where you want them to be doesn't necessarily mean 'dumbing down,' or whatever horrible and condescending term one wishes to use.  There is also unpicking to do with regard to assumptions about people's capabilities vis-a-vis status, work and education level etc to understand what you've got to say (social and cultural capital, and with it the power in who gets to decide what is important, and that shouldn't be ignored).


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> You're saying it's not relevant to yours - so what would be more relevant? I'm trying to understand your approach a bit better.


There are lots of different approaches one might try. One might be to start with people's _experience _of capitalism/society. They don't experience exploitation in the sense Marx used that word. They don't experience commodity fetishism, they experience being able to buy what they want in 24hrs from Amazon, money allowing. In the UK what they experience is often a good standard of living. When they don't, they are often offered ways in which that standard of living can improve (some people feel hopeless, and that too is an experience worth paying attention to). Another thing they experience is hierarchy at work, with positive and negative effects of it. They experience some boredom at work perhaps, but tell themselves that someone has to do the boring jobs. They experience their rulers going to war when they don't want that. They experience finding some hierarchies difficult but being able to sometimes move to another hierarchical situation that doesn't bother them so much.

You can go on and on. But it enables you to ask the question, how could people be convinced they will have a better _experience _of life through another political/economic system? How would one design the system, and what would transitional states towards it look like? Who is structurally opposed to such a transition and who can be convinced? Then you might ask where people's power lies to make such a transition towards better life experience. Strikes could certainly be part of the picture, and other methods too.

I can see some people thinking 'but this has all been worked out already', and I think that's part of the problem. It really hasn't been. Partly because so many people start with an abstract structural analysis of society, rather than with where people are at. That doesn't mean we ignore structures, but we can get at them other ways, like really drilling down into the causes of people's experiences. If you're convinced that would just end up back at Marxian structural analysis then that tells me you're still religiously holding to the truth of that analysis.

Anyway, that's just one possible pathway of investigation. Another might be to ask people whether they _want _to co-own the means of production (I can tell you the answer is largely no) and then drill down into why etc. It starts from a traditional socialist idea but provides a possible route towards something different.
Etc etc


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

bellaozzydog said:


> I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you
> 
> People, just, do, not, get, it.
> 
> ...



That's just not my experience at all. People are hugely interested in why the world is as it is and how it might be better. My experience is it's the next bit, the 'how to make it better' which is the area people have little to no faith in - unsurprisingly.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> There are lots of different approaches one might try. One might be to start with people's _experience _of capitalism/society. They don't experience exploitation in the sense Marx used that word. They don't experience commodity fetishism, they experience being able to buy what they want in 24hrs from Amazon, money allowing. In the UK what they experience is often a good standard of living. When they don't, they are often offered ways in which that standard of living can improve (some people feel hopeless, and that too is an experience worth paying attention to). Another thing they experience is hierarchy at work, with positive and negative effects of it. They experience some boredom at work perhaps, but tell themselves that someone has to do the boring jobs. They experience their rulers going to war when they don't want that. They experience finding some hierarchies difficult but being able to sometimes move to another hierarchical situation that doesn't bother them so much.
> 
> You can go on and on. But it enables you to ask the question, how could people be convinced they will have a better _experience _of life through another political/economic system? How would one design the system, and what would transitional states towards it look like? Who is structurally opposed to such a transition and who can be convinced? Then you might ask where people's power lies to make such a transition towards better life experience. Strikes could certainly be part of the picture, and other methods too.
> 
> ...



OK so people's individual experiences and desires takes the place of broad structural analysis? How is it an improvement?

Thing is, your experiences and feelings matter to you, but not to me. Mine matter to me, but not to you. How do we enter a state of solidarity when everything depends on each individual's emotions and whims? How can we be sure of standing behind each other if we think our problems are fundamentally different? Why should we even bother? If we put each person's lived experience before a structural analysis that has relevance to many people, whose takes precedent - and how can we apply it more broadly?

This is why I Marx, the analysis in Capital fits not only my circumstances but millions, even billions of ours. This to me is how we achieve solidarity, by seeking and recognising problems we have in common and standing together. As soon as we start to say _stay in your lane_, and _you do you_, where is the solidarity to be found? It's just fighting over crumbs at that point IMO

Please explain why I'm wrong, because I feel I'm missing some of the working here.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> OK so people's individual experiences and desires takes the place of broad structural analysis? How is it an improvement?
> 
> Thing is, your experiences and feelings matter to you, but not to me. Mine matter to me, but not to you. How do we enter a state of solidarity when everything depends on each individual's emotions and whims? How can we be sure of standing behind each other if we think our problems are fundamentally different? Why should we even bother? If we put each person's lived experience before a structural analysis that has relevance to many people, whose takes precedent - and how can we apply it more broadly?
> 
> ...


"My structural analysis works whatever people _feel_, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."

"I don't _feel _it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."

"Yes but it's still right."

"Bully for you Einstein." 

<capitalism continues to persist for another 150 years or till the planet gives up>

Okay, that's it, I think the debate is worn out.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 24, 2022)

seventh bullet said:


> That seems to be a you problem. Approaches are important. People do get it, in their day to day lives. Starting where people are at rather than where you want them to be doesn't necessarily mean 'dumbing down,' or whatever horrible and condescending term one wishes to use.  There is also unpicking to do with regard to assumptions about people's capabilities vis-a-vis status, work and education level etc to understand what you've got to say (social and cultural capital, and with it the power in who gets to decide what is important, and that shouldn't be ignored).



See,  half of what you just said is just word soup to me

Sounds impressive, obviously has some meaning and still comes across as condescending


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> But the analysis leads to certain assumptions about the route to escaping capitalism. It assumes the labour movement is absolutely key, for example. From my observations I see the labour movement as in many ways a conservative force in British society, particularly on the question of institutions. Having the killer tactic of the strike (which is very alluring to people with radical leanings because it is clearly powerful) does not make people fight for radical change - they in fact strike for a comfortable life, without any intention of changing institutions in any meaningful way. So some people are aware that 'trade union consciousness' is not enough and think that radical agitation is needed to go beyond this. But what happens in practice? The radical agitator says 'ah but next time we'll get them to push for something more radical', but next time is the same, and so change is infinitely deferred.


To  some, it might lead to that sort of thinking. To others, not.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> "My structural analysis works whatever people _feel_, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."
> 
> "I don't _feel _it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."
> 
> ...


Well no, the debate as you term it isnt worn out, you're just being sarcastic. Maybe sarcasm isn't helping? I'm not getting the point.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> 150 years of reasons why the working class has not turned out to be a revolutionary class, while still explaining that of course the working class _is_ the revolutionary class.


The working class may not be revolutionary but it is the only class capable of bringing about a revolution. When or if this ever happens is another question. The point is, nothing else can end capitalism (unless you want to include another variant of capitalism). It's fine to be critical of the working class and what currently stands for a labour movement, but it's not what it is but what it must become. Anything else is tinkering - which has its benefits but doesn't end the system based on exploitation.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> "My structural analysis works whatever people _feel_, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."
> 
> "I don't _feel _it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."
> 
> ...



Well if you have conversations like that then yeah, people will roll their eyes and be bored shitless. And for sure some boring politicos do. But if you can't have an interesting, engaging and worthwhile exchange with someone on this kind of topic then the issue is what you're saying and how, not the actual topic itself.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.



But you said it's one we jettison as it's 'not working'. But if that was the grounds then we'd be dumping pretty much every analysis apart from the dominant ones now surely?

FWIW I think this is an important discussion as on some level it gets to the heart of the world as it is now, and the desire for changing it.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

bellaozzydog said:


> See,  half of what you just said is just word soup to me
> 
> Sounds impressive, obviously has some meaning and still comes across as condescending



I'm one of those dumb proles who 'doesn't get it.'  You're being defensive to someone who left secondary education without any decent qualifications, but if you didn't get the response you wished for by throwing books at people (not literally) in an effort to learn those ignoranamuses then I suggest that you need to reflect on where you could have gone wrong.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> "My structural analysis works whatever people _feel_, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."
> 
> "I don't _feel _it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."
> 
> ...


The first speaker here is offering solidarity, the second is rejecting it. Which is fine, nobody has to accept solidarity from someone else. But what do you propose instead of solidarity?

At the moment you're shitting over Capital's analysis but offering nothing in its place, so what are the _desired results?_ Maybe if we start there and work backwards it might teach us something.


----------



## Supine (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> That's just not my experience at all. People are hugely interested in why the world is as it is and how it might be better. My experience is it's the next bit, the 'how to make it better' which is the area people have little to no faith in - unsurprisingly.



That’s the real problem isn’t it. If people who are strongly anti capital can’t come up with an alternative that is explainable and workable people don’t have anything to really engage with. And capital rolls on, doing what capital does.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 24, 2022)

seventh bullet said:


> I'm one of those dumb proles who 'doesn't get it.'  You're being defensive to someone who left secondary education without any decent qualifications, but if you didn't get the response you wished for by throwing books at people (not literally) in an effort to learn those ignoranamuses then I suggest that you need to reflect on where you could have gone wrong.



I will reflect deeply. Thanks for the steer


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 24, 2022)

I need to be the out of touch type for you. Working class people just don't develop radical politics independently of people like yourself, do they?


----------



## A380 (Dec 24, 2022)

See, this is why I’m a wanky reformist. Societies  change from one economic system to another through revolution when technological change means that the means of production under the old system is not as sustainable as the means of production under the new.

It’s why ( just to pick European examples) the slave based society of the western Roman Empire couldn’t industrialise but instead was surplanted by feudalism. Why late feudal society had to progress towards early capitalism. And why we will need to pivot to socialism before advanced communism. To do otherwise would be as impossible as the peasants revolt ushering in a socialist state…

But bosses never give anything away so we have to organise and make lives better arround the world now.

Who knows when the next great transformation will come, we might be in the start of it now or it might be 100 years away ( although we could be fucked as I don’t believe  Marx predicted we would be pushing up against the capacity of Earth’s environment so quickly). And as with other change, leaders probably won’t be self selecting from any ‘vanguard’ of revolutionaries. They are more likely to be unpleasant pragmatic people.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Supine said:


> That’s the real problem isn’t it. If people who are strongly anti capital can’t come up with an alternative that is explainable and workable people don’t have anything to really engage with. And capital rolls on, doing what capital does.



Well, we can can explain some alternatives I think, but capital is so dominant and so pervasive it's hard for people to see the possibility of these happening. I also think laying out alternatives isn't the right direction tbh, we can have general ideas and thoughts about what we _don't _want, but the ultraleft position of struggle and getting rid of the domination of capital / state throwing up new ways of doing things is one I have time for. I still find all this easy to discuss and convey to people tbh, and I'm no great speaker or theoretician, most of it is just standard human chatting about how the world is shit and making it better isn't it?

Anyway, I might give up on all this and become a prepper tbh, more likely to be useful given the way the world is going...


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 24, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, the whole question of whether someone needs to propose something better in order to criticise an existing thing is one I, like everyone else, go back and forth on, and will surely continue to do so. But in terms of this particular discussion I think it would be helpful if you could share your working-out with the class (pun not consciously intended) here, if we're all creationists or whatever I'd like to hear what the arguments for evolution are.
> 
> Is it meaningless to say that, for instance, security staff at Fawley Oil Refinery are powerful? Or dockers at the port of Felixstowe?
> 
> Well, we'd need to come up with a working definition of the middle class first, last time I checked we'd got as far as "sometimes nurses, but not all the time".


American nurses.


----------



## Edie (Dec 24, 2022)

Appreciate the discussion has moved into Marxian analysis, but to add my thoughts on the OP question…

I think the vast majority of people come from a bit of a hodge podge of class backgrounds in their family, and people move between classes within their families and sometimes within their lifetimes. A person who starts off in a working class family might get a higher education and a professional job. Or maybe their Mums side is working class and Dads family middle middle. Or maybe they had a private or even public education but end up doing a working class job like nursing.

Depending on what social situation they’re in they might identify differently. It’s rarely straightforward.

My lads for instance. Me and their Dad work in professional jobs, but only the last ten years, and the second half of their childhood we’ve been financially secure. But their extended family on both sides is pretty firmly working class. They’ve been to inner city northern state schools in deprived area. The eldests mates are working class and all now work apprenticeships at 19. The youngests group is more mixed- gf working class, some mates with Dads who run catering or plumbing businesses that earn more than I ever will. They both have Leeds accents.

Youngest went to a security agency course in the South. There, for the first time in his life, he met private schooled kids and some boarding school kids. He came back and said “I thought I was posh before then”.

He comes from a working class extended family, a middle class immediate family, and will potentially earn more than any of us. But you’d forgive him if in that a room of strangers he _felt_ a difference.

Life’s complicated.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 24, 2022)

Edie said:


> Appreciate the discussion has moved into Marxian analysis, but to add my thoughts on the OP question…
> 
> I think the vast majority of people come from a bit of a hodge podge of class backgrounds in their family, and people move between classes within their families and sometimes within their lifetimes. A person who starts off in a working class family might get a higher education and a professional job. Or maybe their Mums side is working class and Dads family middle middle. Or maybe they had a private or even public education but end up doing a working class job like nursing.
> 
> ...


Life can be complicated, but your relation to capital is fairly straightforward.


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

The vast majority of people - almost by definition - come from working class backgrounds and stay working class.

The main thing that changes is whatever the definition _du jour_ is of middleclassbutnotreally, and how, where and when that is weaponised to divide this vast majority.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 24, 2022)

A380 said:


> See, this is why I’m a wanky reformist. Societies  change from one economic system to another through revolution when technological change means that the means of production under the old system is not as sustainable as the means of production under the new.
> 
> It’s why ( just to pick European examples) the slave based society of the western Roman Empire couldn’t industrialise but instead was surplanted by feudalism. Why late feudal society had to progress towards early capitalism. And why we will need to pivot to socialism before advanced communism. To do otherwise would be as impossible as the peasants revolt ushering in a socialist state…
> 
> ...





A380 said:


> See, this is why I’m a wanky reformist. Societies  change from one economic system to another through revolution when technological change means that the means of production under the old system is not as sustainable as the means of production under the new.
> 
> It’s why ( just to pick European examples) the slave based society of the western Roman Empire couldn’t industrialise but instead was surplanted by feudalism. Why late feudal society had to progress towards early capitalism. And why we will need to pivot to socialism before advanced communism. To do otherwise would be as impossible as the peasants revolt ushering in a socialist state…
> 
> ...


None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> At the moment you're shitting over Capital's analysis but offering nothing in its place, so what are the _desired results?_ Maybe if we start there and work backwards it might teach us something.


I gave you a couple of versions of: let's talk to people and find out what we want together. But you wanted your structural analysis to trump that. I don't blame you particularly, I think it's a widespread phenomenon on the left. There's some value in structural analysis but it's a hand that is so massively overplayed on the left that you won't find me talking about it much.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I gave you a couple of versions of: let's talk to people and find out what we want together. But you wanted your structural analysis to trump that.


No, I didn't. What I wanted was to understand what you would replace it with. I'm not sure there is anything tbh, because you keep coming back to feels and for me that's too arbitrary to be of any real use. So how? How can we use our feelings and desires to do more than act like crabs in a bucket?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I gave you a couple of versions of: let's talk to people and find out what we want together. But you wanted your structural analysis to trump that. I don't blame you particularly, I think it's a widespread phenomenon on the left. There's some value in structural analysis but it's a hand that is so massively overplayed on the left that you won't find me talking about it much.


So let's try your way of discussing stuff without any theory or analysis, sounds like a recipe for success, surprised no one's come up with that before


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> Well, we can can explain some alternatives I think, but capital is so dominant and so pervasive it's hard for people to see the possibility of these happening. I also think laying out alternatives isn't the right direction tbh, we can have general ideas and thoughts about what we _don't _want, but the ultraleft position of struggle and getting rid of the domination of capital / state throwing up new ways of doing things is one I have time for.


We already know we disagree with each other but I think this is the opposite of what would be most productive: offering clear radical reforms with easily understandable reasons. Many people have an appetite for radical reforms, they have none at all for 'This is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction without know what's there'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> We already know we disagree with each other but I think this is the opposite of what would be most productive: offering clear radical reforms with easily understandable reasons. Many people have an appetite for radical reforms, they have none at all for 'This is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction without know what's there'.


Yeh this is the post where you show you're bereft of a clew about revolution


----------



## A380 (Dec 24, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.





Pickman's model said:


> So let's try your way of discussing stuff without any theory or analysis, sounds like a recipe for success, surprised no one's come up with that before



‘Everyone should play nicely with each other and share; then the world woukd be a Better Place”.

See it’s easy. Plus you fly a helicopter by wiggling the stick and lever and pushing the pedals to make it go where you want…HTH


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This conversation feels difficult. I feel like I am trying to make arguments that your paradigm is wrong, and you present me with evidence that it is right _from within your paradigm_. It's difficult to progress the argument.
> 
> Even the conversation about naming classes: you assumed that a class is either working class or not working class, while I was thinking of naming groups in society (based on material interests) using neither a category of 'working class' nor 'not working class'. This seems to go so strongly against your instincts (developed within your paradigm) that you thought I was saying something contradictory.


Hang on you *did *post a contradiction. you stated that owning a house changed someone's class position. 
Maybe you did not mean that, fine. But it is what you wrote. If you are now arguing something different then outline it, what is your model of 'class segmentation'? 

And more importantly what does that mean for your politics? Are you rejecting class struggle? Are your politics aimed at dismantling capitalism? If so how is that process to be brought about? If not how is any different from the usual progressive liberalism?


----------



## Edie (Dec 24, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Life can be complicated, but your relation to capital is fairly straightforward.


No idea what mine or anyone I knows ‘relation to capital’ is but good luck with that


----------



## brogdale (Dec 24, 2022)

Edie said:


> No idea what mine or anyone I knows ‘relation to capital’ is but good luck with that


Maybe I'm wrong, but sounds a bit as though you don't want to know?


----------



## Edie (Dec 24, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but sounds a bit as though you don't want to know?


Why would I care? It has no practical bearing on my life.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 24, 2022)

It has a very practical bearing on all our lives.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Edie said:


> Why would I care? It has no practical bearing on my life.



It shapes every aspect of your life! It's like saying the same about patriarchy - to give an example of something I think you might see more clearly.

TBH that's one of the things about it, it's so embedded in everything people can't even see it sometimes, it's become just the way things are.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> We already know we disagree with each other but I think this is the opposite of what would be most productive: offering clear radical reforms with easily understandable reasons. Many people have an appetite for radical reforms, they have none at all for 'This is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction without know what's there'.



History shows the second part of your writing there is incorrect though.


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

I think we do people down with the anticipation that people can't or won't deal with ideas like "relation to capital" or whatever. Recent years have shown us that plenty of people have displayed an appetite to deploy rapidly learnt perspectives on stuff like European constitutional and trade laws, epedimiology, climate science and God knows how many other "difficult" or "academic" fields. We might be able to question the accuracy or depth of this new-found expertise, but the idea that people can't or won't engage with complex stuff has surely been shown to false?


----------



## chilango (Dec 24, 2022)

LDC said:


> It shapes every aspect of your life! It's like saying the same about patriarchy - to give an example of something I think you might see more clearly.
> 
> TBH that's one of the things about it, it's so embedded in everything people can't evne see it sometimes, it's become just the way things are.


That's ideology innit? Makes stuff seem "as if natural".


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> That's ideology innit? Makes stuff seem "as if natural".


----------



## ska invita (Dec 24, 2022)

chilango said:


> Recent years have shown us that plenty of people have displayed an appetite to deploy rapidly learnt perspectives on stuff like European constitutional and trade laws


Capitalexit? We need a referendum!

Another thing to contend with is a lot of poeple think we need bosses, are glad its not them, dont want to get involved at any higher level of such things and are basically happy _someone else _is 'owning the means of production'. 

 Then again I think something that has remained as common sense to this day in the UK is that national infrastructure should be kept out of private hands. That logic is powerful and why its resisted so hard by the Right.


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2022)

Edie said:


> No idea what mine or anyone I knows ‘relation to capital’ is but good luck with that


At the risk of over-simplifying: do you need to sell your labour power to survive (at less than its worth - the difference being profit that goes to capitalists)?  Or do you own sufficient capital to survive without working (which effectively means exploiting the labour of others i.e. trousering that unearned profit).



Edie said:


> Why would I care? It has no practical bearing on my life.



I'd say the difference between having to work and not is pretty significant!


----------



## Humberto (Dec 24, 2022)

As things stand currently in this country, it has become a kind of asset-stripping mentality among the ruling-class, so extreme is the merciless prerogative of the rich to deepen inequality by greedily grabbing anything they can. They only want more and their politics is that this is a virtue and a good thing to try and obtain.

To oppose this is deemed 'left-wing' (and it is), so in opposition to this they steal, abuse and ruin anything if it is profitable for them. And if many people suffer/die due to their actions they tell themselves they owe us nothing, and rather that we owe them (arse-backwards, you see?), and that this is an unfair circumstance on them. Moves towards equality and justice are to them self-evidently backwards. And if they don't pay their taxes - "so what?", they say.

And more and more, with this embedded privilege they can buy whatever they want and seek to destroy anything that stands in the way of that. Thus they can buy and create consent and undermine opposition: in the media, Westminster and in reinforcing their oppressive systems of coercion.

So, unless this is recognised and opposed upon principles of justice and in the material interests of the majority, we are losing out constantly against a deliberate effort to take the gains that were bequeathed to us by past struggles. Struggles and gains which stemmed from conscious solidarity backed by class-based analysis for the advancement of working-class interests.


----------



## Edie (Dec 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> At the risk of over-simplifying: do you need to sell your labour power to survive (at less than its worth - the difference being profit that goes to capitalists)?  Or do you own sufficient capital to survive without working (which effectively means exploiting the labour of others i.e. trousering that unearned profit).
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the difference between having to work and not is pretty significant!


Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by level.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 24, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.


Probably a conversation for another time, but the conversation about what makes one a wanky reformist vs a proper well hard sorted revolutionary is worth having imo. I think there is still potentially an actual difference in approaches, how we do or don't put our energy into certain institutions, but worth trying to define what that actually means in practice.


Brainaddict said:


> We already know we disagree with each other but I think this is the opposite of what would be most productive: offering clear radical reforms with easily understandable reasons. Many people have an appetite for radical reforms, they have none at all for 'This is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction without know what's there'.


See, this is where I think we really actually disagree, much more than anything you've said previously. I'm only interested in clear radical reforms if anyone can offer me a path to actually get them, and I've yet to see a convincing explanation of that. Whereas, August 2011 in the UK, summer 2020 in the US... they seem much more like "this is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction" than "clear radical reforms".


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by level.


Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.

The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%.  Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power. 

But it needn't be that way.  The 99% hold the power to change it, if everyone understood that and was united.

A big part of what this thread's been about is getting the 99% to recognise that common interest. And how the 1% has prevented that by further dividing the 99%, including by obfuscating the true nature of class.  By concentrating on relatively superficial cultural differences rather than that that fundamental material similarity - the need to sell labour power to survive.

Meet Christmas, by the way.


----------



## Ming (Dec 25, 2022)

The thing I desperately want to throw into this mix is the psychological element. 

What makes a Tory? Why are they so venal and so self interested? Uninterested in other peoples well being.

It’s empathy. Or what we define by that word in our language.

Which can be a problem if there is reduced communication between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the amygdala. 

I pretty convinced we don’t have any free will. We‘re just an electrochemical system experiencing itself subjectively. 

On that basis Tories have a mental health condition. A pathological one.

They have less or no empathy.


----------



## A380 (Dec 25, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.


It's my actions that make we a wanky reformist, not what I say...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 25, 2022)

Athos said:


> Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.
> 
> The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%.  Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.  

My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo.  They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work?


No everyone doesn't have to work and yes I have met people who don't. 

One example was somebody who inherited many millions of pounds in the late 1990s, bought and converted an industrial property near St Paul's and later sent their children to public school. 

Another was a titled person staying at their French holiday home, turning out some pretty good townscapes of the local town and castle. 

They maybe few and far between but that is sort of the point. 

Something they did share with me was their absolute reliance on the goods and services produced by the work (paid and unpaid) of a vast number of other people. Something which separated us was their lack of any material interest in changing the economic status quo.

Cheers  - Louis MacNeice 

p.s. It's a combination of the habits of being a postie (early mornings) and the impact of covid (no Christmas Eve drinking) that finds me awake and posting at 6 o'clock this yuletide morning.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 25, 2022)

Ming said:


> The thing I desperately want to throw into this mix is the psychological element.
> 
> What makes a Tory? Why are they so venal and so self interested? Uninterested in other peoples well being.
> 
> ...


Not only does none of this have anything to do with class it is actually a pretty nasty biological determinism.

About the only relevance to the discussion is that it illustrates the why putting class at the forefront is so important. Otherwise this sort of tin foil hat stuff can become more prevalent.


----------



## Ming (Dec 25, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> Not only does none of this have anything to do with class it is actually a pretty nasty biological determinism.
> 
> About the only relevance to the the discussion is that it illustrates the why putting class at the forefront is so important. Otherwise this sort of tin foil hat stuff can become more prevalent.


I think you‘re wrong. There are devils in the details and angels on the head of a pin.

We’ve unfortunately been spat out (without our permission) into this mortal coil. 

The rights and wrongs of this are open to discussion obviously.

My most proud thing in my life is not having children though. The cycle stops with me.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by


Almost a case study in the challenge posed by false consciousness.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 25, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Almost a case study in the challenge posed by false consciousness.


For a challenge have a look at India......
Massive wealth inequality
Despite a growing middle class (or a wealthier working class) the *vast* majority are 'poor' and archetypal proletarian/working class often experiencing harsh living conditions
Regularly have the largest general strikes in human history
Have a well-supported and visible Communist Party (M-L)
........then look at the election results.


----------



## Edie (Dec 25, 2022)

Athos said:


> Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.
> 
> The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%.  Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power.
> 
> ...


Merry Christmas Athos 😘



ska invita said:


> For a challenge have a look at India......
> Massive wealth inequality
> Despite a growing middle class (or a wealthier working class) the *vast* majority are 'poor' and archetypal proletarian/working class often experiencing harsh living conditions
> Regularly have the largest general strikes in human history
> ...


Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism


----------



## ska invita (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism


Religious nationalist autocracy seems to be the flavour of the month


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism


Except of course for all of those living in the country, who are members and supporters of the various India based communist, socialist and anti-capitalist parties, unions, associations and organisations. 

Your very broad brush approach isn't doing you any favours here.

Cheers  - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Edie (Dec 25, 2022)

Anyway you don’t “recognise a common interest” by dividing people into pfwc and middle class down families, then arsing about going on about hugely outdated structural analysis of Marx. It’s pretty much 2023. Let’s start from here.

Capitalism, as local democracy as possible (why I voted Brexit), and progressive taxation to squash Health & wealth inequalities. Look at Denmark where Manter is rn. They’ve got it right. That’s as good as it gets I reckon. You’ve got to reward the talented and driven, but protect the vulnerable (not the lazy and career unemployed). 

I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.


----------



## Elpenor (Dec 25, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Religious nationalist autocracy seems to be the flavour of the month


Hmm isn’t there a quote about religion and opium


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Anyway you don’t “recognise a common interest” by dividing people into pfwc and middle class down families, then arsing about going on about hugely outdated structural analysis of Marx. It’s pretty much 2023. Let’s start from here.
> 
> Capitalism, as local democracy as possible (why I voted Brexit), and progressive taxation to squash Health & wealth inequalities. Look at Denmark where Manter is rn. They’ve got it right. That’s as good as it gets I reckon. You’ve got to reward the talented and driven, but protect the vulnerable (not the lazy and career unemployed).
> 
> I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.


It's easy to say Marx's analysis is out of date, but quite hard to say specifically how - what he said that doesn't still hold true.

You're right that less free-market capitalism can temper some of the harms, in the short term.  And I doubt many here would argue against higher, more progressive taxation to minimise inequality.  But there's no reason to think it's the best solution - that it is effectively the end point of economic development, and there nothing better. 

The reason to care about the 1% isn't that they're happier than anyone else; it's because, by monopolising so much of the wealth, they effectively keep others poor.


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.
> 
> My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo.  They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.


There's some truth in that.  But you have to wonder how much of it is because they're convinced that this is as good as it gets.  And whether or not that's true.


----------



## Edie (Dec 25, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's some truth in that.  But you have to wonder how much of it is because they're convinced that this is as good as it gets.  And whether or not that's true.


That’s a fair enough point. There probably is a better structure we’ve not thought about yet and we should be open minded. But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young. We’re social animals who live in a balance of cooperation and competition at the end of the day. Utopia doesn’t exist.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.


This really misses the point that a number of posters have patiently outlined and seems to contradict what you said a few posts ago about there being no people who don't have to work.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Merry Christmas Athos 😘
> 
> 
> Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism


a somewhat reductive position

Like most of mine on this thread


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young.


That's not an inevitability.  We make it more likely by behaving as if it is.  Let's at least strive for something better.


----------



## Edie (Dec 25, 2022)

brogdale said:


> This really misses the point that a number of posters have patiently outlined and seems to contradict what you said a few posts ago about there being no people who don't have to work.


Should I leave you to it, because I don’t want to derail further if you’re all enjoying that discussion about Marx. Just got no interest in it personally. HC broggers xx


----------



## brogdale (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> Should I leave you to it, because I don’t want to derail further if you’re all enjoying that discussion about Marx. Just got no interest in it personally. HC broggers xx


To my mind your posting demonstrates otherwise; you seem genuinely engaged with the topic of class. But, as with everything U75, we're all free to post or not.

Have a good day


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young. We’re social animals who live in a balance of cooperation and competition at the end of the day. Utopia doesn’t exist.


Surely we should expect the basic metrics of a successful society to improve 






						Life expectancy declining in many English communities even before pandemic | Imperial News | Imperial College London
					

ENGLISH LIFESPANS - A substantial number of English communities experienced a decline in life expectancy from 2010-2019, Imperial College London researchers have found.




					www.imperial.ac.uk


----------



## Supine (Dec 25, 2022)

bellaozzydog said:


> Surely we should expect the basic metrics of a successful society to improve
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although the flip side to that is life expectancy has increased massively for a few hundred years under a capitalist system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 25, 2022)

Supine said:


> Although the flip side to that is life expectancy has increased massively for a few hundred years under a capitalist system.


Ah the auld what goes up must come down argument


----------



## Edie (Dec 25, 2022)

brogdale said:


> To my mind your posting demonstrates otherwise; you seem genuinely engaged with the topic of class. But, as with everything U75, we're all free to post or not.
> 
> Have a good day


Oh no really interested for sure, just didn’t want to derail a details thread. Personally I’d be happy with a 95% top rate tax once you reach £150k. I earn £50k (plus locums which boost my take home by up to a grand a month) and I’m super wealthy, we want for nothing. Literally cannot see why any one person would want or need more in the UK, let alone a joint income at that level. Making a million would be fun for the challenge but wouldn’t materially change my life from here on in, I don’t think it does for anyone. As far as I can see your room sizes just increase and you get more holidays and drive ridiculous cars but so fucking what


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 25, 2022)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.
> 
> My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo.  They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.


How large a percentage, and what jobs do they work in? And are these people, for instance, as comfortable as they were twelve months or five years ago, or are they less comfortable? If they are becoming less comfortable, then what other conclusions might we draw from that?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 25, 2022)

chilango said:


> I think we do people down with the anticipation that people can't or won't deal with ideas like "relation to capital" or whatever. Recent years have shown us that plenty of people have displayed an appetite to deploy rapidly learnt perspectives on stuff like European constitutional and trade laws, epedimiology, climate science and God knows how many other "difficult" or "academic" fields. We might be able to question the accuracy or depth of this new-found expertise, but the idea that people can't or won't engage with complex stuff has surely been shown to false?



I agree, it's patronising to say the least that people can't understand it.  But I wonder if the problem is more that the analysis, whilst correct, no longer maps onto a lot of people's daily lived experiences.  There are vast economic cleavages within the class, probably more than ever so.  The life of someone on £80k a year who owns their own home is unimaginably different to the life of a tenant claiming benefits or on the minimim wage.  And there hasn't really been much in the way of solidarity flowing downwards from the more economically privileged members of the working class - quite the opposite at times in fact - and this to some extent is understandable.  There are competing economic interests that are more than trivial.  If action was taken to seriously address the housing crisis for example, that would likely lower house prices, potentially plunging people into negative equity.  For those whose home is paid off that's the money they plan to soothe their consciences with by handing it down to their kids.  Meanwhile tenants and the low waged for whom owning property is an impossible dream live lives of relentless insecurity with little way out in sight.  And these tensions outweigh any theoretical unity amongst those whose income is not derived from capital.

That doesn't mean that homeowners are not working class, that's silly, but it's still real, has an immediate impact on people's lives and I suspect is one of the drivers of the generational conflict within the class that has emerged over the last few years.  I don't know how we deal with that but it has to be acknowledged.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 27, 2022)

It is not uncommon for individuals from privileged class backgrounds to misidentify their origins as working class. This phenomenon can be attributed to a number of factors, including the desire to fit in with certain social groups, a lack of awareness about one's own privilege, and the belief that one's personal experiences reflect the experiences of the working class as a whole.

One possible reason for this misidentification is the desire to fit in with certain social groups. Some individuals may feel that their privileged background puts them at a disadvantage in certain social circles, and may therefore claim a working class identity in order to fit in with these groups. This can be particularly true in social movements or political campaigns that are focused on issues affecting the working class, as individuals may feel pressure to align themselves with these causes in order to be seen as authentic or genuine.

Another reason for this misidentification may be a lack of awareness about one's own privilege. Some individuals may not fully understand the extent of their privilege or may not realize how their experiences and circumstances differ from those of the working class. This lack of awareness can lead to a misperception of one's own class identity, as individuals may believe that their personal experiences are representative of the experiences of the working class as a whole.

Finally, some individuals may misidentify their class origins due to the belief that their personal experiences reflect the experiences of the working class as a whole. This can be particularly true for individuals who have faced challenges or hardships in their lives


----------

