# [Mon 12th Sep 2011] Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, with Owen Jones (London, WC1B 3QE)



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 9, 2011)

Owen Jones discusses his book Chavs. Free event as part of TUC Congress
*5:45pm to 7:15pm*
http://l-r-c.org.uk/events/detail/chavs-the-demonization-of-the-working-class-with-owen-jones/


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2011)

no meetings up north at all...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 9, 2011)

NOt sure i'll have time to go to this but heard OJ speak and met him at a meeting in Hackney recently. I reckon his book is worth a read.


----------



## OneStrike (Sep 9, 2011)

He is one of the smartest 15 year olds around!


----------



## Karac (Sep 9, 2011)

Just reading his book now-hes a bit unlucky the whole "Chav" storm has died down a year or two before the release of his book-but hes spot on with his political insight.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 9, 2011)

treelover said:


> no meetings up north at all...


There was a meeting in Stockport and some other places in the North earlier on in the year when the book was first published .


and he( along with others) will be  speaking at a LRC fringe meeting at Labour Party conference in Liverpool on the 26th
http://l-r-c.org.uk/events/detail/lrc-fringe-resistance-the-path-to-power/


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2011)

I met him at the John Mcdonnell LP leadership electtion launch(failed) he is a really nice guy..


----------



## Sue (Sep 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> I met him at the John Mcdonnell LP leadership electtion launch(failed) he is a really nice guy..



...and incredibly well-connected, given the amount of publicity he's had. Not read his book (might see if I can get it in the library if I can be bothered) but not convinced yet another Labour hack who appears to have never had a proper job in his life has much to add to the debate.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 10, 2011)

Sue said:


> ...and incredibly well-connected, given the amount of publicity he's had. Not read his book (might see if I can get it in the library if I can be bothered) but not convinced yet another Labour hack who appears to have never had a proper job in his life has much to add to the debate.


but you've not actually read the book


----------



## Sue (Sep 10, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> but you've not actually read the book



As I said. Have to reckon something's worth reading before I spend time on it.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 11, 2011)

He is very well connected but not with any of the things happening in working class communities in Stockport


----------



## Sue (Sep 11, 2011)

...or in Oxford where I believe he spent three years.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

Too busy talking to Boris Johnson's sister.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> He is very well connected but not with any of the things happening in working class communities in Stockport


I dunno he looks like a veteran of the Cheadle Workers Militia


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 11, 2011)

.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 11, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> .





Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno he looks like a veteran of the Cheadle Workers Militia



certificate of recommendation in the Monty Video Vase ( under 11s intelligentsia section)


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Too busy talking to Boris Johnson's sister.



Serious?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

She's quoted throughout the book and is his lodestone of what class really means.


----------



## Sue (Sep 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> She's quoted throughout the book and is his lodestone of what class really means.


Dear Lord.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> She's quoted throughout the book and is his lodestone of what class really means.


4 mentions, hardly 'quoted throughout'
You have'nt read the book either have you?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 11, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Johnson

This one?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> 4 mentions, hardly 'quoted throughout'
> You have'nt read the book either have you?


I have read the book, she might be mentioned in the index 4 times but she is used to set the tone for the wider argument of chapter after chapter. How you can read the book and miss this i do not know. Call me a liar again.


----------



## Sue (Sep 11, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> 4 mentions, hardly 'quoted throughout'
> You have'nt read the book either have you?



Still, certainly says something about his connections.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Johnson
> 
> This one?


That's her.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

I mean, he explicitly argues that she has the best grasp on what class means today of all the wankers he thieves quotes from. Have you read the thing dog?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 11, 2011)

> Her works include the international bestseller _Notting Hell_ (Penguin 2006), a novel about couples living in the Notting Hill area of London, _Shire Hell_ (a follow up to _Notting Hell_), and _The Mummy Diaries_ (Penguin 2004), a diary of her London-Exmoor year.



o god

so should i bother with the book or not? ive been wanting to read it for ages


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> o god
> 
> so should i bother with the book or not? ive been wanting to read it for ages


It's  journalistic stuff that is basically all the good posts on here and argues that the w/c need more mines and shit jobs. Maybe dog will have read it by the time he repLies.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> . Have you read the thing dog?


I'm half way through it


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> o god
> 
> so should i bother with the book or not? ive been wanting to read it for ages


yes, you should.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I'm half way through it


Yeah, well i've read it entire. Don't prod people, you might look fucking daft.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 11, 2011)

he was the one who wrote that shit article in the sun wasn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, well i've read it entire. Don't prod people, you might look fucking daft.


I've been to the talks and discussions as well, so I already know what the book is all about.
The most important thing about this book is the attention it's recieved, I think it's a very postive thing that class is being discussed in the mainstream media again - thanks to this book.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I've been to the talks and discussions as well, so I already know what the book is all about.
> The most important thing about this book is the attention it's recieved, I think it's a very postive thing that class is being discussed in the mainstream media again - thanks to this book.


So you know enough to call me a liar due to your meetings? OK, you were wrong, now what?


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2011)

Why is she mentioned and in what context?, she isn't exactly a comtemporary of his at Oxford, he is 26!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> Why is she mentioned and in what context?, she isn't exactly a comtemporary of his at Oxford, he is 26!


She's mentioned as knowing what class really means, over and over. Like what i said.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2011)

why on earth is that I wonder, it sounds quite bizarre


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2011)

Because that's who he hangs about with. The whole book is rancid with this stuff


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So you know enough to call me a liar due to your meetings? OK, you were wrong, now what?


I wasn't wrong. You may have read the book, but you have obviously haven't comprehended what you have read.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I wasn't wrong. You may have read the book, but you have obviously haven't comprehended what you have read.


Obviously. Give me some pointers then. Tell me where i'm wrong. I've argued that he uses Boris Johnson's sister as a guide to how modern class works. He explicitly says this himself - repeatdly. Page 170 for example. The start of a very important theme establishing chapter for the book:



> Rachael Johnson may not seem the most likely person to offer a searing indictment of the class system. But that is what she does. What we have seen, she argues, 'are the middle classes sort of sailing inot the jobs, taking all the glittering prizes as a result of their contacts and peer group.'



he then goes on at great length to establish how this 'rigged society' works.

If you're going to defend a book then don't accuse others of not having read it. Especially not if you haven't. Because you might end up looking tad daft. I'd advise you not to say that they've not understood it either. Same reason. Unless you've got some killer argument coming up.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Obviously. Give me some pointers then. Tell me where i'm wrong. I've argued that *he uses Boris Johnson's sister as a guide to how modern class works*. He explicitly says this himself - repeatdly. Page 170 for example. The start of a very important theme establishing chapter for the book:
> 
> .


no he does'nt. Yes, he interviews her but I don't see how you could say he's using her opinons as a guide for the whole book. I suggest that if he is ever doing a meeting in your area that you go along and put this to him directly.
Anyway the point is that this book has helped put the whole issue of class back in the mainstream media and by doing so had made an important contribution to the class struggle.(I've finished the book now btw, I read it alongside Rob Sewell's In The Cause of Labour - another very important work)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2011)

Yes he does. He explicitly says so and uses the quote above (one of many) to establish how it works. How pig headed do you have to be to say that author is wrong and also that he didn't ague what he did? Is he another one whose not read the book? I suppose admonishing people for not reading a book when you haven't read it yourself is a good start point for that sort of stuff.

*Give us back our shit jobs maggie*


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> *Give us back our shit jobs maggie*


eh?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 12, 2011)

It's not a bad read, but it's not brilliant, & i did get bored of the repetition.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 12, 2011)

Sue said:


> ...or in Oxford where I believe he spent three years.



Dosen't say an awful lot for his research that it seemed beyond him to find the IWCA in Blackbird Leys in his time there. But then again with Bojo's sister as a favoured consulant why bother? Far better the faded aristocracy opine on the condition of the working class, thus avoiding the tiresome chore of sitting down with elected representatives from same. All the same does it not seem more than a little perverse that not even his curiousity got the better of him?


----------



## love detective (Sep 12, 2011)

Especially when Oxford & London are the two main places he's lived for the last 8 years or so - he wouldn't have had to go out of his way much to do so

When we asked him about it he simply claims he 'ran out of time' - which says plenty

Then, post-publication, when given an opportunity of being put in touch with someone from Oxford (for a chat) he fell completely silent and we haven't heard from him since

Also quite telling that when prodded on a couple of general points in emails, and despite his ongoing claim that the purpose of his book is to 'stimulate debate', he failed to even respond to them


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

don't see why Owen has to answer to the IWCA to be honest. The book was written to reach a far wider audience  than the usual suspects of the ultra left.


----------



## past caring (Sep 12, 2011)

No-one's asking him to "answer" to anybody you plum, just pointing out that his sort, as ever, prefer to deal with the working class as object of history, not subject. And as for this wider audience - you imagine you're going to reach that coat-trailing for him on here?


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 12, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I read it alongside Rob Sewell's In The Cause of Labour - another very important work)



No offence but the notion of Rob Sewell and 'very important read' in the same sentence makes me chuckle. I do hope it's better than his book on the 1918 German Revolution. I'd have thought a book more up his 'street' would have been 'Tube Stations which have waiting rooms for to grab womens arses in'.


----------



## love detective (Sep 12, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> don't see why Owen has to answer to the IWCA to be honest. The book was written to reach a far wider audience than the usual suspects of the ultra left.



As has been said, no one's expecting him to answer to anyone (probably the only time he's been expected to answer to someone was when he was working for the labour party when they were in power - a job he went straight into after doing a degree and then a MA at Oxford University - working for labour while in opposition clearly didn't appeal - he's doing a PHD now I believe)

what's being said is:-

a) it's odd that as part of his research for this book he didn't bother to get in touch with a group literally just down the road from him who had long ago articulated some of the things he was trying to, who have had direct relevant experience of organising in the working class communities that he is so concerned about and who at various times have actually been able to get class issues raised & discussed in the mainstream media - something that his book is supposed to be about (i.e. the treatment of the class issues and the working class in the media)

b) it's odd that despite him constantly parroting the line about the purpose of his book being to stimulate debate about class, when we actually attempted to do this with him he went silent

I also noticed the other day he was musing about the pros & cons of picking 'class' as a topic for 'his first book' - which comes across as someone who wants to be an author/media darling and has used the topic of class as a means of getting there - his writings about class and the working class seem to me to be the means to something else, rather than an end in itself


----------



## cool herc (Sep 12, 2011)

chavs usually demonize themselves


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 12, 2011)

cool herc said:


> chavs usually demonize themselves



Oh do fuck off.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2011)

I haven't read it yet - he seems a decent sort, though with a kind of idealistic/romantic view of an industrial working class of yesteryear.

I would have thought Boris Johnson's sister would be in a position to understand privilege and how it works, no?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I would have thought Boris Johnson's sister would be in a position to understand privilege and how it works, no?


good point


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 12, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> don't see why Owen has to answer to the IWCA to be honest. The book was written to reach a far wider audience than the usual suspects of the ultra left.



But seeing how he will engage on twitter and other social networking with every fucker else ( including son of the assistant to on of the local MPs in Stockport) it makes you wonder why he doesn't respond to the IWCA.

And whilst you are wrong in considering the IWCA to be ultra left you are right about his wider audience . he can speak at Marxism , he can speak at the AWL seminar but actually he will be defending Labour as his choice in 'realistically' advancing the cause of the working class.
In fact in his own words:
http://owenjones.org/2011/03/02/why-labour-is-the-lefts-only-hope/


----------



## past caring (Sep 12, 2011)

It's a shit point.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 12, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> In fact in his own words:
> http://owenjones.org/2011/03/02/why-labour-is-the-lefts-only-hope/


 that's an excellent article. One of the best he's written


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2011)

love detective said:


> As has been said, no one's expecting him to answer to anyone (probably the only time he's been expected to answer to someone was when he was working for the labour party when they were in power - a job he went straight into after doing a degree and then a MA at Oxford University - working for labour while in opposition clearly didn't appeal - he's doing a PHD now I believe)


sorry - was this an ma at oxford or an oxford ma? an oxford ma is (or at least was until very recently) available for any oxford graduate waiting a year and paying something like £14. as opposed to an ma from anywhere else (except for cambridge, where again at least until recently the same thing applied).


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 12, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> that's an excellent article. One of the best he's written



clearly sets out a bench mark for improvement then


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 13, 2011)

cool herc said:


> chavs usually demonize themselves


i'd like to fucking demonize you for 5 minutes


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry - was this an ma at oxford or an oxford ma? an oxford ma is (or at least was until very recently) available for any oxford graduate waiting a year and paying something like £14. as opposed to an ma from anywhere else (except for cambridge, where again at least until recently the same thing applied).



didn't know that was the case (what are they like with their funny ways)

I think it was the former though, a Masters at Oxford - as he stated the topic that it was done on and said he'd 'completed' a Masters there


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm meant to be interviewing him soon - I'll ask why he didn't pay more attention to IWCA when he was in Oxford.


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

more attention?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> didn't know that was the case (what are they like with their funny ways)
> 
> I think it was the former though, a Masters at Oxford - as he stated the topic that it was done on and said he'd 'completed' a Masters there


so what? If he's had a good education then good luck to him, at least he's putting his skills into something worthwhile. I never really got this workerist petty jealousy thing. And btw Owen's parents were full timers for Militant back in the day so despite his  'middle class' background I doubt he grew up in the lap of luxury


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

eh - I was answering a question from Pickman's Model - there was no value judgement in that post

(the original comment however was not so much about privilege but an implied general comment on today's professionalised political class who go straight from university and into politics - do you think this is a good thing in general?)


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> eh - I was answering a question from Pickman's Model - there was no value judgement in that post
> 
> (the original comment however was not so much about privilege but an implied general comment on today's *professionalised political class who go straight from university and into politics -* do you think this is a good thing in general?)


no I don't think it's a good thing. Neither does Owen, he covers this extensively in the book


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

do as i say not as i do then?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> do as i say not as i do then?


but he did'nt go straight from university to politics, he was a political activist before he got his  university education


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

so when he was at school then? like william hague?

he graduated in 2005 yes and he's 26 now - so that would make him around 20 when he graduated and 17 when he started university

anyroads you seem to miss the point of the criticism which is people with no real life experience of work going straight into politics (mainly from Oxford & Cambridge)


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> so when he was at school then? like william hague?
> 
> he graduated in 2005 yes and he's 26 now - so that would make him around 20 when he graduated and 17 when he started university
> 
> anyroads you seem to miss the point of the criticism which is people with no real life experience of work going straight into politics (mainly from Oxford & Cambridge)


 I suppose his education could have got him into a lot of comfortable positions within Nu Labour, instead he had choosen to side with us in the LRC, and promote the class struggle in the mainstream media, for that he had my unconditional solidarity


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I suppose his education could have got him into a lot of comfortable positions within Nu Labour, instead he had choosen to side with us in the LRC, and promote the class struggle in the mainstream media, for that he had my unconditional solidarity


Despite the fact that he's an example of the kind of politics he's arguing against?


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

And tbh as others have said, it looks like he's headed for a cushy media career, but on the alt-left edge.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Random said:


> Despite the fact that he's an example of the kind of politics he's arguing against?


I don't think he is.


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

what was his first job after leaving university?

has he ever had a job outside the employ of the house of commons?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Random said:


> And tbh as others have said, it looks like he's headed for a cushy media career, but on the alt-left edge.


As long as he remains true to his socialist principles  then if he can get a cushy job, good luck to him,
I'm not a workerist.


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> As long as he remains true to his socialist principles then if he can get a cushy job, good luck to him,
> I'm not a workerist.


You think that socialism can exist sustained by purity of soul and strength of belief? Myself I'd say that a real connection to working class experience is neccessary before someone can speak for or campaign for the working class.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Random said:


> You think that socialism can exist sustained by purity of soul and strength of belief? Myself I'd say that *a real connection to working class experience is neccessary before someone can speak for or campaign for the working class*.



He lives in Hackney ffs! And he's an activist in the LRC - so he does have a very real connection with our class. And btw he has never ever claimed to speak for us.


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> He lives in Hackney ffs! And he's an activist in the LRC - so he does have a very real connection with our class.


 You know this socialism you're talkinga bout sounds a lot like blair's christian socialism. Nice people are nice because they're involved with nice campaigns. What ever happened to looking at class and material circumstances?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

anyways much as I would love to spent all morning arguing with the useless ultra left sectarians, I have a meeting to attend
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-reconnecting-britain-london-wc1b-3qe.280663/
If I get a chance to speak to Comrade Owen afterwards , I shall show him this thread, I'm sure we could all do with a good laugh
Laters


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

Keep on following those nice Labour party socialists, I'm sure it'll end well.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2011)

'And btw Owen's parents were full timers for Militant back in the day so despite his 'middle class' background I doubt he grew up in the lap of luxury'

pity him....


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2011)

Random said:


> And tbh as others have said, it looks like he's headed for a cushy media career, but on the alt-left edge.



not exactly an expanding market...


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'And btw Owen's parents were full timers for Militant back in the day so despite his 'middle class' background I doubt he grew up in the lap of luxury'
> 
> pity him....



and that was in response to a criticism about the professionalising of politics!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> He lives in Hackney ffs!



So did Tony Blair, for a bit.


----------



## Random (Sep 13, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> So did Tony Blair, for a bit.


"Like many middle class people I came to Socialism through Marxism (to be more specific through Deutscher's biography of Trotsky)"


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> He lives in Hackney ffs! And he's an activist in the LRC - so he does have a very real connection with our class. And btw he has never ever claimed to speak for us.



Can I apologise in advance if I am having a sense of humour bypass and your post wasn't intend to be taken seriously. But, have you visited Hackney recently? The cloth caps are worn by web designers.  The whippet owners work in advertising and real ale is the preserve of the media wankers.  Residency in the Borough I call home is not evidence of having an understanding of working class experience. I say this as someone who congratulated Owen for speaking some sense on TV when I bumped into him on a demo.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'And btw Owen's parents were full timers for Militant back in the day so despite his 'middle class' background I doubt he grew up in the lap of luxury'



Were they?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2011)

Not according to the book they weren't. One was a lecturer and the other was an economic regeneration oficcer.


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

have you read the book dynamicbaddog?

According to Owen:-



> Without inflicting my life story on you, my mother was a lecturer at Salford University, and my dad was an economic regeneration officer for Sheffield city council. I grew up in an educated milieu and simply followed in the footsteps of fairly well-paid, professional people who'd gone to university. I did not suffer from the instability and stresses that scraping by in life can cause a family. Even when my dad lost his job during the fag-end of the last Tory government, I still enjoyed relative financial security. Like all people with my background, I will almost certainly die as I was born: middle-class.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/social-mobility-dead-end


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not according to the book they weren't. One was a lecturer and the other was an economic regeneration oficcer.



I knew near all the FTers in that part of the world, as would 39th Step, and can't remember any called Jones.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I knew near all the FTers in that part of the world, as would 39th Step, and can't remember any called Jones.


http://owenjones.org/category/the-left/
_My family did go through “financial hardship” (for want of a better phrase) for a number of years when we were based in Sheffield; but I was too young to remember this, unlike my brothers who spent years having clothes bought from jumble sales. In any case, it was for very different reasons than the thousands of workers in that city thrown on the scrapheap by Thatcherism’s vandalism of British industry: my dad spent years as a *full*-time official of the Trotskyist *Militant* Tendency, and fomenting revolution doesn’t pay the bills._


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> http://owenjones.org/category/the-left/
> _My family did go through “financial hardship” (for want of a better phrase) for a number of years when we were based in Sheffield; but I was too young to remember this, unlike my brothers who spent years having clothes bought from jumble sales. In any case, it was for very different reasons than the thousands of workers in that city thrown on the scrapheap by Thatcherism’s vandalism of British industry: my dad spent years as a *full*-time official of the Trotskyist *Militant* Tendency, and fomenting revolution doesn’t pay the bills._



In Sheffield then? Be interresting to see who it was.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not according to the book they weren't. One was a lecturer and the other was an economic regeneration oficcer.


Jesus christ - what a scion of the ruling class


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Jesus christ - what a scion of the ruling class


Who said any such thing? Apart from you, of course.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

you're the one making out he's some middle class imposter


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you're the one making out he's some middle class imposter


No, i'm  the one responding to the post that claimed both of his parents were militant full timers by pointing out that the book doesn't say that. So pull your trousers back up and come back with something better than that.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you're the one making out he's some middle class imposter



Eh? You're saying he's not middle class?

The man himself disagrees...:

#89
'Like all people with my background, I will almost certainly die as I was born: middle-class.' 
ETA link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/social-mobility-dead-end


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm not commenting on his class origins - just questioning others who think apparently the fact he went to Oxford and onto a job as a political researcher is *automatically* proof positive he doesn't have any connection to w/c communities.

Anyway, people can have been Millie full-timers at one point in time, and done other occupations at others. Nothing conclusive here...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2011)

You're insisting that i was commenting on his class origins in the post of mine you quoted. I wasn't. You jumped in and fucked it up. Pointless.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're insisting that i was commenting on his class origins in the post of mine you quoted. I wasn't. You jumped in and fucked it up. Pointless.


you've nowhere implied he is other than w/c?  Come on, people can read


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

I spoke to him this afternoon about the critisms some of you lot have been firing at him. He said it was very ironic because when he was at Oxford the poshos would give him flack for coming there from a comprehensive school. Saying he was only there because of 'quotas' etc


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you've nowhere implied he is other than w/c? Come on, people can read


 Indeed they can, that's why you're fucked. Have some integrity for fucks sake. Your post and mine are up there for all to see.

If you want to call Jones a liar go ahead. If you want to argue that he's not middle class then go ahead.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you've nowhere implied he is other than w/c? Come on, people can read



Bit confused. Owen Jones has said he's middle class. Why are you making out it's a horrible slur (and can't be bothered to go back and check exactly who implied what or otherwise) to imply he's not working class?


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not commenting on his class origins - just questioning others who think apparently the fact he went to Oxford and onto a job as a political researcher is *automatically* proof positive he doesn't have any connection to w/c communities.



can't speak for others, but my point on his education and then straight into politics was about just that - i.e. the increasing trend of people who go straight from university (usually oxford or cambridge) into a job in politics - it wasn't so much about his class background but about the increasing professionalisation of politics itself (and by implication how that can't be a good thing in terms of independent pro working class political organisation)


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

yes I don't disagree necessarily, or at all.  But judgements on individuals shouldn't be made by sweeping sociological generalisations.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2011)

Still, looking forward to hearing all about articul8's interview with him. The cut and thrust, the incisive questioning, the clever parries, the final thrust of the stiletto...


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

Sue said:


> not convinced yet another Labour hack who appears to have never had a proper job in his life has much to add to the debate.



This is what I'm objecting to - even if he did go straight from HE to a job as a researcher in Westminster - how do you infer from that he "never had a proper job in his life"?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

Sue said:


> Still, looking forward to hearing all about articul8's interview with him. The cut and thrust, the incisive questioning, the clever parries, the final thrust of the stiletto...


I'm not out to skewer him - I'm out to clarify what he thinks and challenge him to respond to alternative perspectives


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This is what I'm objecting to - even if he did go straight from HE to a job as a researcher in Westminster - how do you infer from that he "never had a proper job in his life"?



How do you infer from that he has had?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm not inferring anything - you are making the inference


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not inferring anything - you are making the inference



I'm happy to be proved wrong... The point behind all this is put very eloquently by ld in #104.


----------



## love detective (Sep 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This is what I'm objecting to - even if he did go straight from HE to a job as a researcher in Westminster - how do you infer from that he "never had a proper job in his life"?



because as I mentioned earlier on the thread - he's 26 now, he graduated in 2005 which would make him around 20 years old upon graduation, and therefore about 17 when he started university, presumably straight from school - so where in all that would he have found time to fit in a 'proper job'

there's no inference here in any of this - all we're musing on are the facts as they stand


----------



## revol68 (Sep 13, 2011)

he's shite, embarrassing working class identity politics looking back all starry eyed at a time when labour "had a place" in society, a middle class kid with a hard on for a outdated caricature of "the working class".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2011)

So is the criticism od OJ here that he is 'academically intelligent' but not 'worldy wise'?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 13, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So is the criticism od OJ here that he is 'academically intelligent' but not 'worldy wise'?



he's not even very intellectual, he's shite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2011)

revol68 said:


> he's not even very intellectual, he's shite.



I said 'academically intelligent', as you well know.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 13, 2011)

well i don't really care what grades he got, afterall shit heap Hari has a double first, so he could be academically "intelligent" as in he got good grades but I think the criticism of him comes from the fact he has position himself as some sort of working class identity politics white knight whilst having no experience of that which he fetishises. If he was just some standard leftist/marxist academic I don't think many would give him shit for this lack of "prole" cred.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

The Morning Star gave him and his book favourable coverage. Now it sounds disappointing.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The Morning Star gave him and his book favourable coverage. Now it sounds disappointing.


most of the reviews have been favourable, only people who really hated it were Spiked

I've been asked to review it for 'Permanent Revoultion' magazine


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

Pretty good!

I'll check Spiked out, thanks. Sort of good they're back online.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Pretty good!
> 
> I'll check Spiked out, thanks. Sort of good they're back online.


Earlier in the year the right wing think tank - The New Culture Forum held a discussion about the book with  Owen, Ed West and the editor of Spiked, Brendan O Neill, it was a really heated debate.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> most of the reviews have been favourable, only people who really hated it were Spiked
> 
> I've been asked to review it for 'Permanent Revoultion' magazine



are they the workers power split? i thought u were in labour lol??


----------



## temper_tantrum (Sep 13, 2011)

So basically the message is that if you're not 100% pure by the age of 26, you might as well give up and fuck off, eh? I'm sure that a lot of people will find that an inspiring message.

Other than the fact that he interviews Rachel Johnson, what does he say in the book which is wrong?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> are they the workers power split? i thought u were in labour lol??



got a few mates who are in PR and one of them asked me to write a review for them.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 13, 2011)

fair


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 13, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> got a few mates who are in PR and one of them asked me to write a review for them.



Lol


----------



## articul8 (Sep 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> because as I mentioned earlier on the thread - he's 26 now, he graduated in 2005 which would make him around 20 years old upon graduation, and therefore about 17 when he started university, presumably straight from school - so where in all that would he have found time to fit in a 'proper job'
> 
> there's no inference here in any of this - all we're musing on are the facts as they stand



He could still have done normal part time jobs at college etc?  Or doesn't that count?


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This is what I'm objecting to - even if he did go straight from HE to a job as a researcher in Westminster - how do you infer from that he "never had a proper job in his life"?


Would it be a problem if OJ had never had a proper job in his life? You seem to be beoth saying that he might have had a proper job, and also saying that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Sort it out.


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> He could still have done normal part time jobs at college etc? Or doesn't that count?


It wouldn't stop him from being middle class, no.


----------



## love detective (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> He could still have done normal part time jobs at college etc?  Or doesn't that count?



True, whether or not he had a paper round is key to resolving the crux of the issue here


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you're the one making out he's some middle class imposter


Actually, on re-reading this thread, i made no comments about his class whatsoever. Not a one. I've done two things.

First i argued that his choice of people to illustrate his wider points is often crap (Rachael Johnson, Neil Kinnock, Clare Short and so on - and i _could_ have argued that this distance from the w/c probably mirrors the distance that he mentions that he feels himself due to his relatively privileged background - something he himself repeatably on his website and in the book. But i didn't) and secondly that the book doesn't say that his parents were militant full-timers, but does mention other jobs.

Both points are correct. I do realise that as ever with you there's an element here of outraged defence of yourself, but you really did get this wrong.


----------



## love detective (Sep 14, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> So basically the message is that if you're not 100% pure by the age of 26, you might as well give up and fuck off, eh? I'm sure that a lot of people will find that an inspiring message.
> 
> Other than the fact that he interviews Rachel Johnson, what does he say in the book which is wrong?



not sure what 100% pure means - but once again, the discussion here is predominantly about the desirability or otherwise of people going straight from university (oxford & cambridge usually) and directly into political advisory type jobs

i.e. the increasing tendency towards the professionalisation of politics across the political spectrum - something Owen Jones himself recognises as a problem in relation to effective & relevant political representation


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2011)

Yes, there are many things in the book that Owen Jones himself mentions in the book that are being brought up here and those bringing them up are being attacked for attacking Jones. Its bizarre. I think a lot of this is to do with people not actually having read the bloody thing before deciding they have something to say about it.


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

If you're scepical of OJ, then you're cock-blocking the new left. Green shoots of Left Recovery! Singing in my bath!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, there are many things in the book that Owen Jones himself mentions in the book that are being brought up here and those bringing them up are being attacked for attacking Jones. Its bizarre. I think a lot of this is to do with people not actually having read the bloody thing before deciding they have something to say about it.


it's you that is coming out with all the straw man arguments, so if you have read the book you've have'nt properly understood it


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> it's you that is coming out with all the straw man arguments, so if you have read the book you've have'nt properly understood it


I've asked you to tell me what arguments I've made that are wrong and why. You're not done so yet. You're also failed to tell me what I've not understood about the book.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Both points are correct.


The fact that he doesn't mention them being f/ters doesn't mean they weren't.  Which you seem to be implying.   At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background





 There's a proper straw man for you, dynamicballbag


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The fact that he doesn't mention them being f/ters doesn't mean they weren't.  Which you seem to be implying.   At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background


I haven't said they weren't  full timers. I said the book doesn't say that they were. And his other writings mention his dad only. You took this for some odd reason to be a comment on his class background. it wasn't, as I've now pointed out to you at least two times. 

I have said nothing about his class background whatsoever. Nor have I said a single thing about the iwca.Which is why you cannot find me a post to back up your claims. You've simply lumped together loads of different posts by loads of different posters, whilst wagging your finger at people for lumping together lots of things into one. I suggest you re read the thread lest your confusion digs you any deeper holes.


----------



## love detective (Sep 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> At one level this thread is hilarious - the fact he doesn't give chapter and verse on the IWCA is objective proof of his privileged background



This thread is hilarious but I don't think you see why

I know you're a plum, but generally a reasonably intelligent plum, so I'm confused by you sinking to the level of your post above?

That is just desperate, misrepresenting stuff and well you know it - it also detracts from any actual reasonable points that may be lurking in your other posts


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

Doesn't articul8 often misrepresent and get sloppy when he's a bit pressed? Remember all that nonsense on the AV vote threads.


----------



## love detective (Sep 14, 2011)

I couldn't say, thankfully not around here enough to pick up on these things


----------



## articul8 (Sep 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't said they weren't full timers. I said the book doesn't say that they were. And his other writings mention his dad only. You took this for some odd reason to be a comment on his class background. it wasn't, as I've now pointed out to you at least two times.
> 
> I have said nothing about his class background whatsoever. Nor have I said a single thing about the iwca.Which is why you cannot find me a post to back up your claims. You've simply lumped together loads of different posts by loads of different posters, whilst wagging your finger at people for lumping together lots of things into one. I suggest you re read the thread lest your confusion digs you any deeper holes.


What makes you think I'm singling out your contribution?  I've been talking about the general thrust of the response.  I know i was being cheeky about the IWCAers comments  I'm not seriously accusing them


----------



## Random (Sep 14, 2011)

I was joking too, when I called you a cunt, articul8


----------



## articul8 (Sep 14, 2011)

good - i know what a joker you are


----------



## temper_tantrum (Sep 21, 2011)

He was on the Moral Maze tonight apparently. Didn't hear it.
Still waiting for an explanation of what was wrong in his book (as opposed to in his life).


----------



## love detective (Sep 22, 2011)

who is this question actually aimed at? (i.e. which posts on the thread)

Because this thread, in addition to his own class background, has been mainly a discussion about the contradiction between what he says and what he does - i.e. he criticises those who go straight from Oxbridge and into paid political jobs without experience of the 'real world' as it brings problems in relation to working class representation in politics, but then he himself goes straight from Oxbridge into a paid political job working for a party who were in government at the time (and now back into academia again). He also quite correctly raises a lot of other problems with this colonisation of representation by the professional political class and what it means for any hopes of genuine working class political representation

Off the two specific criticism of the book on this thread that I can see - these are:-

1. his choice of people to provide a 'searing indictment of the class system' (while choosing to ignore potentially valuable input on the on the ground experience of, and difficulties faced by, organisations literally down the road from him who have spent the best part of the last two decades working towards a more effective working class political representation. Something that he says he is keen to see more off - so i'd assume he would have been interested in attempts to have done so, especially those attempts that breaks with the shackles, chains and dogma of the old conservative left)

2. his tendency to hold a outdated/romanticised/idealised/purified notion of the working class that verges on a type of identity politics (which in my opinion is due to the distance between him and his subject matter)

Both of these criticisms were put forward and explained by those offering them what the issue is with them - you may disagree with these points, but those making them have given enough information on them as to what their issue is with them, so not quite sure what it is you are demanding from this thread

all told - a reasonable summary of the book would be what butchersapron posted on page 1, i.e.

_



			It's journalistic stuff that is basically all the good posts on here and argues that the w/c need more mines and shit jobs
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 22, 2011)

love detective said:


> Off the two specific criticism of the book on this thread that I can see - these are:-
> 
> 1. his choice of people to provide a 'searing indictment of the class system' (while choosing to ignore potentially valuable input on the on the ground experience of, and difficulties faced by, organisations literally down the road from him who have spent the best part of the last two decades working towards a more effective working class political representation.


 If you had actually read the book properly you would find he does talk to people who live and work in working class  communities. You're just bitter because he doesn't mention or  give free publicity to your irrelevant ultra left sect - the IWCA.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2011)

Odd that Jones himself feels he should have interviewed the IWCA for the book then.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that Jones himself feels he should have interviewed the IWCA for the book then.


maybe he did. But I'm glad that in the end he didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2011)

Well he's not. But what would he know eh? I like the way you've moved from speaking on behalf of the writer and the book into telling him how he should have done it. Such a small but telling slippage. Fits in with your earlier accusations of people not having read the book when you hadn't, and then when shown to be wrong accusing them of not reading the book _properly_.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well he's not. But what would he know eh? I like the way you've moved from speaking on behalf of the writer and the book into telling him how he should have done it. Such a small but telling slippage. Fits in with your earlier accusations of people not having read the book when you hadn't, and then when shown to be wrong accusing them of not reading the book _properly_.


I've not spoken on his behalf. I've defended the book and it's author against some of the straw man arguments made against him by you and your IWCA friends, but I've never claimed to speak on behalf of comrade Owen Jones. I have some disagreements with the contents of the book, but I still think it's an important work because of the debates that it's generated in the mainstream media and in the meetings that have been held to discuss the book


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 22, 2011)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I've not spoken on behalf on him. I've defended the book and it's author against some of the straw man arguments made against him by you and your IWCA friends, but I've never claimed to speak on behalf of my comrade Owen Jones. I have some disagreements with the contents of the book, but I still think it's an important work because of the debates that it's generated in the mainstream media and in the meetings that have been held to discuss the book



And are you ever going to outline what these strawman arguments are? I've re-read this thread twice now and cannot see you doing this. All i see is you saying people haven't read the book or if they have they've not read it _properly_. That seems to be the entirety of your defence of the content of the book. Nothing about the identity politics based assumptions of the over-arching theme of the book (the w/c need to be treated fairly), not a thing about the crude cultural-workerism of the book (but plenty from you attacking the supposed material workerism of others commenting on the book - a point on which the critics and Jones both agree is pretty important), nothing about the people he uses to illustrate his points being perfect examples of the gap between the institutional/organised left and the w/c (Kinnock, Clare Short, Cruddas etc- and the w/c people interviewed are often union officials or as negative examples of the increasingly rare person who manages to break away from their w/c roots). That's just the obvious stuff.

So what are your disagreements with the book?


----------



## love detective (Sep 22, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> If you had actually read the book properly you would find he does talk to people who live and work in working class communities. You're just bitter because he doesn't mention or give free publicity to your irrelevant ultra left sect - the IWCA.



If you'd actually read the post properly, you'd see I was summarising the two specific criticisms of the book (as opposed to the author) made on this thread by others in response to a request by someone else who was querying what people though was 'wrong' with the book - this was his over use of Johnson and his idealised/romanticised/charactertured view of the working class

Again as butchersapron points out - there's an weird tendency by you and others to accuse people of attacking Owen Jones when all they are doing is repeating and contextualising things that he himself has said/supported - this just leaves his a priori defenders contorting around all over the place - in order to 'defend' him they must attack him

there's certainly no bitterness about him not engaging with the IWCA - at first there was perhaps a bit of bemusement but it soon became perfectly understandable as time went on - and yeah the IWCA is clearly one of the most publicity seeking of groups isn't it - always looking to whore out for anything or anyone (this charge makes a change form the usual accusations of being too secretive, guarded, closed etc..)


----------



## temper_tantrum (Sep 22, 2011)

love detective said:


> this thread, in addition to his own class background, has been mainly a discussion about the contradiction between what he says and what he does



Precisement, ma petit cherie.

I'm trying to work out if the book is worth reading. Given as it seems easier to read one book than to trawl back over years of internet postings, trying to filter out the gold from the dross, I'd quite like it if it was basically, as you say, a summary of the good posts which have been made on here over the many ages of the world.



> Off the two specific criticism of the book on this thread that I can see - these are:-
> 
> 1. his choice of people to provide a 'searing indictment of the class system'



And therefore I'm interested to know whether the objection is primarily about who they are, or primarily about what they say. Because if they make good points, then it sounds worth reading. If they talk shit, then maybe not.



> ...2. his tendency to hold a outdated/romanticised/idealised/purified notion of the working class that verges on a type of identity politics (which in my opinion is due to the distance between him and his subject matter)



Now that's a half-decent criticism which I can understand, and (if I read the book) use to critically appraise the material in front of me.



> you may disagree with these points



I don't disagree with anyone in particular on here, I just wanted to understand the criticisms of the book's actual content (as opposed to the personal traits of the author or the interviewees, or various other things which have come up on here). I wanted to understand this so that I could work out whether I should bother to obtain and read it.
So far, it sounds as though it's broadly worth reading, with the class caveat you stated above. Anyone disagree?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2011)

The first point has already been clarified a number of times on this thread. His choice of people to illustrate his wider points reflects a distance from the w/c that  mirrors the distance that he mentions that he feels himself due to his relatively privileged background - something he himself repeatedly points out on his website and in the book. It's not what they _say_ - their accuracy or not, it what they _represent_ and what this means about the sort of network that Jones is embedded in - the context of the book and its arguments. The thing opens with a description of a dinner party that is intended to illustrate that the author inhabits a world of relative social privilege. He hammers this point home throughout the book, his interviews and examples are based on the operation of this social privilege. Someone like Rachael Johnson or Neil Kinnock are not there by accident, and people not there are not there (not) by accident either - that's the point.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Sep 22, 2011)

Yeah, I get that point - it was also well-put in your above post, which was written while I was writing mine: 'the people he uses to illustrate his points being perfect examples of the gap between the institutional/organised left and the w/c (Kinnock, Clare Short, Cruddas etc- and the w/c people interviewed are often union officials or as negative examples of the increasingly rare person who manages to break away from their w/c roots)'.
Still trying to work out if it's worth buying and reading though. Is there another book which does much the same, but without the problems in Jones' work?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 23, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Still trying to work out if it's worth buying and reading though.


In this vid recorded at a recent CPGB event he talks about the book and explains his motivations for writing it, maybe that will help you decide if you want to read it or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2012)

This has come out in germany with the title _proles. _Really_. _Could you get the thing more wrong?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 4, 2012)

came across this review that offers an interesting insight into how the book has been received by the liberal middle classes: http://internationaltimes.it/chavs/

perhaps shows the danger of the lack of authenticity and deeper political analysis in books like this


----------



## Nice one (Aug 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> came across this review that offers an interesting insight into how the book has been received by the liberal middle classes: http://internationaltimes.it/chavs/
> 
> perhaps shows the danger of the lack of authenticity and deeper political analysis in books like this


 
_Many of the most astounding artists in modern Britain used benefits as a way of developing their creativity. The reggae band U.B.40 are an obvious case in point.  _


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This has come out in germany with the title _proles. _Really_. _Could you get the thing more wrong?


 

do you mean the exact same book, is is transferable, do the germans have the same issues?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 6, 2012)

It's not likely that he is going to rewrite it with a look at the German situation is it? Of course it will just be a direct translation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not likely that he is going to rewrite it with a look at the German situation is it? Of course it will just be a direct translation.


No, treelover's right.

yer man is writing a complete new book for the german market and there's been interest shown from countries as diverse as turkmenistan and paraguay.


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

In terms of Germany, they have the brutal Hartz 4 laws where unemployed people are forced into 'one euro jobs' and now a plus version where officials have the right to enter houses, etc, now when did that happen before in Germany?

http://www.ignant.de/2012/07/24/win-hartz-iv-mobel-com/

btw, just come across this a 'hartz 4 chair'

is it satire?, don't speak German..


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2012)

owen" said:
			
		

> Rachael Johnson may not seem the most likely person to offer a searing indictment of the class system. But that is what she does. What we have seen, she argues, 'are the middle classes sort of sailing into the jobs, taking all the glittering prizes as a result of their contacts and peer group.'


 
 Introducing The Mail on Sunday's brilliant new columnist: Rachel Johnson


----------

