When “economically” do you stop being working-class……?

[Random]

useful to describe what and to advance what political action?

For example, certain newspapers in the UK advance a certain self-conscious middle class political identity.

 

[bruise]

do you think there's a measure of agreement about how to define the term? do you think it incorporates or is distinct from "upper class" "petty-b" and "professional" for example? do you think it indicates a genuine and distinctly different economic/political interest between m/c and w/c people? what do you think is the point of the insistance on the distinction in popular culture? where do you place 'foremen/women' - are they m/c or w/c? how do you work towards combined political action and cross-"class" identification?

 

[Random]

do you think there's a measure of agreement about how to define the term?

No, not at all, it's a complete mish mash and minefield.

do you think it indicates a genuine and distinctly different economic/political interest between m/c and w/c people?

I'm not sure what you'd consider a 'genuine' economic difference. In many parts of UK society middle class ways of behaving allow people to rise to the top, or gain access to resources (e.g. success in schools, or in using the NHS).

what do you think is the point of the insistance on the distinction in popular culture?

I think it has its roots in the UK being what George Orwell called 'the most class ridden country under the sun', with a preoccupation in miniscule differences in status. The fact, however, that there are many important differences, and these have an impact on health and lifespan, means we can't just throw it out the window.

where do you place 'foremen/women' - are they m/c or w/c?

I'd say a forewo/man could have worked their way up into the job and yet die of heart disease at the age of 59 due to their class background. Their children could become middle class, of course. These days, however, upward class mobility is pretty rare.

how do you work towards combined political action and cross-"class" identification?

Crossing merely cultural class distinctions is easier than crossing material ones, in my opinion. I reckon that the vast majority of people have very similar class interests and common ground is there in many many cases.

 

[Epicurus]

The world is increasingly complex and working, middle and ruling classes fail to really capture the dynamic accurately. Its a big problem for organising class based movements in the relative wealth of the west.

This is kind of what I’m getting at.

i understand "professional" as being a group that controls the entry to their own profession which is regulated by organisations they set up themselves (i'd include solicitors and consultants in this group, but not teachers, being one, we long ago lost any control over our so-called 'profession' and many would say we've been "proletarianised" - lovely term). So "professional" is a narrowly defined and numerically small number in a select few occupations with clout. Not the same as what is meant by 'middle class' at all.

i don't understand "middle class" as anything other than a little Englander distinction between white and blue collar workers. can anyone point to anything at all in Marx or following thinkers that explains and defines "middle class"? i don't think you will be able to.

That is why I didn’t mention Marx in the OP.

I’m not English so I don’t think I can be a little Englander, but I am confused, as I say above from my reading of English Social history (or British social history in many cases) it is/was very clear what class people were in prior to the 1960’s (and even easily prior to then), so lets forget all about Marx and look at the real world of Britian today.


Can someone who says they are fighting for the working-class please explain to me what they mean by the term in that context?

Just quoting what Marx said isn't as relevent today as when he wrote it as the world has moved on and I feel people are using it to avaid the issues in the OP

 

[Random]

Its just been pointed out to me by my secret Marian advisor that Charlie himself did use the ter a great deal, viz http://tinyurl.com/yhv762

 

[TremulousTetra]

Monkeygrinder’s Organ: Thanks for the above but I think it says far more about them than it says about me


What I’m trying to get at is this; I read lots on here and other boards about “class” politics’, but I just can’t seem to get a definition from anyone who says they fight for the working-class as to what in the UK today constitutes “Working-class”.

The lines seem to be very blurred nowadays compared to pre 1960’s, I like to read about British social history and looking back it is very clear who is working-class, middle-class and upper-class.

From what I have read it would seem that your employment, if you were waged or salaried, what your parents were and other factors made it very clear to people what class they were (and nothing to do with Marx’s definition), today things are not so cut and dry.

My own view is that Marx lived in a time when dividing lines were much clearer than they are today and also that class in the UK has never been decided by his definition, but by social status.

From reading the above it would seem that there is no modern definition so the term seems to have become redundant other than for people who use the Marxist definition.

(is it possible that we could come to some consensus on this thread as to what in today’s Britain makes someone working-class?)

In Brazil it is much more easy as there is rich and poor in varying degrees, there was a growing “middle-class” but that was sort of cut dead when the Government took all their savings as a lone (never repaid) and left many homeless and with no means of support (The Government took almost all the saving that people had in the bank and left them with the equivalent of about £200. Interest rates were very high and many people sold their houses because they found they could rent somewhere much cheaper and could also live on the interest of they capital they raised from the sale of their homes, I my view a foolish thing to do, but I understand the same thing happened here in the late 80’s or early 90’s except the government didn’t steal their capital.

First of all SW does not fight for the working class, but as part of the working class. We fight because it is in our class interest to do so. That is an important distinction.

Secondly, I am very happy to define the working class, have done many times.
The ruling class are those who own and control the means of production in any epoch of society. So in slave society those who own and control the slaves are the ruling class. In feudal society Church and the Kings who owned and controlled the land were the ruling class. In capitalism the ruling class own the means of production, factories, the land etc. This is how Marx looked a class, the concept of class was a tool with which to understand the interactions and relationships between groups of people in various forms of society/modes of production, over millennia. It was a mental tool with which to study social evolution. If that is what you wish to study, Marx's theories on social evolution are as relevant today as Charles Darwins theories of natural evolution in my opinion. Yes both Marx and Darwins theories have been evolved by later advocates, but they are still the giants upon whose shoulders we stand to see so far. I personally feel I could not make any sense of the past 200,000 years of human development without the concept of class.

The working-class have only existed within capitalism. We, as a social group have a unique relationship to the means of production compared to any other historical Epochs. We are those whose only means of survival is to sell our labour, we have no control over the means of production in the production process, and no control over our work process or over the work process of others.

Lastly, at the edges the situation has always been blurred, this was as true in the time of Marx as it is today. This does not negate the model imo.

IF, IF you want to make sense of history then I think this webpage and in particular this speech, Fall of the Roman Empire 1993 FAULKNER Neil, would give you an idea of how useful a tool the concept of class is in the study of social evolution. Not only that, but other webpages on that site will give you an idea of how useful a concept class is as a guide to action in the present, and the potential for society to evolve or dissolve in the future, in my humble opinion.

 

[Epicurus]

First of all SW does not fight for the working class, but as part of the working class. We fight because it is in our class interest to do so. That is an important distinction.

Secondly, I am very happy to define the working class, have done many times.
The ruling class are those who own and control the means of production in any epoch of society. So in slave society those who own and control the slaves are the ruling class. In feudal society Church and the Kings who owned and controlled the land were the ruling class. In capitalism the ruling class own the means of production, factories, the land etc. This is how Marx looked a class, the concept of class was a tool with which to understand the interactions and relationships between groups of people in various forms of society/modes of production, over millennia. It was a mental tool with which to study social evolution. If that is what you wish to study, Marx's theories on social evolution are as relevant today as Charles Darwins theories of natural evolution in my opinion. Yes both Marx and Darwins theories have been evolved by later advocates, but they are still the giants upon whose shoulders we stand to see so far. I personally feel I could not make any sense of the past 200,000 years of human development without the concept of class.

The working-class have only existed within capitalism. We, as a social group have a unique relationship to the means of production compared to any other historical Epochs. We are those whose only means of survival is to sell our labour, we have no control over the means of production in the production process, and no control over our work process or over the work process of others.

Lastly, at the edges the situation has always been blurred, this was as true in the time of Marx as it is today. This does not negate the model imo.

IF, IF you want to make sense of history then I think this webpage and in particular this speech, Fall of the Roman Empire 1993 FAULKNER Neil, would give you an idea of how useful a tool the concept of class is in the study of social evolution. Not only that, but other webpages on that site will give you an idea of how useful a concept class is as a guide to action in the present, and the potential for society to evolve or dissolve in the future, in my humble opinion.

I think I’m not explaining myself very well here, I understand Marx but I am finding it hard to understand working-class politics’ in today’s Britain.

When I say I don’t think it is relevant today I’m talking about with the vast majority of “working-Class” people, (I understand that living in London I have a very different view of the UK that most as this seems to be where about 75% of the wealth is).

I can’t see many anarchist or socialists working to improve the living standards or conditions of the people I talk about in the opening post and I’m not really talking about Marx but the divides in the British class system.

It seems to me that most people knew what class they were in the pre 1960 but today those lines have been blurred so much that many working-class people are better off financially than many middle-class people, that being the case I question the relevance of “working-class politics’”, who is it directed at in today’s Britain?

I’m sure if we were sitting together I’d be able to explain myself better



SW is Socialist Workers party isn’t it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think I’m not explaining myself very well here, I understand Marx but I am finding it hard to understand working-class politics’ in today’s Britain.

When I say I don’t think it is relevant today I’m talking about with the vast majority of “working-Class” people, (I understand that living in London I have a very different view of the UK that most as this seems to be where about 75% of the wealth is).

I can’t see many anarchist or socialists working to improve the living standards or conditions of the people I talk about in the opening post and I’m not really talking about Marx but the divides in the British class system.

It seems to me that most people knew what class they were in the pre 1960 but today those lines have been blurred so much that many working-class people are better off financially than many middle-class people, that being the case I question the relevance of “working-class politics’”, who is it directed at in today’s Britain?

I’m sure if we were sitting together I’d be able to explain myself better



SW is Socialist Workers party isn’t it?

if you want to give me PM with a telephone number I am quite happy to ring you.

Yes, I think people are unclear what particular angle you are coming from you. On your latest post. You are really talking about people's consciousness, yes? Whether people are aware that they are working class, yes?

I do not think the situation is so black and white as you would paint. I think people are still aware what class they are in, however, as someone above said, things are not as crystal clear as they have been at other times in history (I would probably say the 1970s was possibly clearer than the 1960s). This is because as someone said above there has been a particularly low level of industrial/class struggle. (struggle is the shorthand for going on strike, demanding legislation to make working conditions etc better, and basically fighting for better terms conditions and wages. PS I am not being condescending, I'm still not exactly clear where you are coming from, what you have read etc.) People having awareness does not negate the fact that they are working class, or that class still impinges upon their life experience. And it would be totally accurate to say in some of the days in which Karl Marx lived if you had been alive you would not have been able to "see many anarchist or socialists working to improve the living standards or conditions of the people".

What I am TRYING to say I suppose is, anarchists and socialists are painfully aware of what you are pointing to, but we are also aware that this ebb in class struggle is nothing new to capitalism. They have been talking about the disappearance of the working class since Carl Marx's day. They have been pointing to similar ebbs in the class struggle as proof of their thesis. They were wrong then, and they are wrong today in my opinion.

you should really check out the website I gave you, that site can answer many of your questions, and many you haven't asked yet.

edited to add this. In a survey, in 2002 two thirds of Britain's considered themselves working class and proud of it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,778220,00.html

 

[bruise]

Its just been pointed out to me by my secret Marian advisor that Charlie himself did use the ter a great deal, viz http://tinyurl.com/yhv762

which just confuses me further - cos Freddie boy uses the term 'capitalist middle class' as being synonymous with the newly emerging bourgeoisie (in contradistinction to the old landed gentry) which is not at all the current use of the term.

for example here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/08/06.htm

but also in other articles - like Prussia needing one to overthrow the old Junker class.

 

[undesirable]

I understand your point, but the Marxist definition of class was written many years ago, is it still relevant today in the developed world?

In the sense that the working class still dont own the means of production, yes.

But i'd say class lines have shifted a little, class structure has become more complex, line managers on 15k a year may be able to hire and fire, emloyees are given a tiny, tiny share of their companies ownership in the form of shares, manual labour has been replaced by service sector/office work as the primary source of employment.

Never the less the basic principles of being working class; having to sell your labour in order to keep your head above water, not owning the means of production (both physical production and in terms of capital, eg not owning a workforce) having work imposed on you, all remain. The fact remains that very few people have complete control over their own lives and other peoples lives, very few people can afford to stop working (this has been made harder by the JSA and the prevalence of debt), if anything the working class has grown as more and more peoples economic situation becomes fractious and unstable.

Of course you can still earn 40k a year and be working class if you dont own any means of production/dont have the ability to hire and fire etc etc.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Did I stop being middle class during the 8 years when I was dole scum? What about the 2 years I spent working full time, but still on benefits, because my pay was so crap? No-one who has met me would describe me as "working class".

I don't think income is directly related to "class" at all, and I don't think one goes in and out of classes depending on how much one gets paid.

So there

 

[Random]

I don't think income is directly related to "class" at all, and I don't think one goes in and out of classes depending on how much one gets paid.

No, not in or our according to income. For example, someone who's cash poor will still usually be treated better by the police if they have a middle class accent. Likewise, maybe cash-poor middle class people have contacts and access to resources which means they're not always going to be poor.

 

[danny la rouge]

Its just been pointed out to me by my secret Marian advisor that Charlie himself did use the ter a great deal,

He id, but over the years he used it to mean different things. Artisans (today, self employed electricians), professionals (teachers, doctors). And the co-ordinating class.