Fuck Gentrification - Join the Fuck Parade...Part 3!

[stethoscope]

Protection of property and profit, innit. All the rest is handwavey fight for Corbyn shit.

Oh aye. As I say, it's really illuminating as to what's really important in some people's eyes. This is the outcome of 30+ years of neo-liberalism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Can you go over it one more time for me please? I don't understand.

yes

 

[cesare]

Not sure if self employed is MC as you're still selling your labour but to clients rather than a boss.

I suppose I draw a distinction between petit bourgeois and MC, probably mistakenly. I'm not really a Marxist, have some interesting conversations about how Marx' theory would have developed if he'd been based in Birmingham instead at that time. Less factory/production based and more emphasis on reproduction. But yeah, I sell my labour but I try and get more than I'm worth, and turn the labour-exploitation model around.

 

[mauvais]

Edit: So, to illustrate, I'm petit bourgeois becuase I work for myself. But if I start employing someone and making a profit from their labour, I exploit their labour. I can do that in a fairly small way such as tradespeople like painters and decorators do. Or I can do it in a way where I want to expand, get more shops, employ more people. But you misunderstand C66's reaction. He wasn't saying that there's an absolute line drawn at owning a shop (which is how you're misrepresenting it). He was laughing at the idea that shop owners could be positioned as working class. Even the cafe owners themselves don't say that, they just always mention that they come from working class roots.

I'm not taking particular issue with C66 or that comment - it's just a comment that felt like it represents a divisive and isolationist trend throughout this thread and indeed 'movement', where we're encouraged to hunker down and go fight the most local source of discontent. I might be wrong about the comment but it doesn't really matter. And I don't even care if shop owners fit the term or not. It's still the wrong battlefield.

Gentrification is a top down flow that's only experienced at the bottom. It's fundamental mechanisms like property development, property speculation, the interests of large capital and various other ills, but manifested and experienced as hipsters taking over. So what good is fighting the symptoms, or retreating into some political definition? What are you ultimately going to argue, that people shouldn't want to live in nice places and have nice things? Or have shops? It's just the joke about religious denominations, but with some vague class cartoon instead, not even anything meaningfully representing wealth and power. Almost all the same problems in common but push him off the bridge because he shops in the wrong supermarket.

So it's funny to me that people raise the strawman of people not protesting public service cuts, or housing problems, but then apparently want us to spend the effort turning on our neighbours and would-be-peers over their, what, existence, instead? Good luck with that.

And you and PM can slap each other on the back all you like, and quote more times that I can keep up with, and maybe I have indeed missed some greater point altogether, who knows, but it seems like a right load of misdirected shit to me.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not taking particular issue with C66 or that comment - it's just a comment that felt like it represents a divisive and isolationist trend throughout this thread and indeed 'movement', where we're encouraged to hunker down and go fight the most local source of discontent. I might be wrong about the comment but it doesn't really matter. And I don't even care if shop owners fit the term or not. It's still the wrong battlefield.

Gentrification is a top down flow that's only experienced at the bottom. It's fundamental mechanisms like property development, property speculation, the interests of large capital and various other ills, but manifested and experienced as hipsters taking over. So what good is fighting the symptoms, or retreating into some political definition? What are you ultimately going to argue, that people shouldn't want to live in nice places and have nice things? Or have shops? It's just the joke about religious denominations, but with some vague class cartoon instead, not even anything meaningfully representing wealth and power. Almost all the same problems in common but push him off the bridge because he shops in the wrong supermarket.

So it's funny to me that people raise the strawman of people not protesting public service cuts, or housing problems, but then apparently want us to spend the effort turning on our neighbours and would-be-peers over their, what, existence, instead? Good luck with that.

And you and PM can slap each other on the back all you like, and quote more times that I can keep up with, and maybe I have indeed missed some greater point altogether, who knows, but it seems like a right load of misdirected shit to me.

you have if you think gentrification's a top down flow only experienced at the bottom.

 

[belboid]

Not sure if self employed is MC as you're still selling your labour but to clients rather than a boss.

it would be utterly stupid to define self-employed as middle class. One in seven workers is now officially self-employed, the idea that they are all middle class is plainly ridiculous. A large percentage will be that pseudo-self-employed, whereby they cant get an employees contract but will actually be under the direction and control of an employer (eg Yodel drivers, lots of sparks on sites). Some of them may even employ a worker or two, but there relation to them means of production hasn't really changed. When it comes to shop ownership.....it still depends to an extent. Something like my local paper shop, or the cafe down the road, the owners are in essentially the same position as their customers, similar income, similar, housing, similar lifestyle. There is a significant difference between them and employees, but not really a fundamental one.

It is a bit different if you are going to swan into an area and provide a service to the tourists rather than the locals - you are then not a part of that 'community' (for want of a better world) and will probably see yourself as being different, and will behave in a fundamentally different manner.

 

[Pickman's model]

it would be utterly stupid to define self-employed as middle class. One in seven workers is now officially self-employed, the idea that they are all middle class is plainly ridiculous. A large percentage will be that pseudo-self-employed, whereby they cant get an employees contract but will actually be under the direction and control of an employer (eg Yodel drivers, lots of sparks on sites). Some of them may even employ a worker or two, but there relation to them means of production hasn't really changed. When it comes to shop ownership.....it still depends to an extent. Something like my local paper shop, or the cafe down the road, the owners are in essentially the same position as their customers, similar income, similar, housing, similar lifestyle. There is a significant difference between them and employees, but not really a fundamental one.

It is a bit different if you are going to swan into an area and provide a service to the tourists rather than the locals - you are then not a part of that 'community' (for want of a better world) and will probably see yourself as being different, and will behave in a fundamentally different manner.

once you employ a manager and 12 staff i think it's fairly clear what you are.

 

[cesare]

Oh aye. As I say, it's really illuminating as to what's really important in some people's eyes. This is the outcome of 30+ years of neo-liberalism.

I agree. We'll be accused of slapping each other on the back in a minute.

 

[mauvais]

you have if you think gentrification's a top down flow only experienced at the bottom.

Illustrative as always. Do you get charged per word?

What else is it? Who makes the money from it, and who experiences the loss?

I agree. We'll be accused of slapping each other on the back in a minute.

You've spent more time talking about me than to me.

 

[cesare]

You've spent more time talking about me than to me.

Oh well.

 

[belboid]

Gentrification is a top down flow that's only experienced at the bottom. It's fundamental mechanisms like property development, property speculation, the interests of large capital and various other ills, but manifested and experienced as hipsters taking over. So what good is fighting the symptoms, or retreating into some political definition? What are you ultimately going to argue, that people shouldn't want to live in nice places and have nice things? Or have shops? It's just the joke about religious denominations, but with some vague class cartoon instead, not even anything meaningfully representing wealth and power. Almost all the same problems in common but push him off the bridge because he shops in the wrong supermarket.

it isn't all top down tho, the process does require that a smaller layer of 'gentrifiers' also moves in to provide the niche services that the middle class incomers want, but that the big corps are far too distant to recognise, or are just too specialist for them to risk. So the big money advertises the falts and the cars, while the smaller ones bring artisanal carrots and tapestries made by peruvian social workers. After all ,the new MC's dont like big corporations, so the little drivers of gentrification are almost as important as the Foxtons.


btw - anyone see Lisa McKenzie on Newsnight last night? Sadly, she was crap.

 

[belboid]

once you employ a manager and 12 staff i think it's fairly clear what you are.

have they got 12 staff? Jesus. Well, I daresay they wont do for long. Altho this publicity will give them an extra few months

 

[Pickman's model]

What else is it? Who makes the money from it, and who experiences the loss?

if you think it's all about money then you don't understand it at all. it is about power, it is about community, it is about class, it is about the right to the city, to use lefebvre's term. while money enters into it it is not by any means the sole factor. why don't you have a look at the fuck parade's callout and then have a think and then come back.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've spent more time talking about me than to me.

you get a more meaningful and enjoyable discussion that way

 

[cesare]

once you employ a manager and 12 staff i think it's fairly clear what you are.

I don't think even the cafe owners are disputing that they're business people, looking to expansion, opening new premises and employing staff. Their sudden positioning as hand-to-mouth-no-property-to their name, isn't coming from them, it's been thrown into the mix (in this instance) by mauvais.

 

[DotCommunist]

have they got 12 staff? Jesus. Well, I daresay they wont do for long. Altho this publicity will give them an extra few months

2 shops. Six per shop seems excessive tho. How hard can it be to bowl up cereal and work a till

 

[brogdale]

Last night's 'Newsnight' at 33.35 = discussion with Juliet Hartly-Brewer & Lisa Mckenzie.

JHB spins the 'there is no social cleansing from social housing' line that some on here appear to subscribe to. Have to say Lisa did not seem at her best, though.

 

[Pickman's model]

Last night's 'Newsnight' at 33.35 = discussion with Juliet Hartly-Brewer & Lisa Mckenzie.

JHB spins the 'there is no social cleansing from social housing' line that some on here appear to subscribe to. Have to say Lisa did not seem at her best, though.

even lm can have an off day

 

[brogdale]

btw - anyone see Lisa McKenzie on Newsnight last night? Sadly, she was crap.

Just posted link.

 

[cesare]

it isn't all top down tho, the process does require that a smaller layer of 'gentrifiers' also moves in to provide the niche services that the middle class incomers want, but that the big corps are far too distant to recognise, or are just too specialist for them to risk. So the big money advertises the falts and the cars, while the smaller ones bring artisanal carrots and tapestries made by peruvian social workers. After all ,the new MC's dont like big corporations, so the little drivers of gentrification are almost as important as the Foxtons.


btw - anyone see Lisa McKenzie on Newsnight last night? Sadly, she was crap.

I didn't see Lisa McKenzie last night but I'm not surprised if she was off her game. Amidst the liberal handwringing, they're also trying to destroy her life and think nothing of it.

 

[mauvais]

it isn't all top down tho, the process does require that a smaller layer of 'gentrifiers' also moves in to provide the niche services that the middle class incomers want, but that the big corps are far too distant to recognise, or are just too specialist for them to risk. So the big money advertises the falts and the cars, while the smaller ones bring artisanal carrots and tapestries made by peruvian social workers. After all ,the new MC's dont like big corporations, so the little drivers of gentrification are almost as important as the Foxtons.

Fair point. It's largely proportionate to existing wealth, though, and with further opportunities for consolidation and flow of wealth upwards, e.g. lending, speculation etc. So at most, it creates a space and a demand, but almost exclusively one for those who can already afford to live in and service it. And what I mean by only experienced at the bottom is, from the perspective of living somewhere as it happens, whatever class you are, that you don't see any of that, you only see things like displacement, the generic high street, the appearance of hipsters, etc - who play their part but are a symptom.

 

[brogdale]

I didn't see Lisa McKenzie last night but I'm not surprised if she was off her game. Amidst the liberal handwringing, they're also trying to destroy her life and think nothing of it.

Always difficult to play your 'game' on their 'turf'.

 

[chilango]

F

Real world divisions shouldn't need any illustration. The current trend of accelerating wealth consolidation and the joys of "trickle down" economics, at various different levels from the corporate to the individual landlord. Where you draw the most important line is up to you, but I suggest it's not at the fairly arbitrary, low point of whether someone can run a shop or not.

The latter doesn't tell you a thing about net wealth, or the flow of wealth. You can have paid off the mortgage on what is now a £n00,000 house, or for that matter be paying much less than the market rate in rent, and noone bat an eyelid at your class credentials. But be permanently mired in private renting yet put up a few grand in cash on a shit business idea that the bank shouldn't have supported and is ultimately going to bankrupt you, and you're the bourgeoisie. It's a useless measure.

Fwiw, two points.

First, owning a house outright would IMO put you in the ranks of the m/c on the simple grounds that you then have access to a supply of capital (via the sale of your house) that means you are not dependent upon selling you labour in order to survive.

But...

...my second point is that being m/c or w/c is not (or should not) be some sort of value judgement, merely an indicator as to a) where your material interests will lie and b) what the nature of your economic power is.

Once people start to talk about cultural or moral aspects we become lost in a mire.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fair point. It's largely proportionate to existing wealth, though, and with further opportunities for consolidation and flow of wealth upwards, e.g. lending, speculation etc. So at most, it creates a space and a demand, but almost exclusively one for those who can already afford to live in and service it. And what I mean by only experienced at the bottom is, from the perspective of living somewhere as it happens, whatever class you are, that you don't see any of that, you only see things like displacement, the generic high street, the appearance of hipsters, etc - who play their part but are a symptom.

not the bottom, the frontline

 

[belboid]

Always difficult to play your 'game' on their 'turf'.

would have been better if LM had told her to fuck off and that she [LM] wasn't 'a lady,' but hey ho

 

[brogdale]

would have been better if LM had told her to fuck off and that she [LM] wasn't 'a lady,' but hey ho

Exactly. Their 'turf'.

 

[belboid]

F


Fwiw, two points.

First, owning a house outright would IMO put you in the ranks of the m/c on the simple grounds that you then have access to a supply of capital (via the sale of your house) that means you are not dependent upon selling you labour in order to survive.

really? So pensioners who've paid off their house, but are otherwise on state benefits are MC? Also, by your logic, anyone with a mortgage on a house in London would be MC, as they could flog it and have the capital to live quite happily up north. hmmm...

 

[cesare]

really? So pensioners who've paid off their house, but are otherwise on state benefits are MC? Also, by your logic, anyone with a mortgage on a house in London would be MC, as they could flog it and have the capital to live quite happily up north. hmmm...

Having access to a supply of capital (of whatever kind, and there's more than just financial capital as we know) doesn't = owning the means of production.

 

[belboid]

Having access to a supply of capital (of whatever kind, and there's more than just financial capital as we know) doesn't = owning the means of production.

quite

 

[newbie]

F


Fwiw, two points.

First, owning a house outright would IMO put you in the ranks of the m/c on the simple grounds that you then have access to a supply of capital (via the sale of your house) that means you are not dependent upon selling you labour in order to survive.

I think your point is necessarily true, but, of course, on that basis what separates a w/c home owner and a m/c one is simply having spent the full 25 years paying off a mortgage, ie age.

Let's face it, any home owner can sell and have access to capital, or can borrow against their asset. So is m/c.

It's complicated, our modern society, isn't it?