Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Let's have a class thread! It'll be fun!

A distinctive mode of production, based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Principally, a market economy based on capital accumulation (profit), with a labour process that's exploitative.

what do you mean by private ownership me?

You can have the means of production which is owned completely by shareholders collectively, and many other forms of collective 'ownership' in Capitalist societies.


For me, the collective ownership of the means of production by the church under feudalism, did not in any way negate the feudal mode of production. The church was still taking part in a feudal mode of production. Likewise, the collective control of the means of production in the USSR did not negate a capitalist mode of production.

I'm lead to believe Marx himself gave examples of how the capitalist mode of production did not necessarily need to be held privately, or by a single capitalist.
 
One thing that really did appall me in England when I lived there was this class stuff . Some serious fucking divisions . For all our problems , inequality and snobbery its not nearly as pronounced this side of the pond . Would drive me up thee wall to have to deal with that shit everyday to be frank .
 
Reductionist prattle. 40 percent of Egyptians are illiterate. Have a think about your little island utopian vision Robinson, read some more and take it from there, as I believe there's little point in discussing this any further with you.
Audiotech you're rude. I was contributing here to learn and share. Enjoy whatever it is you're up to.
 
One thing that really did appall me in England when I lived there was this class stuff . Some serious fucking divisions . For all our problems , inequality and snobbery its not nearly as pronounced this side of the pond . Would drive me up thee wall to have to deal with that shit everyday to be frank .

Not even noticeable in the provinces, really. You were here in the olden days (anything pre 1983). I recon.
 
what do you mean by private ownership me?

No, that would be public ownership. Unless you own some cotton mill somewhere?

Shareholders? You might own some stock in a corporation, but you don't own the corporation.

I worked for a declared 'workers co-op' once. The people who ran it were all family members, so in reality it wasn't.
 
Audiotech you're rude. I was contributing here to learn and share.

Do me a favour, putting forward the idea that listening to an mp3 that you've downloaded and watching the news as "life changing" is simply daft and I've learned absolutely nothing from you sharing that.

The world is just the same as before by doing such things, as passively watching and listening. Although, I must point out that the news that you may be watching at the time could be showing others actually acting on the world, with the possibility then of changing their material circumstances and by doing so changing themselves in the process.
 
One thing that really did appall me in England when I lived there was this class stuff . Some serious fucking divisions . For all our problems , inequality and snobbery its not nearly as pronounced this side of the pond . Would drive me up thee wall to have to deal with that shit everyday to be frank .

Where do you live? I always assumed you were in Ireland?
 
I hate class, it is so divisive and yet so apparently sewn into every bit of life in Britain.

I forget whose quote it was but it was said that an Englishman only has to open his mouth or pick up a piece of cultery for half the population to immediately hate him!

And there are so many clues to someone's class, it is not good enough that there are classes without the classes seemingly wanting to create lots of small but significant ways you can recognise what class they are. Idiocy. Worse than Mason's handshakes!

Would it be possible, within three generations to remove class from the country. Teach all kids the same things at school, delete obvious privilidge like private schools. Make everyone hold their cutlery the same, and reduce everyone to the same economic means for a start point of equality.

I bet, just 50 years later we would be back building a new class system, based on what the kids had achieved in their short lives.

Waffling a bit, bit drunk, hope it made some sense.
 
I hate the fact that because of where you were born determines your whole life and trying to overcome this is very difficult here, almost impossible. Class prejudice is rife, but people don't acknowledge this. There's just tinkering at the edges, but people come to believe that huge strides have been made when they haven't. All that's happened is industrial labour has gone to be replaced with a core working in service industries (white collar admin, public and private), a few very well paid jobs in finance, advertising, the media and then there are those on the periphery in insecure, temporary employment to be brought in and dispensed with as and when.
 
Do me a favour, putting forward the idea that listening to an mp3 that you've downloaded and watching the news as "life changing" is simply daft and I've learned absolutely nothing from you sharing that.

The world is just the same as before by doing such things, as passively watching and listening. Although, I must point out that the news that you may be watching at the time could be showing others actually acting on the world, with the possibility then of changing their material circumstances and by doing so changing themselves in the process.
You're misunderstanding me. Deliberately, perhaps. In any case, you seem intent on focussing on the experience of being human, and a consumer of resources, while ignoring all other aspects of existence. This is absurd.

I am trying to encourage you to consider how resources are allocated. If you could for one moment limit your concerns regarding whether or not the big milky tit provides, and have some consideration for different means by which people's needs are genuinely addressed in the real world, we could perhaps talk more sensibly together. But you're going to need to make the enormous leap that comprises recognising authority isn't simply a brutal assertion of power for the purposes of control and limitation. Something a teenager might believe but surely not a mature fellow like yourself. As you say, people act 'on' information. The difference now is that information itself acts 'on' information in many contexts. This is an aspect of the digital paradigm. You might find this heavy reading and have difficulty fitting into an old fashioned conversation about the power that socio-economic strata exert over one another, but why not give it a go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_modelThis is an area that's much considered afaik in analyses of political processes. It is neverrtheless a powerful structural paradigm with increasing significance in the way the world, and human experience of it, are constituted.

Here's a Sardar article you might find helpful. Maybe we need to bring in some accreditted authorities if this discussion is going to prove productive? http://www.riseofthewest.net/thinkers/sardar02.htm
 
If you cannot explain it in ordinary terms that any person who's never heard of Marx let alone Trotsky can get, **** off this thread.
Ok possibly would have phrased it better but pretty well sums up how this thread has gone!

I haven't got a clue what the last few pages have been on about and I dare say 99.99% of people in this country would agree! As much as I agree with the arguments that state money is what prevents left wing propaganda being spread amongst the masses, I think this thread proves that's not the only factor...

Has there ever been a 'King James II' version of Marx produced?


Anyway, I post again as I wondered if there has ever been an attempt to apply these class analyses (either Marx or your own) to individual working class communities to look at power relationships within those communities? I'm thinking in terms of crime and how those who carve out a successful life for themselves by way of crime could be viewed in the same light as big corporations (and the wealthy elite) in terms of wealth and power (albeit on a smaller scale, geographically). I see similar hierarchies as we see in the wider society for class - an upper class who take most of the money and weild all the power (in this case probably an individual); a middle class comprising the employees of the upper class; and a bottom class who are either customers of crime or victims of crime (either way it's their money that whittles its way to the upper class). Has anything like this ever been looked at before? Sound like an interesting topic?
 
I'm thinking in terms of crime and how those who carve out a successful life for themselves by way of crime could be viewed in the same light as big corporations (and the wealthy elite) in terms of wealth and power (albeit on a smaller scale, geographically). I see similar hierarchies as we see in the wider society for class - an upper class who take most of the money and weild all the power (in this case probably an individual); a middle class comprising the employees of the upper class; and a bottom class who are either customers of crime or victims of crime (either way it's their money that whittles its way to the upper class). Has anything like this ever been looked at before? Sound like an interesting topic?
Sure. That's what they mean when they talk about The Firm
220px-The_Firm_2009_film.jpg

Or this
00000752.jpg


Power and management/protection of it. Though you could also say that making films like this undermines the capacity of the population to actually take up arms and act because they turn the sense of injustice into a product, and glamourise it so that 'lower orders' feel more motivated to identify with the 'heroes' (winners) and get a bit of their action/cash/power/authority/birds/respect. That's a clever strategy. Opium of the masses and all that.
 
Ok possibly would have phrased it better but pretty well sums up how this thread has gone!

I haven't got a clue what the last few pages have been on about and I dare say 99.99% of people in this country would agree! As much as I agree with the arguments that state money is what prevents left wing propaganda being spread amongst the masses, I think this thread proves that's not the only factor...

Has there ever been a 'King James II' version of Marx produced?


Anyway, I post again as I wondered if there has ever been an attempt to apply these class analyses (either Marx or your own) to individual working class communities to look at power relationships within those communities? I'm thinking in terms of crime and how those who carve out a successful life for themselves by way of crime could be viewed in the same light as big corporations (and the wealthy elite) in terms of wealth and power (albeit on a smaller scale, geographically). I see similar hierarchies as we see in the wider society for class - an upper class who take most of the money and weild all the power (in this case probably an individual); a middle class comprising the employees of the upper class; and a bottom class who are either customers of crime or victims of crime (either way it's their money that whittles its way to the upper class). Has anything like this ever been looked at before? Sound like an interesting topic?

There's an interesting study on the economics of drug-dealing, based on participant-observation style research (and financial records for a gang going back years). Those higher up keep more money because the lackeys need to be kept aiming for much better. Gun crime is a part of it, but the big dealers contain it because badly paid lackeys don't stand around on street corners if it makes them too easy a target. Lots of 'illogic of capitalism' stuff in there, I think.

It's summarised in Freakonomics, or possibly Super-Freakonomics. I've not dug out the original study yet.
 
Operations of power and vested interests is also covered by Adam Curtis here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/

Hell you can even watch his series starting next Monday on the BBC.
One of his main theses is that networks don't empower, they disempower.
They are no match for vested interests. Fair enough. Marx rules.

A progressive stance from here is:
a) stop thinking about little people against very powerful vested interests
b) start thinking about the many processes in which every person is involved - politically in their every day lives, materially in terms of the multitasking that life now requires, legislatively in terms of the number of different and sometimes conflicting rights and duties people have towards one another under the law etc
c) contemporary digital paradigms and technologies disempower what Marx called the working class. Apparent access to resources produces the myth that 'we're all middle class these days'. Which is of course bollox. If anything, we're more 'working class' - the gap between rich and poor has widened massively. Chances of stepping up as a bourgeois are reduced. In fact its hard to get any access to the kinds of resources enjoyed by the very rich/powerful
d) until rich and powerful interests depend on the same networks that subjugate the rest of us - or what Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser describes as 'interpellates' citizens into political positions that they can only resist but not determine - the ruling elite will continue to hold sway over everyone else.

And the poor these days in 'developed' countries are massively poor. Cut away from access to traditional communities, resources and values because even an entry level working class person spends time away from their community, and is more likely to do a faceless, unskilled job than ever before. The 'working class' were privileged by comparison with the New Poor. Who's population circulates through jails, acute mental health wards and Courts. That's a very big number these days.

Maybe one good thing is that the bourgeois have been kicked in the teeth. Chattering classes talking bollox. The only peeps that listen to them are other chatterers.
 
You're misunderstanding me. Deliberately, perhaps. In any case, you seem intent on focussing on the experience of being human, and a consumer of resources, while ignoring all other aspects of existence. This is absurd.

I am trying to encourage you to consider how resources are allocated. If you could for one moment limit your concerns regarding whether or not the big milky tit provides, and have some consideration for different means by which people's needs are genuinely addressed in the real world, we could perhaps talk more sensibly together. But you're going to need to make the enormous leap that comprises recognising authority isn't simply a brutal assertion of power for the purposes of control and limitation. Something a teenager might believe but surely not a mature fellow like yourself. As you say, people act 'on' information. The difference now is that information itself acts 'on' information in many contexts. This is an aspect of the digital paradigm. You might find this heavy reading and have difficulty fitting into an old fashioned conversation about the power that socio-economic strata exert over one another, but why not give it a go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_modelThis is an area that's much considered afaik in analyses of political processes. It is neverrtheless a powerful structural paradigm with increasing significance in the way the world, and human experience of it, are constituted.

Here's a Sardar article you might find helpful. Maybe we need to bring in some accreditted authorities if this discussion is going to prove productive? http://www.riseofthewest.net/thinkers/sardar02.htm

Resources are allocated through the price mechanism and?
 
I understood them, but my thought pattern, or paradigm.......................................<blip>...................'''''''''''............'''''''''''................<thud!>
Look mate here's a fiver. Now be a good lad 'n go buy yourself a packet of paradigms.

Enjoy yerself! ;)

& Stay safe yeah?
 
Back
Top Bottom