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

[butchersapron]

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]

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]

.

 

[butchersapron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This has come out in germany with the title proles. Really. Could you get the thing more wrong?

 

[smokedout]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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