The working class as a "class for itself"

[sptme]

I'm trying to understand Marx in a bit more detail. As I understand him so far he says the working class is made into a class "in itself" due to the objective conditions of exploitation. ie of capitalist taking surplus value from people's labour as profit.
At some point, somehow due to the increase in exploitation the working class becomes self aware of it's exploitation and fights back. When it form this class consciousness it becomes a "class for itself" and can take control of the means of production and end capitalism.

Have I could Marx right so far?
And if so, how come the working class hasn't become a "class for itself"? is capitalist ideology just too powerful? what would it look like if the working class was a class for itself? how would that be expressed in terms of organisation? how do they decide what's in their interest and how do they act collectively as a whole class? What about other social oppressions like race and sex that people identify with, does that stop the working class acting as a whole, for itself?
And thoughts or reading on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[VfromtheG]

As far as I am aware, Marx was wrong and should have listened to Bakunin .

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

www.marxists.org

IMO he filled the gaps in his libertarian theory (believing that the wc have to be cultured by a specialised class)with authoritarianism which led to terrible red bureaucracies and so on.
Edit:
I did not mean to say cultured by a special class, more cultured to the specifications of Marx's theory, that is his phase like conception of human industrial and ethical development, which I do not find very scientific.
I prefer the notion that we have within our instincts the language of organisation and we don't have to jump through phases of industrial society to get down to the revolution, which is necessary for survival right now, but thats just my opinion.

 

[yield]

And if so, how come the working class hasn't become a "class for itself"? is capitalist ideology just too powerful? what would it look like if the working class was a class for itself? how would that be expressed in terms of organisation? how do they decide what's in their interest and how do they act collectively as a whole class?

The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. Thompson is good social history

What about other social oppressions like race and sex that people identify with, does that stop the working class acting as a whole, for itself?
And thoughts or reading on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

This thread by DLR Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

 

[sptme]

As far as I am aware, Marx was wrong and should have listened to Bakunin .

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

www.marxists.org

IMO he filled the gaps in his libertarian theory (believing that the wc have to be cultured by a specialised class)with authoritarianism which led to terrible red bureaucracies and so on.
Edit:
I did not mean to say cultured by a special class, more cultured to the specifications of Marx's theory, that is his phase like conception of human industrial and ethical development, which I do not find very scientific.
I prefer the notion that we have within our instincts the language of organisation and we don't have to jump through phases of industrial society to get down to the revolution, which is necessary for survival right now, but thats just my opinion.

Thanks, I'll have a read. Any kind of vangaurdism seems very wrong headed to me. But it it's still a struggle for me to see how the whole class identifies what's in its own interest and collectively makes that will known. Even in trade unions or social movement you still get the activists leading and making most of the decisions. So is it really the whole class 'for itself' or just a small portion of the class speaking and acting on behalf of the class?

 

[sptme]

The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. Thompson is good social history

This thread by DLR Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

I'll put Thompson on my reading list.

A very interesting thead. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[alsoknownas]

And if so, how come the working class hasn't become a "class for itself"?

Expecting some bloke in the mid 1800's to have 'worked everything out', and prophesised what is subsequently going to happen, is not dissimilar to believing that some bloke from 18 centuries earlier was the Son of God and had the definitive gospel to deliver.

 

[sptme]

Expecting some bloke in the mid 1800's to have 'worked everything out', and prophesised what is subsequently going to happen, is not dissimilar to believing that some bloke from 18 centuries earlier was the Son of God and had the definitive gospel to deliver.

Not really comparable though are they. Jesus only asked for belief as faith. Marx claims he is putting forward a theory of history that explains the driving forces of fundamental changes that occur in the way societies are structured. Such a theory can be questioned, critiqued, expanded or adapted depending on the current evidence and circumstances. You can't do that with faith beliefs. But thanks for your unhelpful observation.

 

[alsoknownas]

Not really comparable though are they. Jesus only asked for belief as faith. Marx claims he is putting forward a theory of history that explains the driving forces of fundamental changes that occur in the way societies are structured. Such a theory can be questioned, critiqued, expanded or adapted depending on the current evidence and circumstances. You can't do that with faith beliefs. But thanks for your unhelpful observation.

Comparable enough in that enough time has elapsed between each to reveal that they contain flaw as well as insight. It's your incredulity that something blokey said hadn't happened yet that got me!

 

[sptme]

Not so much incredulous that Marx wasn't a prophet, its that I'm interest in working out why class struggle and class consciousness has been so low in the UK for the past 30-35 years and yet the standard of living is stagnant and inequality has risen without much pushback. The exploitation is happening as per Marx theory but if the working class isn't acting for itself why is that and what can be done? And done by whom and how should they organise?

 

[sptme]

I mean do you give up on the idea of class self-emancipation and just say change is caused by smallish groups of activist acting out of some morally guided principle to make the world a better place. (can still be 10 or 100s of thousand stong but small compared to the class over all) But I react negatively on an emotional level to the idea of emancipation being done to an oppressed group by some kind of moral superiors/leaders.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

I

I mean do you give up on the idea of class self-emancipation and just say change is caused by smallish groups of activist acting out of some morally guided principle to make the world a better place. (can still be 10 or 100s of thousand stong but small compared to the class over all) But I react negatively on an emotional level to the idea of emancipation being done to an oppressed group by some kind of moral superiors/leaders.

I’m not sure classes boundaries were as impenetrable as Marx thought. We fight on here about whether teachers or policemen can be working class, or whether you become a traitor to your class if you graduate from university. The working class is not a homogeneous grouping, it probably wasn’t in the 19th century. The First World War/Depression destroyed Marx’s bourgeoisie, then most of us became a working class/middle class hybrid. Most of us work, whether it be weekly pay or a monthly salary, but we’re hoping our capitalist pension will keep us in our dotage. (I know this is not exclusively so, and a lot of folk here are in financially precarious situations).

(To the tune of The Red Flag)

The working class can kiss my arse
I got the foreman's job at last.
You can tell old Joe I'm off the dole
can stick his Red Flag up his 'ole!.

 

[alsoknownas]

Not so much incredulous that Marx wasn't a prophet, its that I'm interest in working out why class struggle and class consciousness has been so low in the UK for the past 30-35 years and yet the standard of living is stagnant and inequality has risen without much pushback. The exploitation is happening as per Marx theory but if the working class isn't acting for itself why is that and what can be done? And done by whom and how should they organise?

Fair enough. I'm being a bit cynical in any case. Of course these things are worth untangling. I'm just a bit weary of the Karl-as-prophet schtick.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

sptme you've picked a massive area to study.

In terms of your specific interest in the last 30 years you might want to have a look at

this:(PDF) Class Formation and Class Identity: Birth, Death, and Possibilities for Renewal

From there you should have a look at Karl Polanyi and The Great Transformation to your reading list. Here’s a primer:

Karl Polanyi; The Great Transformation and a new political economy

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2014. The economic historian's great work holds a compelling and alternative understanding of the economic and financial crises affecting the economy today; an alternative to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx or...

warwick.ac.uk

you can create an account for free and access the article.

In terms of how a class is formed the previously mentioned Making of the English Working Class by Thompson remains peerless. (As a side note, given your interest in what has happened in the neo-liberal period you could conceive of deindustrialisation and economic change as acting as a disembedding process. A sort of bookend to the processes that Thompson is concerned with in his book). From there you might want to read the debate/row between Thomson and Perry Anderson. Thompson’s broadside is here:

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

www.marxists.org

You might also want to think about the role of the state and how it plays a role in this:


• The State in Capitalist Society- Ralph Miliband (chapters 3, 5 and 6)
• The State: Socialism’s Old Caretaker (Stuart Hall)

I’m conscious that your reading list is now already massive so I’ll stop there. But this really is only scratching the surface.

post up your thoughts as you go and I am sure U75 can keep you in further reading and argument.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Not so much incredulous that Marx wasn't a prophet, its that I'm interest in working out why class struggle and class consciousness has been so low in the UK for the past 30-35 years and yet the standard of living is stagnant and inequality has risen without much pushback. The exploitation is happening as per Marx theory but if the working class isn't acting for itself why is that and what can be done? And done by whom and how should they organise?

I think I’d make two comments or offer two thoughts on this:

1. class relations and class formations are not static or preserved in aspic. They do not move through time in a linear fashion.

Here’s some more Thompson for you, “Sociologists who have stopped the time-machine and, with a good deal of conceptual huffing and puffing, have gone down to the engine room to look, tell us that nowhere at all have they been able to locate and classify a class. They can only find a multitude of people with different occupations, incomes, status-hierarchies, and the rest. Of course they are right, since class is not this or that part of the machine, but the way the machine works once it is set in motion – not this and that interest, but the friction of interests – the movement itself, the heat, the thundering noise. Class is a social and cultural formation (often finding institutional expression) which cannot be defined abstractly, or in isolation, but only in terms of relationship with other classes; and, ultimately, the definition can only be made in the medium of time - that is, action and reaction, change and conflict. When we speak of a class we are thinking of a very loosely defined body of people who share the same congeries of interests, social experiences, traditions and value-system, who have a disposition to behave as a class, to define themselves in their actions and in their consciousness in relation to other groups of people in class ways. But class itself is not a thing, it is a happening.”

2. I think your starting point to answer your question is to look at the breakdown of the ‘post-war consensus’ and the rise of neo-liberal political economy. How was consent built for it? What struggles took place against it? (miners strike, poll tax campaign, riots etc). What happened to those movements? What does that mean going towards? What happens when the tools people have to hand to resist what is happening to them are destroyed/defeated/taken away? How do people understand that? What about culture and society? How do they change and what does it mean etc.

Basically rather than asking why something didnt happen, start by understanding what did and what it means.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I’d make two comments or offer two thoughts on this:

1. class relations and class formations are not static or preserved in aspic. They do not move through time in a linear fashion.

Here’s some more Thompson for you, “Sociologists who have stopped the time-machine and, with a good deal of conceptual huffing and puffing, have gone down to the engine room to look, tell us that nowhere at all have they been able to locate and classify a class. They can only find a multitude of people with different occupations, incomes, status-hierarchies, and the rest. Of course they are right, since class is not this or that part of the machine, but the way the machine works once it is set in motion – not this and that interest, but the friction of interests – the movement itself, the heat, the thundering noise. Class is a social and cultural formation (often finding institutional expression) which cannot be defined abstractly, or in isolation, but only in terms of relationship with other classes; and, ultimately, the definition can only be made in the medium of time - that is, action and reaction, change and conflict. When we speak of a class we are thinking of a very loosely defined body of people who share the same congeries of interests, social experiences, traditions and value-system, who have a disposition to behave as a class, to define themselves in their actions and in their consciousness in relation to other groups of people in class ways. But class itself is not a thing, it is a happening.”

2. I think your starting point to answer your question is to look at the breakdown of the ‘post-war consensus’ and the rise of neo-liberal political economy. How was consent built for it? What struggles took place against it? (miners strike, poll tax campaign, riots etc). What happened to those movements? What does that mean going towards? What happens when the tools people have to hand to resist what is happening to them are destroyed/defeated/taken away? How do people understand that? What about culture and society? How do they change and what does it mean etc.

Basically rather than asking why something did happen, start by understanding what did and what it means.

If you identify the breakdown of the post-war consensus as the 1980s, as you seem to, you skip over the ructions of the 70s which are very relevant to the 1980s. For example the miners strike of 84-5 wouldn't have happened without the strike of the early 70s. Perhaps starting with the end of the second world war and the establishment of this consensus would better illuminate matters for sptme

 

[Smokeandsteam]

If you identify the breakdown of the post-war consensus as the 1980s, as you seem to, you skip over the ructions of the 70s which are very relevant to the 1980s. For example the miners strike of 84-5 wouldn't have happened without the strike of the early 70s. Perhaps starting with the end of the second world war and the establishment of this consensus would better illuminate matters for sptme

Agreed. The 70’s is the key decade because it’s the moment that the break down of the managerial state becomes both visible and the processes accelerate. My comment on the 1980’s was picking up on sptme post wondering why there wasn’t much struggle going on and looking back to when there was a significant defensive fight

While I’m back. This thread is becoming very focussed on Britain. Which is okay, but others might want to add more global or international perspectives to give the OP a fuller picture

 

[JimW]

sptme you've picked a massive area to study.

In terms of your specific interest in the last 30 years you might want to have a look at

this:(PDF) Class Formation and Class Identity: Birth, Death, and Possibilities for Renewal

From there you should have a look at Karl Polanyi and The Great Transformation to your reading list. Here’s a primer:

Karl Polanyi; The Great Transformation and a new political economy

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2014. The economic historian's great work holds a compelling and alternative understanding of the economic and financial crises affecting the economy today; an alternative to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx or...

warwick.ac.uk

you can create an account for free and access the article.

In terms of how a class is formed the previously mentioned Making of the English Working Class by Thompson remains peerless. (As a side note, given your interest in what has happened in the neo-liberal period you could conceive of deindustrialisation and economic change as acting as a disembedding process. A sort of bookend to the processes that Thompson is concerned with in his book). From there you might want to read the debate/row between Thomson and Perry Anderson. Thompson’s broadside is here:

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

www.marxists.org

You might also want to think about the role of the state and how it plays a role in this:


• The State in Capitalist Society- Ralph Miliband (chapters 3, 5 and 6)
• The State: Socialism’s Old Caretaker (Stuart Hall)

I’m conscious that your reading list is now already massive so I’ll stop there. But this really is only scratching the surface.

post up your thoughts as you go and I am sure U75 can keep you in further reading and argument.

Thanks for the Thompson link, was very very vaguely aware of that dispute but none of the substance really, so enjoying his essay, some great lines too:

It is of course possible to see Britain in this way after watching Sir Alec Douglas-Home on television.

 

[hitmouse]

What would people say is the best introduction to class composition and the Italians and all that? That's one of those concepts that's been helpful for me but I've picked up kind of in bits and pieces here and there so I don't know what I'd recommend as being like the one definitive text on it would be. I tried reading that Tronti book that came out recently but really struggled with it.

 

[Jay Park]

Thanks for the Thompson link, was very very vaguely aware of that dispute but none of the substance really, so enjoying his essay, some great lines too:

Polanyi

 

[LDC]

What would people say is the best introduction to class composition and the Italians and all that? That's one of those concepts that's been helpful for me but I've picked up kind of in bits and pieces here and there so I don't know what I'd recommend as being like the one definitive text on it would be. I tried reading that Tronti book that came out recently but really struggled with it.

Your tagline... 'Storming Heaven' by Steve Wright?

Storming Heaven

Storming Heaven is the only book which looks at Italian workerist theory and practice, from its origins in the anti-Stalinist left of the 1950s to its heyday...

www.plutobooks.com

 

[butchersapron]

What would people say is the best introduction to class composition and the Italians and all that? That's one of those concepts that's been helpful for me but I've picked up kind of in bits and pieces here and there so I don't know what I'd recommend as being like the one definitive text on it would be. I tried reading that Tronti book that came out recently but really struggled with it.

Old post that is itself a repost of an old old post - not sure if all links ar e still live but they are all easily findable if not:

maybe useful

 

[hitmouse]

Oh yeah, I think I must have read some Steve Wright stuff (just googled him to check and been reminded that there is another more famous Steve Wright, or else he's a man of many interests) but never actually read that book. I have read the Cunninghame States of Emergency one, but I guess that's sort of a history of the practice more than the theory?

 

[chilango]

Another vote for Storming Heaven...

 

[cloudyday]

I recently came across Abendroth’s Social History of the European WC. Any one read it? Seems pretty short (as the title suggests), but detailed.

A Short History of the European Working Class (Abendroth, 1972)

by Wolfgand Abendroth DOWNLOAD PDF Table of Contents:Foreword1. The Beginnings up to the Defeat of 18482. The First International3. Working-Class Parties and Trade Unions4. The Second International…

cominsitu.wordpress.com

 

[chilango]

Probably some Harry Cleaver? I've got 33 Lessons from Capital coming for Christmas. Anyone read it?

 

[cloudyday]

Probably some Harry Cleaver? I've got 33 Lessons from Capital coming for Christmas. Anyone read it?

Im halfway through it (reading it alongside capital which I’m halfway through) started off making decent progress at the beginning of the year but hit a sticky patch with the COVID malarkey at got distracted.

Cleaver is definitely adding detail and examples to think about, and writes clearly. I tried Harvey a few times over the years but he always rubbed me up the wrong way.

 

[LDC]

Probably some Harry Cleaver? I've got 33 Lessons from Capital coming for Christmas. Anyone read it?

Yes. Well, working my way through it, and also alongside Companion to Capital by David Harvey chapter by chapter both as adjuncts to reading Capital. Much prefer the Cleaver book.

 

[sptme]

sptme you've picked a massive area to study.

In terms of your specific interest in the last 30 years you might want to have a look at

this:(PDF) Class Formation and Class Identity: Birth, Death, and Possibilities for Renewal

From there you should have a look at Karl Polanyi and The Great Transformation to your reading list. Here’s a primer:

Karl Polanyi; The Great Transformation and a new political economy

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2014. The economic historian's great work holds a compelling and alternative understanding of the economic and financial crises affecting the economy today; an alternative to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx or...

warwick.ac.uk

you can create an account for free and access the article.

In terms of how a class is formed the previously mentioned Making of the English Working Class by Thompson remains peerless. (As a side note, given your interest in what has happened in the neo-liberal period you could conceive of deindustrialisation and economic change as acting as a disembedding process. A sort of bookend to the processes that Thompson is concerned with in his book). From there you might want to read the debate/row between Thomson and Perry Anderson. Thompson’s broadside is here:

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

E.P. Thompson: The Peculiarities of the English (1965)

www.marxists.org

You might also want to think about the role of the state and how it plays a role in this:


• The State in Capitalist Society- Ralph Miliband (chapters 3, 5 and 6)
• The State: Socialism’s Old Caretaker (Stuart Hall)

I’m conscious that your reading list is now already massive so I’ll stop there. But this really is only scratching the surface.

post up your thoughts as you go and I am sure U75 can keep you in further reading and argument.

Thank you very much, this is great!

 

[sptme]

I think I’d make two comments or offer two thoughts on this:

1. class relations and class formations are not static or preserved in aspic. They do not move through time in a linear fashion.

Here’s some more Thompson for you, “Sociologists who have stopped the time-machine and, with a good deal of conceptual huffing and puffing, have gone down to the engine room to look, tell us that nowhere at all have they been able to locate and classify a class. They can only find a multitude of people with different occupations, incomes, status-hierarchies, and the rest. Of course they are right, since class is not this or that part of the machine, but the way the machine works once it is set in motion – not this and that interest, but the friction of interests – the movement itself, the heat, the thundering noise. Class is a social and cultural formation (often finding institutional expression) which cannot be defined abstractly, or in isolation, but only in terms of relationship with other classes; and, ultimately, the definition can only be made in the medium of time - that is, action and reaction, change and conflict. When we speak of a class we are thinking of a very loosely defined body of people who share the same congeries of interests, social experiences, traditions and value-system, who have a disposition to behave as a class, to define themselves in their actions and in their consciousness in relation to other groups of people in class ways. But class itself is not a thing, it is a happening.”

2. I think your starting point to answer your question is to look at the breakdown of the ‘post-war consensus’ and the rise of neo-liberal political economy. How was consent built for it? What struggles took place against it? (miners strike, poll tax campaign, riots etc). What happened to those movements? What does that mean going towards? What happens when the tools people have to hand to resist what is happening to them are destroyed/defeated/taken away? How do people understand that? What about culture and society? How do they change and what does it mean etc.

Basically rather than asking why something did happen, start by understanding what did and what it means.

This is also great food for thought, thanks.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Thank you very much, this is great!

Important questions you are asking Sptme. So keep the thread going...