What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[nino_savatte]

not really, I was just teasing those who are posting here rather than writing or marking footnoted essays about the working class. That the squabbles are sectarian in nature just makes them more delicious

Because, of course, the problem is that if you listen to what the working class has been saying for the last decade or two about what's good for it and what's not, then it's apparent there's little or no appetite for socialism, communism or any other sort of political collective utopia.

In the here and now there is quite obvious enthusiasm for individualistic materialism based on cheap commodities and consumer, not collective, 'rights' and remedies.

Arguments about 'praxis' (whatever that is) or what some dead bloke with a beard said a century or more ago come across more and more like angel on pinhead faith based abstractions as they continue to ignore that particular elephant sitting on the sofa. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that the various groupings jockey for position to lead the working class away from what it thinks it wants towards what it should want.

I don't think the w/c has arrived at that decision by itself vis a vis socialism. There has been a systematic destruction of w/c support networks, communities and the unions since the 80's by the state and many have given up the struggle and submitted themselves to consumerism. It was Thatcher's avowed aim to "destroy socialism" (I wish I could find that quote somewhere) and she damned near succeeded. There has never been a united left and the chances of it happening are miniscule, given the amount of sectarian bikering and baiting that takes place on here alone.

"Bread and circuses" is what the Romans called it and it has worked.

 

[treelover]

yes, maybe so, but as Greenman says in his excellent post on the future of the left, is it all sustainable?, economies don't boom forever, and what about the moral cost? wars in the Congo etc to provide the raw materials such as Coltan for for our mobile phones, etc.'


'meanwhile, as you students and lecturers and that bicker about what's good for the working class, the workers themselves are buying a new telly or a designer bag on ebay, booking their ryanair to the Med or looking forward to Big Bro'. Not that what anyone outside the history and social science departments actually does has much bearing on these worthy squabbles....

 

[newbie]

it'

yeah, the working class doesn't know its own mind, it was led. There's truth in that, but I did say "enthusiasm for individualistic materialism" and whatever the trigger, it's hard to identify a latent desire to move away from individualism and towards collectivity. Isn't it?


Except that, as treelover says, the consumer society isn't sustainable and the mainstream is moving slowly towards what he and I and the rest of the environmentally aware left has been saying for thirty years or more. Moves towards sustainability mean limiting individual behaviour for the collective good, which will produce interesting challenges for class-based activists as the implications move beyond dustbins.

 

[nino_savatte]

it'

yeah, the working class doesn't know its own mind, it was led. There's truth in that, but I did say "enthusiasm for individualistic materialism" and whatever the trigger, it's hard to identify a latent desire to move away from individualism and towards collectivity. Isn't it?


Except that, as treelover says, the consumer society isn't sustainable and the mainstream is moving slowly towards what he and I and the rest of the environmentally aware left has been saying for thirty years or more. Moves towards sustainability mean limiting individual behaviour for the collective good, which will produce interesting challenges for class-based activists as the implications move beyond dustbins.

Consumerism, along with war and death, underpin late Western capitalism. Those with little money are being encouraged to buy on the "never never" and get themselves into massive debt which, ironically enough, also contributes to GDP figures and thus can be interpreted as a sign that the economy is "doing well".

Of course, the consumer society isn't sustainable but like so many other things, it is supported by the state which, itself, exists in a one-dimensional world of binaries: good/evil/, left/right, rich/poor.

We're told that "more wealth" is being created and more people have money. But how big are these numbers of wealthy folk as compared to those with no money?

 

[rhys gethin]

it'

yeah, the working class doesn't know its own mind, it was led. There's truth in that, but I did say "enthusiasm for individualistic materialism" and whatever the trigger, it's hard to identify a latent desire to move away from individualism and towards collectivity. Isn't it?


Except that, as treelover says, the consumer society isn't sustainable and the mainstream is moving slowly towards what he and I and the rest of the environmentally aware left has been saying for thirty years or more. Moves towards sustainability mean limiting individual behaviour for the collective good, which will produce interesting challenges for class-based activists as the implications move beyond dustbins.

The Working Class, after all, contains a very great number of people and except in times of war or very strong class conflict they rarely do or think the same thing: if they did, doubtless, capitalism would have disappeared long since. Meanwhile, the members of the class are given an inferior 'get a job' kind of education and subjected to constant propaganda, so naturally the majority tend to go along with 'the way things are', which is always presented to them as 'the way things always will be'.

It seems to me that the problem we are faced with is somehow to preserve the past experience of the Class through times like these, and that it is very difficult to do this succesfully. It is fascinating, for instance, to watch the way the near-past is being (probably-deliberately) distorted in those Monday-night programmes on twentieth-century history. People want action, not history or theory, and there just isn't enough of it going, in most people's worlds, and theory just makes them spit and snarl about issues which will probably be outdated by the next important upturn. Can't say I know the answer myself, but it seems to me that we shouldn't be retreating into purist ivory towers but getting involved somehow in whatever politics/union action as is actually going on where we are. This, of course, often looks very feeble and ineffective, but there it is.

 

[newbie]

Consumerism, along with war and death, underpin late Western capitalism. Those with little money are being encouraged to buy on the "never never" and get themselves into massive debt which, ironically enough, also contributes to GDP figures and thus can be interpreted as a sign that the economy is "doing well".

all true but by and large there is choice about taking on debt. Not for everybody, some circumstances simply can't be managed without debt, but there's a far larger group for whom debt is voluntary- it's aspirational (the car, the holiday, the meal out) or speculative for building assets (primarily housing) or future prospects (student loans). It's certainly true that the w/c has been led to believe that debt is an acceptable part of modern life (overturning the received wisdom of previous generations), but again, the take-up is enthusiastic (even by those old enough to remember previous economic slumps).

We're told that "more wealth" is being created and more people have money. But how big are these numbers of wealthy folk as compared to those with no money?

I don't know, I suspect it depends how you measure. I wrote a long post a couple of weeks ago on the middle class thread about income, assets and debt but no-one really picked up on it. It seems to me that's fundamental to modern class composition, but it's not something I see the theorists really address.

 

[nino_savatte]

all true but by and large there is choice about taking on debt. Not for everybody, some circumstances simply can't be managed without debt, but there's a far larger group for whom debt is voluntary- it's aspirational (the car, the holiday, the meal out) or speculative for building assets (primarily housing) or future prospects (student loans). It's certainly true that the w/c has been led to believe that debt is an acceptable part of modern life (overturning the received wisdom of previous generations), but again, the take-up is enthusiastic (even by those old enough to remember previous economic slumps).



I don't know, I suspect it depends how you measure. I wrote a long post a couple of weeks ago on the middle class thread about income, assets and debt but no-one really picked up on it. It seems to me that's fundamental to modern class composition, but it's not something I see the theorists really address.

Like GDP, the way in which wealth is measured is questionable since it doesn't really define exactly what wealth is. Is it money in the bank, the numbers of properties or the shares one owns?

 

[newbie]

The holding of assets by w/c families has changed the equations, and can separate people who have otherwise nearly identical class interests. That's why class isn't simple any more and those who pretend it is are misleading people (and easily found out).

For those who've got nothing and have nothing to lose socialism is an attractive sharing of wealth, but once there is a buildup of assets (or even debt based potential assets) people have significant choices and will need strong persuasion to give up what is theirs for the good of others. How that is happen is anyones guess- belushi's tank I imagine

btw this is an explicit plank of the Tory/NuLab platform- from council housing and utility selloffs to the tiny handout to newborn babes which will grow to a useful asset by the time they're 18. They have planned for the destruction of the classic hand-to-mouth working class and the rise of stakeholder society. Any vision of getting from here to socialism has to take account of that.

 

[durruti02]

The RCP were never "left" in mine nor anyone else's mind. They often referred to themselves as "Right wing Marxists". Were you a supporter, durutti? Only Furedi's inner circle were members.

you an odd one my man .. one minute you think i'm in the bnp the next im furedis boy .. sort yourself out mate

p.s. what i liked about the rcp
- flyposting squads .. whole walls instead of pathetic swoppy things
- their miners poster of militant miners instread of beaten up miners a la sw
- 'taking control' -- great shoppies book
- WAR workers against racism .. with their defence groups in east london
- better education than sw

what i did not like
- cult!!!! had files on everyone!!
- that that women in brighton would't sleep with me cos i was more inteested in sleeping with her, than interested in big frank and the party
- absolute managerial leninists

 

[october_lost]

For those who've got nothing and have nothing to lose socialism is an attractive sharing of wealth, but once there is a buildup of assets (or even debt based potential assets) people have significant choices and will need strong persuasion to give up what is theirs for the good of others. How that is happen is anyones guess- belushi's tank I imagine

Socialism necessitates a greater share of the wealth for the majority. How does your assessment explain middle class lefties? Really I think your 'class analysis' is beyond ridicule.

 

[newbie]

compared with what? the last century or so has seen a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the majority. If you define the w/c as those who don't own assets (or have expectations of inheritance) then you're talking about a shrinking group.

why do middle class lefties need explaining? If class is a reasonably objective economic condition it has little or nothing to do with political leanings.

out now, back later

 

[nino_savatte]

you an odd one my man .. one minute you think i'm in the bnp the next im furedis boy .. sort yourself out mate

p.s. what i liked about the rcp
- flyposting squads .. whole walls instead of pathetic swoppy things
- their miners poster of militant miners instread of beaten up miners a la sw
- 'taking control' -- great shoppies book
- WAR workers against racism .. with their defence groups in east london
- better education than sw

what i did not like
- cult!!!! had files on everyone!!
- that that women in brighton would't sleep with me cos i was more inteested in sleeping with her, than interested in big frank and the party
- absolute managerial leninists

Look pal, I had a belly full of RCPers disrupting meetings in the 80's with their heckling and bizarre ideas on almost everything from apartheid to nuclear disarmament. They were quite happy to allow things to continue as they were in South Africa...and this was the cult that you admired?

WAR and IFM were both front organisations for the personality cult of Furedi.

You would like the RCP because like you, they have some very questionable ideas.

 

[118118]

I just love that countless politicos think it's so new and radical to agree with whatever the working class wants. A question?
.Do you think the working class can be responsible for terroristic states etc.?
.Do you think it's developing world poverty is ok, and if so which sections of the working class have you checked this with?
.Does this not show that it's perfectly ok to want to change societal conditions yet not be a populist?

just out of interest.

 

[118118]

i mean, everyone has to except that not everything some segment of the working class wants is ok. yet you use your own judgement to decide what those things are and are not. lucky, huh

 

[lewislewis]

I want a socialism that can be practiced in reality rather than confined to the dusty pages of textbooks, or in this case to equally dusty polemics in the digital expanse of the internet.

 

[Fruitloop]

compared with what? the last century or so has seen a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the majority. If you define the w/c as those who don't own assets (or have expectations of inheritance) then you're talking about a shrinking group.

why do middle class lefties need explaining? If class is a reasonably objective economic condition it has little or nothing to do with political leanings.

out now, back later

Hmm, this doesn't seem to be working for me. The last century or so seems a little vague as well - can you be a bit more specific about which majority you mean. Not the three billion people living on two dollars a day or less presumably.

 

[Jean-Luc]

compared with what? the last century or so has seen a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the majority. If you define the w/c as those who don't own assets (or have expectations of inheritance) then you're talking about a shrinking group.

why do middle class lefties need explaining? If class is a reasonably objective economic condition it has little or nothing to do with political leanings.

out now, back later

I'd define the working class as those who don't own enough assets to be able to live without going out and working for an employer. That would include most of the so-called "middle class" too. And it's not a shrinking group. Apart from a small number of self-employed (most not getting much more money than if they worked for an employer), there are basically only two classes in a developed capitalist country like Britain: the wealthy ruling class and the rest of us (the working class).

 

[poster342002]

I'd define the working class as those who don't own enough assets to be able to live without going out and working for an employer. That would include most of the so-called "middle class" too. And it's not a shrinking group. Apart from a small number of self-employed (most not getting much more money than if they worked for an employer), there are basically only two classes in a developed capitalist country like Britain: the wealthy ruling class and the rest of us (the working class).

Probelm is, part of the role of "middle class workers" is that of bullying around and depriving actual working class people of employment. Until they buck their ideas up and start showing more solidarity instead of bleating "but I'm only doing my job" before discipling/sacking, they can sod off.

 

[118118]

I want a socialism that can be practiced in reality rather than confined to the dusty pages of textbooks, or in this case to equally dusty polemics in the digital expanse of the internet.

Well, go outside and brawl with police then.

I mean, Marx practically invented political activism.

 

[october_lost]

compared with what? the last century or so has seen a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the majority. If you define the w/c as those who don't own assets (or have expectations of inheritance) then you're talking about a shrinking group.

Post 248 was an assertion that socialism was impractical because it meant people giving up their assets. How this works is still not clear. And your definition of the working class as those without assets is unhelpful, wealth is becoming more concentrated on a global scale and if we take the Marxian definition of class, it would show the middle class to be shrinking and therefore the army of workers growing.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Probelm is, part of the role of "middle class workers" is that of bullying around and depriving actual working class people of employment. Until they buck their ideas up and start showing more solidarity instead of bleating "but I'm only doing my job" before discipling/sacking, they can sod off.

But they are only doing their job! And just "carrying out orders"! That come from those above them, the chief executives and top civil servants who are the active part of the ruling class. Who in turn are acting as a transmission belt for the pressure of the world market on companies and governments to save money and reduce costs.
It's the system we're up against, not the people who implement it, personally objectionable as some of these might be (well are, Alan Sugar for instance). But if a "middle class" order-giver refused to do it, somebody else would be found who would, maybe a "working class" social climber. We've got to get rid of the whole profit system, not just the hierarchy who implement it.

 

[durruti02]

i mean, everyone has to except that not everything some segment of the working class wants is ok. yet you use your own judgement to decide what those things are and are not. lucky, huh

not quite sure what you saying except i think no one would disagree .. the issue is WITHOUT the w/c there is NO change is there? and equally without listenning to what people say there is no change either

 

[lewislewis]

Well, go outside and brawl with police then.

I mean, Marx practically invented political activism.

You what?
Why would I want to do that?

 

[Fruitloop]

But they are only doing their job! And just "carrying out orders"! That come from those above them, the chief executives and top civil servants who are the active part of the ruling class. Who in turn are acting as a transmission belt for the pressure of the world market on companies and governments to save money and reduce costs.
It's the system we're up against, not the people who implement it, personally objectionable as some of these might be (well are, Alan Sugar for instance). But if a "middle class" order-giver refused to do it, somebody else would be found who would, maybe a "working class" social climber. We've got to get rid of the whole profit system, not just the hierarchy who implement it.

Indeed. The precariousness of the position of the middle class has increased in recent years as well - where formerly the main problem was to instil the same degree of cultural capital in your children as you had yourself (because social capital is a lot more troublesome to inherit than real capital), now large numbers of m/c people are uncertain about maintaining their own position. This is not accidental, in my opinion, because like in feudal courts and criminal organisations like the Yakuza, the vulnerability of people who are close to power but not actually weilding it is a way of exercising control over them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I mean, Marx practically invented political activism.

Of course he did, dearie.

Now, do you want to tell the Diggers, the Levellers, the peasants that took part in the peasants' revolt etc (to name but a small sample) that Uncle Karl invented political activism, or shall I?

 

[newbie]

Post 248 was an assertion that socialism was impractical because it meant people giving up their assets.

How this works is still not clear.

No, it's not at all clear. Socialism might be attractive to the majority in a country where 5% own all the wealth and 95% do all the work and own nothing. But here in Britain today, although there is scandalous wealth inequality, the majority would stand to lose assets they (or previous generations) have built up. So it's not clear, to me at least, what reason the majority might have to aid the struggle towards socialism.

Globally of course that's not the case, the three billion people living on two dollars a day or less Fruitloop mentioned urgently need to redistribute all of the wealth in this and other rich nations. How much help are they realistically going to get from the 60m people here, who all stand to lose the standard of living they're accustomed to?

To be meaningful, doesn't class based solidarity need to be based, at least in part, on self interest not altruism? Turkeys don't help organise christmas.

 

[newbie]

I'd define the working class as those who don't own enough assets to be able to live without going out and working for an employer. That would include most of the so-called "middle class" too. And it's not a shrinking group. Apart from a small number of self-employed (most not getting much more money than if they worked for an employer), there are basically only two classes in a developed capitalist country like Britain: the wealthy ruling class and the rest of us (the working class).

In which case the class isn't homogenous enough to have more than a limited shared interest.

My mate... his parents died and he's sold the house he grew up in for a lot of money. So now he doesn't need to work and by your definition is part of the wealthy ruling class. Prior to that he's been doing manual work for 30 years. If, as is his stated intention, he blows the lot over the next few years on drink, drugs and boogying, will he then revert to being w/c? But if he puts it all into high interest savings he could carry on for the rest of his life without working. Or he could lose the lot that way.

Did he become ruling class because his parents died? Was he always r/c because he had the expectation of inheritance, even though he has no qualifications and has always done hand-to-mouth manual work, bearing in mind the actual amount he inherited has been hugely boosted by the recent houseprice boom and a local planning policy? Does his class depend on whether he drinks it all or successfully invests it- class as lifestyle choice, how can that make sense?

That tiny illustration means nothing, of course, but it's intended to show that asset holding brings personal choices. Similar choices are available to anyone with (or with anticipation of) sufficient assets, and that's a huge part of the population. Can half or more of the population really choose which class they belong to?

The problem is that simple explanations of class don't explain simple observation of the society we live in.

 

[tbaldwin]

No, it's not at all clear. Socialism might be attractive to the majority in a country where 5% own all the wealth and 95% do all the work and own nothing. But here in Britain today, although there is scandalous wealth inequality, the majority would stand to lose assets they (or previous generations) have built up. So it's not clear, to me at least, what reason the majority might have to aid the struggle towards socialism.

Globally of course that's not the case, the three billion people living on two dollars a day or less Fruitloop mentioned urgently need to redistribute all of the wealth in this and other rich nations. How much help are they realistically going to get from the 60m people here, who all stand to lose the standard of living they're accustomed to?

To be meaningful, doesn't class based solidarity need to be based, at least in part, on self interest not altruism? Turkeys don't help organise christmas.

I dont agree that the majority of people in the UK have nothing to gain from Socialism.
But yeah they dont have as much to gain as some people in other countries.

I think the domination of the left by middle class people and middle class ideas means that middle class guilt plays a decisive role on the left.

Self interest and populism are seen by the guilty middle classes as negatives.
But Socialism has to be based on both.
The right represent only the self interest of a small minority in this country.
But what passes for the Left is full of right wing ideas about people being too stupid or thick to have real power.

 

[tbaldwin]

Well done to everybody on here who has actually tried to say what kind of socialism they want.

 

[Fruitloop]

In which case the class isn't homogenous enough to have more than a limited shared interest.

My mate... his parents died and he's sold the house he grew up in for a lot of money. So now he doesn't need to work and by your definition is part of the wealthy ruling class. Prior to that he's been doing manual work for 30 years. If, as is his stated intention, he blows the lot over the next few years on drink, drugs and boogying, will he then revert to being w/c? But if he puts it all into high interest savings he could carry on for the rest of his life without working. Or he could lose the lot that way.

Did he become ruling class because his parents died? Was he always r/c because he had the expectation of inheritance, even though he has no qualifications and has always done hand-to-mouth manual work, bearing in mind the actual amount he inherited has been hugely boosted by the recent houseprice boom and a local planning policy? Does his class depend on whether he drinks it all or successfully invests it- class as lifestyle choice, how can that make sense?

That tiny illustration means nothing, of course, but it's intended to show that asset holding brings personal choices. Similar choices are available to anyone with (or with anticipation of) sufficient assets, and that's a huge part of the population. Can half or more of the population really choose which class they belong to?

The problem is that simple explanations of class don't explain simple observation of the society we live in.

I think the point is that class identifies general trends within society, it's not a means of classifying individuals. Take the example of waves; there's nothing specific about any particular water molecule that means it is a 'wave molecule' as opposed to a 'flat water molecule', because 'waves' describes something about the properties of bodies of water (or whatever) not individual components. But it would be strange based on this to assume that waves don't exist, or that they are don't reflect anything about the properties of liquids.

That one person can change class or lie on the boundary between one class and another is in no way problematic for the theory as a whole, since all that matters is that at any one time the majority of people are acting primarily as one type or another, i.e. that the analysis rings true when you look at society in general.