Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[kebabking]

Isn't it part of the problem that people seem to be conflating caste with class?

Or that some are simply unable to grasp that the word 'class' can have more than one meaning?

If you use a strictly Marxist definition of Class then pretty everyone is working class - I certainly am - but that is not the only reasonable analysis for looking at society as it stands, and - TBH - it's not a particularly useful one in many ways.

Another word might have been better, so as to not confuse the two sets of analysis, but it's too late for that now..

 

[butchersapron]

I reckon many U.K. folk claim ‘traditional’ working class heritage in the same way the yanks claim Irish heritage. Just by numbers alone pretty much everyone will have a great great grandad or two that worked down the pit or in the mills. I’ve heard people claiming this sort of ancestry many times.

One of my teachers at school asked us what class we thought we were and just about everyone thought they were middle class. She then told us we were all working class by background (with one exception) because all our parents worked rather than being business owners etc. It’s because there are these traditional working class stereotypes and identity that people don’t consider what their actual place is in the scheme of things is. Pretty much the only time this was covered in school. Weirdly the teacher was an out Liberal Democrat/SDLP supporter (the only teachers at my school that mentioned their politics were Lib Dems, usually with a bit of smugness).

The UK is the only country in the world where the trad urban w/c ever constituted a majority of the population - and it did that for many decades of the midde of the 20th century. It would be very odd for a huge amount of people not to have w/c roots in the family.

 

[cloudyday]

Na. If you and your workmates are tight enough to win decent conditions, then you're a shining example of what the WC should aspire to. I don't go for that labour aristocracy thing. More power to them

I think this is an interseting area that I'm not too familiar with. I wouldn't have said that winning better conditions was an example of labour aristocracy, however something like buying your council house would be. Do you have any recommended reading around this?

 

[chilango]

I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more demeaning' or damaging or limiting for them (and by extension, the class that makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else. And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.

Yeah.

I think that has a lot to with internalisation of a the values of meritocratic, individualised, social mobility.

The whole "wise choices" thing. Your graduates, your PhDs etc. have "played the game", acquired the credentials, educational capital (and social and cultural capitals that come with that) and have not seen this rewarded.

For some (of a more m/c background) it'll be the failure of the social reproductive mechanisms that they "feel entitled" to. For others from w/c or less secure m/c backgrounds it'll be the denial of the route to social mobility they'd promised.

I admit I regularly feel this, absolutely. I can't step completely out of the mythologies I live within.

...and, yes, it totally plays into the deserving/undeserving thing.

 

[mojo pixy]

Hey but at least there was a round of applause. Every week! I mean! Who could ask for more.

 

[Raheem]

Na. If you and your workmates are tight enough to win decent conditions, then you're a shining example of what the WC should aspire to. I don't go for that labour aristocracy thing. More power to them

Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.

That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO that's a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.

 

[nogojones]

I think this is an interseting area that I'm not too familiar with. I wouldn't have said that winning better conditions was an example of labour aristocracy, however something like buying your council house would be. Do you have any recommended reading around this?

Reading around this is something I did years ago and a lot of stuff I read I didn't really chime with. It's more from personal experience. For the first half of my life I worked in well paid traditional heavy industry, with 100% unionisation and a very much "us and them" aproach to management. We earned much more than mates who had degrees and worked in offices and respected professions. Pretty much all of us were able to buy our own houses with ease and there was a good proportion of us who would vote tory, hold pretty shitty views, but still remain totally solid, never grass and work together subvert managements goals. This was based on decades of strong unionisation though and that's hard to just conjure up in the more fragmented workforce we have today.

I recall reading New Capitalism by Kevin Doogan a couple of years back that tried to challenge the view that the fragmentation of the labour market is the inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. It's pretty dry though and very Euro/US centric given that it's the emerging economies that hold the bulk of the worlds workers today, but it's nice to see a challenge to those ideas

 

[nogojones]

Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.

Na, it's based on if you own or control the means of production or not

 

[Pickman's model]

That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO that's a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.

the lesson i always pass on is that if they want higher wages they can become a tube driver and join the rmt or they could join the union where they work. the remuneration tube drivers receive is due in no small measure to their combative unions.

 

[butchersapron]

Reading around this is something I did years ago and a lot of stuff I read didn't really chime with. It's more from personal experience. For the first half of my life I worked in well paid traditional heavy industry, with 100% unionisation and a very much "us and them" aproach to management. We earned much more than mates who had degrees and worked in offices and respected professions. Pretty much all of us were able to buy our own houses with ease and there was a good proportion of us who would vote tory, hold pretty shitty views, but still remain totally solid, never grass and work together subvert managements goals. This was based on decades of strong unionisation though and that's hard to just conjure up in the more fragmented workforce we have today.

I recall reading New Capitalism by Kevin Doogan a couple of years back that tried to challenge the view that the fragmentation of the labour market is the inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. It's pretty dry though and very Euro/US centric given that it's the emerging economies that hold the bulk of the worlds workers today, but it's nice to see a challenge to those ideas

The fragmentation was a planned attack to exactly that power you talk about. And it happened on the social/territorial level too. This was pure counter-attack. Choices. Capitalist choices to decompose that power and recompose their own.

 

[nogojones]

The fragmentation was a planned attack to exactly that power you talk about. And it happened on the social/territorial level too. This was pure counter-attack. Choices. Capitalist choices to decompose that power and recompose their own.

absolutely

 

[planetgeli]

And "we're all middle class now" was part of that attack. Done by Prescott to cosy up to Blair and way before him by sociologists to try and deny Marxist analysis a voice.

All to the same end.

 

[butchersapron]

absolutely

And in turn, that power that came from concentration of the class (at work, socially and housing etc) was a w/c response to previous capital attacks on the power of the then existing w/c through deskilling, routinisation, standardisation, theft of workplace knowledge by neutral technicians in pay of capital etc. So round and round we go, regardless of people saying the class war is over, all middle class now etc

 

[brogdale]

I tell you what pisses me off and it's directly related to this militant heartless meritocracy, the idea that unemployed graduates or phds etc, or them doing normal rubbish jobs is somehow more demeaning' or damaging or limiting for them (and by extension, the class that makes up most of this group) than it is for everyone else. And it's shockingly prevalent on the vocal left. Unconsciously so in many cases, but present still.

I've experienced this first hand with some people who've have asked me about my eldest; post-Masters he has a job as a porter. It's his choice, he enjoys his work and seems as happy as he's been in years (albeit on shit pay). I think his contentment in part derives from working and organising with those from his own class. The more patronising responses have sometimes be vocalised as "Oh, but I thought..." but for others the look on their face and silence have spoken volumes.

There are plenty of reasons why it's piss-poor that so many youngsters have been led up the garden path to debt and left with qualifications they can't work with, but perceiving working class jobs as inherently more demeaning or psychologically damaging for graduates etc. does often appear to come from a place of class prejudice.

 

[hitmouse]

Ok, but this means your view of class is cultural, rather than socio-economic.

Na, it's based on if you own or control the means of production or not

Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.

 

[Raheem]

That can be a very destructive way of thinking, I think - I've seen it with colleagues complaining about tube strikes, and using the fact tube drivers are paid more than them (when they have degrees) as somehow evidence that they shouldn't be striking. IMO that's a view of class that's cultural rather than socio-economic.

No, it would be socio-economic. Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad attitude, it's an expression of resentment at well-off people seeking to further increase their economic advantage.

But how middle-class people should be viewed and treated is a separate question to the classification itself anyway. Train driver is a good example of an occupation which might once have been considered working class but which, in the here-and-now, comes with too great a degree of financial reward and consequent economic choice not to be considered middle-class, without rendering class meaningless beyond cultural definitions.

 

[chilango]

I don't fucking like Althusser

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.

And this kind of thing does happen, of course - what has been won can also be lost. Eurostar is a good example that I know a bit about. When it was first started, the drivers and guards were on good money and conditions. The company has since changed hands and new employees, particularly the guards, are on very different contracts, which are nowhere near as good as the old ones. Those on the old contracts have been encouraged to take redundancy.

 

[Raheem]

Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.

But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.

Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Yeah, just to underline the above - train drivers might be well paid, but their pay is still set by the people running the rail companies. Rail company executives could slash their pay, or fire them all, tomorrow. On the other hand, train drivers could not just impose a new pay rate on rail executives or fire them. That's pretty important. Obv, train drivers can resist those things being done to them, and because they're well organised they tend to do it quite well, but the fundamental relationship of power between employers and employed there is the same as it is with Waitrose shelf-stackers, or call centre workers, or people getting paid £14 an hour to like Althusser, or whatever.

the other angle to this specific case is that there isn't a huge pool of unemployed train drivers who could do the job tomorrow.

railways aren't quite my patch, but i understand that the process from 'coming off the street' to being a fully fledged train driver working on your own is a matter of months, not weeks.

it's also one of the few jobs where the privatisation / fragmentation of the industry has gone to the workers' favour, as some train companies have tried to cut back on training get by with poaching existing drivers from other train companies (and some wind down training towards the end of a franchise giving the new incumbent a problem that takes time to solve) and towards the end of BR days there was a demographic problem waiting to happen as they were taking on less new drivers as the freight / parcels side of things wound down.

in pure market terms, there used to be (broadly) one monopoly purchaser for train drivers' labour (or two if you count the london underground) - now there are a more purchasers out there seeking a relatively rare commodity.

in a heck of a lot of jobs, management really could replace significant chunks of the staff within days...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the other angle to this specific case is that there isn't a huge pool of unemployed train drivers who could do the job tomorrow.

railways aren't quite my patch, but i understand that the process from 'coming off the street' to being a fully fledged train driver working on your own is a matter of months, not weeks.

it's also one of the few jobs where the privatisation / fragmentation of the industry has gone to the workers' favour, as some train companies have tried to cut back on training get by with poaching existing drivers from other train companies (and some wind down training towards the end of a franchise giving the new incumbent a problem that takes time to solve) and towards the end of BR days there was a demographic problem waiting to happen as they were taking on less new drivers as the freight / parcels side of things wound down.

in pure market terms, there used to be (broadly) one monopoly purchaser for train drivers' labour (or two if you count the london underground) - now there are a more purchasers out there seeking a relatively rare commodity.

in a heck of a lot of jobs, management really could replace significant chunks of the staff within days...

Yeah, compare and contrast with bus drivers, who are paid a fucking pittance given the level of responsibility the job entails.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.

Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.

I think you have a point - taking a look at your bank balance is a decent start when determining your relationship to the means of production.

But isn't there also another point - that many more people are 'working class' under any coherent definition of the term than might think they are? There's even a new term for certain sections of that group - the 'precarious middle classes'. Thinking politically, I would have thought there is a need to emphasise the commonality between people in this group, not any differences, precisely so that those in the 'precarious middle classes' find solidarity with the striking tube drivers rather than their bosses.

 

[nogojones]

But under this definition of class, almost everyone would be working-class. Junior solicitors, for example. But perhaps not self-employed cleaners.

Someone's class is a product of their financial resources and the choices available to them, not simply whether they have a boss.

Yes. I think that some self employed sole traders do have a slightly different class position. These days I'm self employed and my struggle isn't with my boss for better pay, it's competing with other self employed traders for customers. I'd be over-aggrandizing myself to call myself middle class as I only earn £10-15k (and fuck all for the last year) and the work I do is mostly manual and not regarded as high status in anyones eyes, but there's no way I could organise collectively to improve my conditions. For the greater good of society I would align myself with workers struggles, but that's not a given for people in my class position. If anything I'm now in the traditional class base for fascism, being stretched by the forces of the market.

 

[nogojones]

Yeah, compare and contrast with bus drivers, who are paid a fucking pittance given the level of responsibility the job entails.

and the train drivers don't have to deal with the general public or even steer the train. The petty bourgeois bastards

 

[danny la rouge]

Does nobody read my posts? I answer all these points every single time. But people keep saying the same things. It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.

(That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).

 

[hitmouse]

I don't fucking like Althusser

?

 

[butchersapron]

Does nobody read my posts? I answer all these points every single time. But people keep saying the same things. It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.

I feel your frustration mate. I think it's impossible for us to take part in these threads beyond either arguing that a) this isn't what is meant by class or shouldn't and here's why or b) bringing out the effects of what class really is but still having to do it in terms of the non-class understanding of class - whether that's the cultural nonsense or the financial nonsense which has recently been offered as an attack on that cultural understanding. I think we just have to accept these things are going to happen and use the opp to ask a few other questions/make a few other points. They are pretty crap usually - as long experience should tell us.

 

[nogojones]

I feel your frustration mate. I think it's impossible for us to take part in these threads beyond either arguing that a) this isn't what is meant by class or shouldn't and here's why or b) bringing out the effects of what class really is but still having to do it in terms of the non-class understanding of class - whether that's the cultural nonsense or the financial nonsense which has recently been offered as an attack on that cultural understanding. I think we just have to accept these things are going to happen and use the opp to ask a few other questions/make a few other points. They are pretty crap usually - as long experience should tell us.

Maybe I'm a masochist, but you have to keep plodding along and have these discussions. The ruling class and their institutions try their best to obscure class positions. It can take a lot of head swiveling to get your noggin around the prevaling views, when you're being pickled with shit like salaries, nice offices and avocados.

 

[Raheem]

Does nobody read my posts? I answer all these points every single time. But people keep saying the same things. It’s fine to disagree with me, but for people who have read this stuff before to just keep making the same ill-informed mispronouncements about what Marx’s analysis says is pretty demoralising.

(That was at the discussion between Raheem and littlebabyjesus , by the way).

Sorry Danny, I sometimes get carried away and forget to ask who's chairing.