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

[xenon]

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...

and in fact it used to take longer to be trained as a driver. people from my dad‘s generation, starting as guards. firemen - well when steam was still a thing. The usual downward pressure on wages and increased knowledge and skills required as different rolling stock electronic systems were brought in. fortunately Aslef it’s a pretty strong union, at least at the branch my dad was a member of. Albeit over the years, there were tensions with drivers in some areas voting for short-term benefit in some different areas of the Country. The old divide and rule.

 

[Raheem]

In your limited frame of reference. Equally in mine/ours. We're recoginisng it. You're doing it twice wrong.

Seems obvious when you say it like that

 

[cloudyday]

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

Thanks, spotted this review on A****n.

1.0 out of 5 stars Unfortunately the book has such an awful smell, that ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 13 September 2014
Verified Purchase
Unfortunately the book has such an awful smell, that gives me headaches which is preventing me to read it. This is a big inconvenient because the term is starting my readings are behind and I have spent my money uselessly.

 

[mauvais]

OK, I'll try again - so surplus value is value that the worker could have got for himself had the exploitative relationship not existed but instead is taken by the owner? And that's different from profit because profit depends on factors which lie outside of the relationship (e.g. price of raw materials, what the owner sells the finished product for etc.)?

Forget about the implementation detail of it and just deal with the basics. Imagine furthering your own interests in some way by building on top of someone else's efforts; it doesn't matter all that much how exactly. Then generalise this by thinking about how you would extend this fundamental idea from beyond a specific scenario concerning one individual and to a broad system, turning it into machinery.

'Profit' is a potential output of this system, but it's not the system itself.

 

[Winot]

Forget about the implementation detail of it and just deal with the basics. Imagine furthering your own interests in some way by building on top of someone else's efforts; it doesn't matter all that much how exactly. Then generalise this by thinking about how you would extend this fundamental idea from beyond a specific scenario concerning one individual and to a broad system, turning it into machinery.

'Profit' is a potential output of this system, but it's not the system itself.

I understand it in those general terms but that doesn’t help me understand why a mc supervisor is different to the wc worker, particularly in a service industry.

 

[mauvais]

I understand it in those general terms but that doesn’t help me understand why a mc supervisor is different to the wc worker, particularly in a service industry.

It doesn't need to be a binary, does it. The classic supervisor position exists because it's a necessary implement to keep the labour machine going and extract the maximum from it. The role is built upon the existence of other labourers, but it's also usually labour itself, and managed labour at that.

 

[Winot]

It doesn't need to be a binary, does it. The classic supervisor position exists because it's a necessary implement to keep the labour machine going and extract the maximum from it. The role is built upon the existence of other labourers, but it's also usually labour itself, and managed labour at that.

Cheers. I need to do the reading danny la rouge gave me.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

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).

It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close. Given that the thread title doesn't mention his Marxness perhaps that's not surprising.

 

[mojo pixy]

It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close.

Thing is, Capital was written well over 100 years ago and the world has changed a lot since then. We live with history Marx had not seen. Concepts of class have had to evolve, are continuing to evolve, but in strictly capitalist terms your class describes your relationship to Capital and the means of producing it. Do you produce surplus value by your work? Who for? Does anyone produce it for you? etc. Surplus Value is a big concept in Capital, in brief it's the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power (from wikipedia)

Once we have that and establish an individual's relationship to that process (given context specifics) then we can say what class they belong in.

Services complicate things a little, but so far, nothing about identity. That comes later when someone realizes you can have more power over the working class if you break them into small groups all bickering over ethnicity, sex and sexual preferences. Not sure whose idea it was, but by now even working class can be an identity. And if you say it's about relationship to capital yawn boring i mean who cares about that stuff any more?

I'm tired, I'm fucking off now.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Thing is, Capital was written well over 100 years ago and the world has changed a lot since then. We live with history Marx had not seen. Concepts of class have had to evolve, are continuing to evolve, but in strictly capitalist terms your class describes your relationship to Capital and the means of producing it. Do you produce surplus value by your work? Who for? Does anyone produce it for you? etc. Surplus Value is a big concept in Capital, in brief it's the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power (from wikipedia)

Once we have that and establish an individual's relationship to that process (given context specifics) then we can say what class they belong in.

Services complicate things a little, but so far, nothing about identity. That comes later when someone realizes you can have more power over the working class if you break them into small groups all bickering over ethnicity, sex and sexual preferences. Not sure whose idea it was, but by now even working class can be an identity. And if you say it's about relationship to capital yawn boring i mean who cares about that stuff any more?

I'm tired, I'm fucking off now.

We've always been broken into small bickering groups. That didn't start with capitalism. We've always given ourselves, or been given, a bunch of identities which we may choose between or have foisted upon us. My father in law was born in a small village in Bedfordshire, bitterly divided in his youth between the 'top enders' and the 'bottom enders'. No-one decided that it would be a good idea to divide the working class youth of his village into two warring factions. It just happened that way.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's almost as if nearly everyone uses and understands the word 'class' in a variety of different ways, most of which do not exactly match Marx's definitions, or sometimes even come close. Given that the thread title doesn't mention his Marxness perhaps that's not surprising.

The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong. I was half joking about my despondency, but the fact is that I have had lengthy discussions over the years with parties to that conversation, explaining the Marxian position on just the issues being raised. One of the threads has already been linked to.

All I was saying is, it looks daft when you’ve had two decades’ worth of conversations about a topic and you still don’t understand it. Marx takes a bit of effort, but 20 years? No.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Marx takes a bit of effort, but 20 years? No.

How about 40 years? Would that be long enough?

 

[danny la rouge]

How about 40 years? Would that be long enough?

Are you haggling up?

 

[Raheem]

The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong.

Danny, you were undoubtedly discussing in Marxian terms, but I haven't mentioned Marx.

 

[friendofdorothy]

hilariously, being a graduate of a prestigious theatre school his very own self.
ok no, maybe just alumnus, unsure if he graduated or what with. a song, certainly.

does being a graduate make a person middle class?

 

[danny la rouge]

Danny, you were undoubtedly discussing in Marxian terms, but I haven't mentioned Marx.

Not by name, but you did say “under this definition of class”.

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.

Anyway, goodnight. Sleep well. It’s another day already.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The people I was responding to were discussing the Marxian definition of class but getting it wrong.

I wasn't. I thought I was discussing definitions of class very generally. I certainly didn't think I was only discussing a Marxian definition of class.

 

[Raheem]

Not by name, but you did say “under this definition of class”.

Indeed, under any definition of class positing that no-one who has a boss can be middle class, the ground is marshmallow. I don't believe that's even close to a Marxian position anyway.

 

[Humberto]

One class is exploited and damaged another gets fat off the injutice and oppression it entails.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well you all damn well should be discussing Marx.

 

[butchersapron]

Let the Christian democrats speak!

 

[mojo pixy]

does being a graduate make a person middle class?

I don't know. Some would say yes becausegetting a degree puts you by default in a professional-managerial class, but it probably depends more in that graduate's relationship to Capital. Which will vary.

Indeed, under any definition of class positing that no-one who has a boss can be middle class, the ground is marshmallow.

Who said that? In any case it sounds wrong to me. I like marshmallow though.

(I don't even know why I'm chiming in, I'm thick as shit politically. I get out of my depth really quickly then regret having any opinions at all...)

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

does being a graduate make a person middle class?

It goes like this:-
1st class degree - Upper Class
2:1 - Upper Middle Class
2:2 - Lower Middle Class
3rd - Working Class
Failed - Lumpenproletariat
Went to art college instead - Artisan
Agricultural college - Peasantry
None of the above - déclassé element

 

[mojo pixy]

hilariously, being a graduate of a prestigious theatre school his very own self.
ok no, maybe just alumnus, unsure if he graduated or what with. a song, certainly.

Jarvis Cocker, who I made my remark about, as a wealthy, famous pop-star, published author and TV celebrity, with a virtually inexhaustible source of Surplus Value of his own and (no doubt) a reasonable pool of Wealth from which to draw, is not Working Class, except that he might choose to identify as working class because of feels.

How much presenting that identity as his public image has benefitted him or continues to, in material terms, isn't really the point, though I imagine it has and does. The question that arises for me is, could it be considered cultural appropriation, for a wealthy, successful individual to continue to identify publicly as working class long after their actual relation to Capital has changed, massively and fundamentally?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Well you all damn well should be discussing Marx.

Is that Marx (highly dubious individual), Marxism (of many varieties, often disastrous), or Marxist economics (hard work even if basically correct)? And is there a relationship between those three different things?

 

[danny la rouge]

Is that Marx (highly dubious individual), Marxism (of many varieties, often disastrous), or Marxist economics (hard work even if basically correct)? And is there a relationship between those three different things?

The last.

Yes.

 

[planetgeli]

My father in law was born in a small village in Bedfordshire, bitterly divided in his youth between the 'top enders' and the 'bottom enders'.

Which one? I'm from Bedfordshire, spent my whole childhood there. As it seems did whole generations of my family before me for hundreds of years, a family of agricultural labourers. Our small town was bitterly divided but between working class and the snobby middle class. There wasn't a lot of mixing which at least gave me an early introduction into what class may mean to some people.

 

[mojo pixy]

We've always been broken into small bickering groups. That didn't start with capitalism. We've always given ourselves, or been given, a bunch of identities which we may choose between or have foisted upon us.

Always is a very big word here, but even if true, would that stop people looking to maintain their social privilege from exploiting the situation? Making it worse, deepening the divisions with lies and manipulation? Like always?

To clarify, when I wrote someone, I didn't really mean any particular person.

But when, finally, a large number of people at the bottom of the pile finally put their identity differences aside and organize to win better terms and conditions for their entire Class .. what better way to destroy that than by reminding them, But wait, aren't you all different kinds of people?

So yes, capitalism has a lot to do with it.

 

[chilango]

[

The last.

Yes.

As an aside, I'm dipping into Cleaver's "33 lessons on Capital" a bit at the moment. I'm finding it really good and helpful.

 

[danny la rouge]

[


As an aside, I'm dipping into Cleaver's "33 lessons on Capital" a bit at the moment. I'm finding it really good and helpful.

It is good, isn’t it? I haven’t read it all, but have similarly been dipping in and out.