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

[The39thStep]

In a way, but since this has stemmed from a post of mine about Marx’s Capital, I should say there’s a funny thing that often happens when people discuss Marx. And I don’t just mean on here; it happens in the published media too. And that is that they say ‘but of course what applied then doesn’t apply now’, and so Marx’s analysis is out of date. But they never say exactly how. They don’t say what it is he said then that doesn’t apply now. That might be because they feel this just should be the case with something written in the 19th century, or it might be because they heard it said before and vaguely think it seems the sort of thing one should say. Like saying about Beethoven: “he was quite deaf towards the end, you know”.

There’s another funny thing that happens. People sometimes think that the examples Marx gives in order to explain his point are the point. So if he mentions weaving looms, he means only weaving looms. That somehow any economic structure involving weaving looms only applies to weaving looms, nothing else.

I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be happening here.

"What we need is a new Marx , something more modern that isn't Marxist type but in the meantime lets pick holes in the old Marx"

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

In a way, but since this has stemmed from a post of mine about Marx’s Capital, I should say there’s a funny thing that often happens when people discuss Marx. And I don’t just mean on here; it happens in the published media too. And that is that they say ‘but of course what applied then doesn’t apply now’, and so Marx’s analysis is out of date. But they never say exactly how. They don’t say what it is he said then that doesn’t apply now. That might be because they feel this just should be the case with something written in the 19th century, or it might be because they heard it said before and vaguely think it seems the sort of thing one should say. Like saying about Beethoven: “he was quite deaf towards the end, you know”.

There’s another funny thing that happens. People sometimes think that the examples Marx gives in order to explain his point are the point. So if he mentions weaving looms, he means only weaving looms. That somehow any economic structure involving weaving looms only applies to weaving looms, nothing else.

I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be happening here.

Well I think there's a few that are fairly well discussed on here that are actual examples:

- The degree of wealth/security/whatever that's provided these days through housing and the impact that has on people's circumstances that aren't just their working life/relation to the means of production
- The number of people who have interests in stocks/shares etc, largely through pension funds
- The number of jobs in supervisory/lower management type roles which really don't come with any particular power at all beyond a bit of doing the rota or whatever

Not saying these are totally new of course, I suspect the answer will be that this isn't all that different from the 19th Century in a lot of ways, but I think those are the sorts of things that people mean.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well I think there's a few that are fairly well discussed on here that are actual examples:

- The degree of wealth/security/whatever that's provided these days through housing and the impact that has on people's circumstances that aren't just their working life/relation to the means of production
- The number of people who have interests in stocks/shares etc, largely through pension funds
- The number of jobs in supervisory/lower management type roles which really don't come with any particular power at all beyond a bit of doing the rota or whatever

Not saying these are totally new of course, I suspect the answer will be that this isn't all that different from the 19th Century in a lot of ways, but I think those are the sorts of things that people mean.

Happy to go through those, but they don’t contradict anything I’ve said.

 

[Brainaddict]

Another issue these days is workers who get paid very highly without any supervisory responsibilities. So you can get paid 100k for software development without any managerial role. Working class? Maybe briefly, but for most people who aren't totally profligate that high salary starts to convert into assets. Stocks and shares, a second and third house. They get to a point where maybe they can't retire at 40, but they can, say, take a year off work without it straining their finances. And maybe they retire 10 years earlier than you or I, with a fat pension that they can then travel the world on. To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.

 

[ska invita]

To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.

yes and crucially ownership of assets has the potential to change your allegiance to the system overall. the classic example is people voting tory as they get older as they amass more assets, particularly housing

someone who is working class in terms of work as defined by a simple classic marxist category who owns property, has a healthy private pension, hell even a second holiday home, why not, can no longer be relied on to relate materially to a working class person with fuck all but a shit job

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Conversely, you can have supervisory responsibilities and be on only a slightly larger wage than those you're supervising.

Here in the UK in 2022, I think your housing situation is a key component of any description of your wealth.

 

[LDC]

Another issue these days is workers who get paid very highly without any supervisory responsibilities. So you can get paid 100k for software development without any managerial role. Working class? Maybe briefly, but for most people who aren't totally profligate that high salary starts to convert into assets. Stocks and shares, a second and third house. They get to a point where maybe they can't retire at 40, but they can, say, take a year off work without it straining their finances. And maybe they retire 10 years earlier than you or I, with a fat pension that they can then travel the world on. To me accumulation of assets matters as much, possibly more than supervisory roles, because assets do give you power over other people, if indirectly.

There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord). I accept this can get much more complicated in terms of struggle, and where they align themselves when it comes to battles over material conditions though, and that's impacted by what they have to lose in part, but plenty of working class people also will have that contradiction/conflict depending on what's going on and their own politics/position/background etc.

But anyway... surely the point is that this is a category and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it really matters it's pretty simple surely?

 

[campanula]

It' seems pretty simple to me...and I am a clueless nitwit. Relationship to the means of production is still basically pretty much right on. Along with accumulation of assets/unearned income. All those other signifiers are essentially a nod and a wink (who you know) to reinforce existing relationships and consolidate new ones but going down those same old capitalist tracks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord).

But anyway... surely the point is that this is a category and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it really matters it's pretty simple surely?

How about small traders or owners of small businesses? They may earn way less than a top-level programmer, say. And tbh they almost certainly have little or no power within the capitalist system.

Surely the most reliable indicator of a person's place within any economic system is their income, including both earnings and any assets they may own.

That is complicated by things like future prospects, so a junior doctor on a relatively modest wage has the prospect of a much more highly paid job in a few years' time. But it's a decent starting point, imo.

 

[spellbinder]

It's hard work keeping the main stream media and social media fuelled.

 

[ska invita]

There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production

self employed [tech job / film editor / whatever ] with a computer - do they own the means of production?
self employed handyman with tools and a van - do they own the means of production?
what class are they?
income could vary from below minimum wage to six figures


petit bouj.

 

[ska invita]

There's a reason why Blair (following Thatcher) went on so much about Stakeholder Society, and sure enough a majority (IIRC) percentage of people in UK society do have significant financial material stakes.

 

[Pickman's model]

How about small traders or owners of small businesses? They may earn way less than a top-level programmer, say. And tbh they almost certainly have little or no power within the capitalist system.

Surely the most reliable indicator of a person's place within any economic system is their income, including both earnings and any assets they may own.

That is complicated by things like future prospects, so a junior doctor on a relatively modest wage has the prospect of a much more highly paid job in a few years' time. But it's a decent starting point, imo.

Have you never heard the term petit bourgeoisie?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's a reason why Blair (following Thatcher) went on so much about Stakeholder Society, and sure enough a majority (IIRC) percentage of people in UK society do have significant financial material stakes.

And they've corroded things further by expecting everyone to fund their own education/training. So you're expected to take out a debt to invest in your own future. It's massively destructive as it turns inequality into a morally good thing. You didn't take out a £50k loan to further your own interests? Don't moan about being poorer than those who did.

 

[ska invita]

Have you never heard the term petit bourgeoisie?

yes but still cant spell it
and thats no simple matter either

really recommend the anarchist essay called IIRC In Defence of the Petit Bourgeoisie
on libcom
little review of the essay here

Two cheers for the petite bourgeoisie

It's a class with few friends in Britain: dismissed by the left, and sidelined by liberals and conservatives chasing big business. But with the surge in self-employment, the state needs to recognise that the needs and demands of the petite bourgeoisie may be growing.

www.opendemocracy.net

promotes the idea of petit b convincingly
yet petit b can alos be very regressive

 

[Brainaddict]

There's not that many people in categories like that though are there? And even so I'd argue that yes, they're still working class, or maybe some part of the middle class, but either way it doesn't matter massively, they still don't have the power in society and don't own the means of production (ignoring for the moment the bit about 2nd and 3rd houses and assuming they're not a landlord). I accept this can get much more complicated in terms of struggle, and where they align themselves when it comes to battles over material conditions though, and that's impacted by what they have to lose in part, but plenty of working class people also will have that contradiction/conflict depending on what's going on and their own politics/position/background etc.

But anyway... surely the point is that this is a category and a category that's tied to explaining how society under capitalism operates, it's not about seeking to put every single individual in a clearly agreed box depending on their exact financial situation? Capital loves discussions like the above, it gets everyone complicit and confused in who runs and makes profit from the way the world is, whereas at the level where it really matters it's pretty simple surely?

It matters because of the political consequences. It took a while to dawn on me how many people there are on high salaries because for a long time I didn't meet any of them. But travelling round SE England and see the well-off suburbs and exurbs made me realise there are a lot. Latest figure I can find is "545,000 privately employed people earning £100,000 or more" - from this guff article The perils of earning a £100,000 salary . That's not a small number. A lot of them will be managerial as well and fit more into the classic middle class category, but a bunch of them won't be these days. Who pays the high rents in London without blinking? These people.

Meanwhile there are 2 million landlords in the UK, many of whom identify as 'working class' and spend their time making other people's lives a misery and all telling themselves they're a 'good landlord'.

 

[Sue]

Who pays the high rents in London without blinking? These people.

They're surely more likely to be buying than renting? People paying high rents ime (though with blinking) are often couples/way too many people sharing/subletting small flats

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is where I also think ideas about being exploited by your boss under capitalism can get complicated. Does that still apply to someone on £100k a year? Within the narrow context of the company they work for, perhaps. But in a wider context in which that company exists within an economy, you can trace exploitation of other, much less well paid, workers whose work is also needed for your company to exist, including quite possibly sole traders or owners of small businesses. We all exist within networks of exploitation and it's not straightforward to work out where you stand, other than by looking at how much you earn.

 

[chilango]

Was going to try and be clever and write something about the "relationship to the means of reproduction" talking about different forms of Capital as "assets".

...but I'm full of lurgy and in Twitter snark mode, sorry

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Was going to try and be clever and write something about the "relationship to the means of reproduction" talking about different forms of Capital as "assets".

...but I'm full of lurgy and in Twitter snark mode, sorry

No excuse. I'm also full of lurgy and I'm spouting all kinds of bollocks.

 

[chilango]

No excuse. I'm also full of lurgy and I'm spouting all kinds of bollocks.

Yeah, but I planned on writing bollocks with big, French, words in it.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

This is where I also think ideas about being exploited by your boss under capitalism can get complicated. Does that still apply to someone on £100k a year? Within the narrow context of the company they work for, perhaps. But in a wider context in which that company exists within an economy, you can trace exploitation of other, much less well paid, workers whose work is also needed for your company to exist, including quite possibly sole traders or owners of small businesses. We all exist within networks of exploitation and it's not straightforward to work out where you stand, other than by looking at how much you earn.

They're still being exploited for labour value if there's profit extracted.

 

[danny la rouge]

These "what abouts" come up every time this has been discussed over the years.

• what about someone who doesn't live off their capital but earns > £100k a year. They might not live off their capital, but they could. Their interests are aligned with the capitalist class to the extent that those conditions apply. The more they have earnings that could accumulate as capital the greater the degree that it applies.
• What about a small business owner that earns about £21k. A). Are they a sole trader with no employees? Then they equate to an artisan of Marx's time. They're petit bourgeois. Their interests should align with the working class, but they may believe themselves to align with the boss class. B). Do they have employees? Then their income, no matter how small, is (at least in part) derived from the surplus value generated by others. This is about an economic relationship. They are not working class.
• what about people who have paid off their mortgage and own their own home? They can't live off that capital without selling their home. They would likely have to rent and find an income. Their home ownership is the result of a working life in employment. There is another thread in the discussion of the reason that Thatcher sold off Council stock to encourage home ownership and the illusion that gave or sharing interests with the boss class, but unless it led to people able to live off their capital it did not create capitalists.
• What about people who have pensions and the pension funds invest in stuff? We all live in the capitalist mode of production. The way this society chooses to "provide" (huge caveats on that use of the word) post working life is by using their savings to create interest as financial capital. The working class is part of the equation of capital and so are our savings, even those earmarked by tax regulations as being for our retirement. This does not make retired people (necessarily) capitalist class. It makes them people whose savings have been used by the capitalist class for further profit.

And so on. Really, all of this is actually in Marx. It's all there. His examples were examples based on the times he lived, but the analysis still applies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They're still being exploited for labour value if there's profit extracted.

This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as well if they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.

If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.

 

[LDC]

This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.

If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.

I demand a full audit of exploitation!

That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

This is exactly the bit I think isn't straightforward when doing a full audit of exploitation. In the narrow context of that one company, perhaps. But in the wider context of a whole economy, their company is benefiting from all kinds of other exploitation, which the highly paid worker then benefits from as well if they have sufficient leverage to get themselves a big salary at that company.

If the net result is a salary that is way higher than the average, then I suggest you are perhaps more exploiting than being exploited once everything has been added up.

That's an interesting point that higher earners only do so because other staff get paid less, say cleaners etc. I think I'd stop short of calling them the exploiters though. They're still simply selling their labour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I demand a full audit of exploitation!

That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?

Or alternatively, I'm looking at the broad context and suggesting that nothing makes much sense if you don't.

 

[Elpenor]

Great posts danny la rouge clear and concise. Thank you

 

[LDC]

Or alternatively, I'm looking at the broad context and suggesting that nothing makes much sense if you don't.

Of course there's some complexities and complicated stuff, but none of that contradicts or negates the useful categorisation Danny and others have outlined does it? It's just a bit of noise around the edges, not fundamental to the overarching view.

 

[danny la rouge]

I demand a full audit of exploitation!

That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?

This is what it always comes down to: “do me! Am I one of the ‘bad guys’?” No, you aren’t. That’s not what it’s about.