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

[chilango]

(Edit to add: I'll probably delete this later on so grab 'em while you can)

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I’m adding my dubiety that nursing was a middle class job. Are you thinking of the war effort?

I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married. (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)

obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.

and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.

 

[locomotive]

.

Nope, changed my mind about joining in again!

 

[mojo pixy]

And? How does that change their relation to capital? They presumably reliant on their wage for income

And doctors in a hospital have a managerial role in relation to nurses.

Additionally doctors are in a position to go into private practice, effectively giving them control over their means of production. Nurses almost always have to work for a practice (company, hospital, whatever).

FWIW in terms of means of production (which is a bit of a weird prism to view medicine anyway given the structures around it) I also don't think nurses have ever been middle class.

 

[brogdale]

I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married. (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)

obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.

and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.

Did any of them own the hospitals?

 

[Pickman's model]

Did any of them own the hospitals?

Only a ward or two

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Did any of them own the hospitals?

absolutely not, hence saying it depends on the definition / line of working - middle class.

there's a vested interest from the 1% in trying to persuade a swathe of people that they are 'middle class' and therefore have more in common with the 1% than they do with the 'working class' who they should fear and look down on.

although there's a few on the left who seem to help by telling most people that they aren't working class enough to join their gang...

 

[deeyo]

exploitation and oppression didn't start with bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. to quote the beards:

the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed...

this is what it boils down to.

exploitation is central to capitalism - we're all part of this, we all get exploited (barmy army!) & we all 'benefit' more or less from exploitation.

there's not one single 'middle class' in any meaningful sense. there's layers, some of these might start to act like 'classes' - but i can't see anything close to challenge the status quo - no new french revolution where the 'management class' or the 'vectoralist class' topples the bourgeoisie & takes over.

the bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. it has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

back in the day every town had their own factory owners, shipowners, railroad tycoons, big landlords & so on. the doctor, lawyer & priest might've been invited to fraternise with their betters now & then.

not anymore. power is concentrated , the 'real' ruling class is small & yeah, they've got their lapdogs & allies in the upper stratas - the rest of us are wage labourers plus an bunch of self employed, petty booshwah, underclass/lumpenproles and so on.
there are differences that sets us apart from each other, sure, but these are to be overcome.

we are many - they are few.

 

[The39thStep]

absolutely not, hence saying it depends on the definition / line of working - middle class.

there's a vested interest from the 1% in trying to persuade a swathe of people that they are 'middle class' and therefore have more in common with the 1% than they do with the 'working class' who they should fear and look down on.

although there's a few on the left who seem to help by telling most people that they aren't working class enough to join their gang...

Tbf though the Waitrose shopper theory does stand up imo

 

[chilango]

Tbf though the Waitrose shopper theory does stand up imo

Surely it's Apolónia in your case these days?

 

[oryx]

A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.

This. I would argue that the terms 'working class' and 'middle class' have become so debatable and so loaded with (usually) silly cultural signifiers as to be almost meaningless. I believe the term is problematic for some, but I prefer the 99% v the 1% / the many not the few.

Using this idea and in the current climate, a lecturer/junior doctor (traditionally seen as middle class occupations) has more in common with a postie or rail worker (traditionally seen as working class occupations). The common enemy is the very wealthy who seek to perpetuate the current system as it benefits them.

To return to nursing, the term 'nurse' potentially covers everyone from healthcare assistants to highly trained and specialised nurses and their are stratas of the traditional class structure within that. I did some nurse training many years ago and there were various bands including within the level of qualification for trained nurses (now changed). They'd all be the 99% anyway

 

[chilango]

Problem is that the 99% also includes your landlord, your boss, your boss's boss and so on.

 

[seeformiles]

i never understood it but teachers and nurses were always considered middle class as far as I was aware
i also dont see a difference between a nurse and a doctor other than wage level

My old man (son of a mechanic and a shop worker) did well at school and got his senior school certificate - being good at art and languages. He wanted to join the navy but the school headmaster told his parents that he had the brains to be a teacher - something he wasn’t interested in - but they put pressure on him to do so as it was a much more “respectable” job than what was open to many of his contemporaries who were bound for the shipyard and related jobs. He won a scholarship to Queens University in Belfast in 1954 - something that actually was reported in the paper (“Local Boy Makes Good”) but this parental and scholastic pressure was something he regretted later on. He spent 40 years teaching in a school directly opposite the house where he was born but I don’t recall him ever being happy about it. When he got drunk, he told me never to get married or have kids and how he wished he’d joined the navy. While he appreciated the post war education act - something he saw that enabled a bit more social mobility for WC kids - he’d done it purely to please his parents but felt alienated from his mates in the process. All I saw was regret and a sense of class betrayal. He was a very conflicted fella.

 

[The39thStep]

Surely it's Apolónia in your case these days?

Jesus , expensive chain that .

 

[chilango]

Jesus , expensive chain that .

Isn't it? I don't recommend their sparkling white fwiw either

 

[Serge Forward]

Lest we all forget, here's some wise words from an alternative life coach:

 

[Ming]

Ming and Tanya1982, not sure if you're still reading but hope you are and this is proving interesting.

Are things getting spicy?

 

[Ming]

My dad was an electrician initially (Cammell Laird shipyard), then in the merchant navy for WW2 and then a sales rep for Coles cranes (later Acrow). My mum worked for John Lewis in retail. I was the first member of the family to go to university. I suppose i identify as middle class. I’ve only got a slight NW accent.

 

[seventh bullet]

I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.

I currently pay a small mortgage on a small flat. I'm still going to be working until I drop. Due to family problems my savings are miniscule. I'm a retail worker with no tertiary education. I like sushi. Come the revolution do I get shot or re-educated? You need to re-read danny's post.

 

[redsquirrel]

It's about trying to read the currents of economics/society at large. <snip>.
We're straying a bit from class per se, but I think by focusing so exclusively on the conflict of workers vs capitalists it becomes very difficult to read what is happening in our society and prepare for what is coming.

Thanks for outlining your theory a bit more. But I'm not contesting it for the moment I'm seeking an answer to LDC s question - what does this mean for your politics.
I understand you identify homeowners as no longer working class, so are renters the key strategic block, how will they dismantle capitalism? Are you arguing for organising on a class (your definition of w/c) basis, or a cross-class basis? If homeowners are no longer part of labour you've significantly shrunk the size of labour, what do you think are the political implications for that? What does your theory mean for countries where renting is much more common? Is Germany less capitalist, orcloser to a revolutionary situation than the UK?

But Marxian thought has also not come up with a coherent strategy that works to destroy capitalism. At the risk of stating the obvious.

Bollocks. Marx very clearly outlined why labour was the crucial point in capitalism - the focus on the working class is not a moral, it is because the working class occupy the pivotal strategic point. In the words of EMW "The particular importance for Marxism of the working class in capitalist society is that this is the only class whose own class interests require, and whose own conditions make possible, the abolition of class itself."
You can disagree with that but it is a clear coherent politics that builds it base upon the group that is able to dismantle capitalism.

Where is your strategic pivot point? Is it still the working class but redefined to remove homeowners?

There are a number of people here who still appear to believe that Marx established a sort of science of how society works, and that this offers a factual description of what happens in the world. Perhaps rather than assuming that these annoying people on urban75 just don't understand Marx, perhaps you could assume that we do not believe he did offer a 'scientific' description of society.

I don't know about understanding Marx, but the first sentence shows you don't understand (or are arguing in bad faith) the positions of people posting on this thread. I certainly do not believe Marx 'established a sort of science of how society works' and I'm skeptical that most other posters believe such. Indeed, in contrast to, say ska invita, I absolutely reject economics and political science.

The reason why I tend to believe that some "just don't understand Marx", is because the claims that a class model based on ownership of the MoP does not address X or Y are usually simply wrong (as danny la rouge has pointed out).
The claims that 'Marx did not take X into account' are not some radical new point, they are typically rather old hat. Which does not necessarily make them wrong or incorrect, but does mean that some posters are posting from a certain ignorance when they claim that 'Marx' is wrong because 'things are more complex now'.

I'd also not that at least one of the posters arguing against class and insisting that things are more complicated than in Marxian thought has repeatedly admitted they have read very little Marx. Which is fine, I would not pretend to be some scholar of Marx, but does mean that there is a very good chance they do not understand Marx.

 

[redsquirrel]

But OTOH if trying to frame an alternative you have to address wealth. This is what concerns people more than their class relationship to the MoP. Otherwise it's just a bit describing the water to drowning peple, some of whom have got 2 arms and a leg on a life raft and others barely doggy paddling.

I'm not going to say wealth is irrelevant, but think about the logical conclusion of making wealth rather than class the focus. Do we not support the strikes by the RMT, UCU, teachers or (potentially) doctors because they are paid better, (and in some cases have more social capital) than many other workers?

If you are arguing that it is difficult to get people to see that everyone's interest is served by doctors or university lecturers getting a pay rise, then I would not disagree. But that is where the challenge is. And I think that people can be convinced, and indeed many do understand, that a victory for any group of workers, even the 'well paid' ones, is a victory for all. That a rising tide does raise all boats.

 

[Almor]

This is my frustration with it. OK. so class in the
It's not much use invoking it when trying to tell the poorest workers in society they're actually in the same class as someone earning 100K and leaving out the ovvious power wealth brings.

Isn't this arse about face?
Wouldn't the point would be to tell the wealthier people that they're in the same class as the poorest workers in society to encourage support for struggling/striking people from those with similar class interests who've been convinced that they're something different despite still being subject to capital's control/exploitation and only a little further from similar problems if they lose jobs or status?

It feels a bit like danny la rouge /Marx's definition of class is trying to find similarities and other definitions are trying to find differences, both of which are probably useful for different things

 

[andysays]

I currently pay a small mortgage on a small flat. I'm still going to be working until I drop. Due to family problems my savings are miniscule. I'm a retail worker with no tertiary education. I like sushi. Come the revolution do I get shot or re-educated? You need to re-read danny's post.

I thought everyone knew the rules by now?

It's OK to like sushi, as long as you don't also like hummus and avocado.

Liking just one of those three is fine, liking two will require re-education, but liking all three qualifies for first up against the wall treatment, I'm afraid.

 

[Bus Honeygun]

This hummous thing is getting on my wick. My hospital porter dad made his own hummous not because he was desperate to join the chattering classes but because he was a Sephardi Jew from an Eastern Mediterranean background.

Please stick with sushi as the middle class cultural signifier from now on. Mick McGahey never ate sushi and neither will I.

 

[Pickman's model]

A wide range of people struggle in different ways and see their problems increase while a small elite at the top gets richer and richer and richer. Imho that's a decent place to start to analyse and organise. And it can be easily linked to other issues such as climate action. That's more or less the message of the Occupy movement, and it is largely a wealth-based argument. Corbyn's 'for the many, not the few' captured the same kind of idea.

Says the man who forgets Tony Blair campaigned under the same slogan. There's even pictures of Tony Blair on stage at labour party conference with the bloody slogan on the wall behind him. It's not Jeremy corbyn's slogan, it's been about for a while

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought everyone knew the rules by now?

It's OK to like sushi, as long as you don't also like hummus and avocado.

Liking just one of those three is fine, liking two will require re-education, but liking all three qualifies for first up against the wall treatment, I'm afraid.

It's OK to like sushi as long as you don't like wasabi or pickled ginger

 

[mojo pixy]

I still don't buy it. You say owning a house doesn't change your class position, but when you come to own it outright you are then hugely protected from the ups and downs of the labour market and even the pension system. You are free to vote for people who believe that labour should be cheaper without it having real consequences for you. I call that a change in class position.

I know I'm late to reply to this, but it's occurred to me on waking up that I'm (for example) very well protected from various ups and downs - because while I don't own my home and probably never will, the house I live in is one I pay very low rent for (substantially below market) and my tenancy is assured, so unless I deal drugs or piss off the neighbourhood or burn the place down or whatever, I basically get to live here indefinitely. Minus is that it's not mine so it's not as asset, fine. But i can do what I want with it within reason, and there are a ton of repairs I'm not responsible for, and unless the HA sell it (which I admit could happen) I'm basically set for life. If anything I think I'm in as good a position in terms of the security of my home, as if I owned it myself. And maybe better, in terms of running costs. I have the right to buy it, but I don't want to because it'd cost me more if I did.

I'm just not sure (outside of the south east maybe) that home ownership is necessarily the class-defining grail you seem to be painting it as. Yes, it's nice to own your home but for a few thousand quid you can buy a perfectly livable van or caravan. I lived in a van for ages instead of renting, I don't think it changed my class except downward to 'itinerant' if that's a thing - but the fact is I did for a while own my own home, outright.

As has been pointed out, even if you own the place you live, you can't sell it and realise that wealth without moving out. And how many people actually do own bricks-and-mortar home of their own but no other wealth or assets except that, I bet its not all that many in a country of ~60million. I think the reason home ownership tops some people's 'middle class' list is not because of the home itself but because it represents an asset to leverage in order to make other wealth-increasing investments - and that can change your class substantially.

Eg. If someone owns more than one and rents out the others, that's class defining. If they own it and give up working, that probably is too. If they remortgage to invest in a business they aren't employed by, that too most likely. And various other 'I don't have to sell my labour anymore' scenarios, no doubt. If they own one and have lodgers, that may too - but not definitively, and IMO unless they live 100% off of that rent I'm really not sure it fundamentally changes their class, if they still sell their labour and would struggle if they lost their job. I just don't believe Home Ownership is really key to defining Class, not on its own. Other material interests come into it.

Still, I'm glad this thread is alive again. This is proper U75 stuff

 

[seventh bullet]

I just need to know before the Red Guards kick my door in.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I've never worked in the health service and not really had a lot to do with hospitals as a patient, so entirely anecdotal, but I get the idea that at least some nurses - until relatively recently - were quite middle class and went in to it for a few years until they got married. (again, i may be wrong, but i think that at one time, nurses were either expected if not compelled to leave the job if they did get married.)

obviously what happened during the war/s was different and some middle class / upper class women went in to various lines of work 'for the duration' and then a few stayed on - after 1945 at least - for one reason or another.

and of course depends if you recognise, and where you draw, the line between middle and working class - arguably nurses are / were more middle class than (for example) hospital catering and cleaning staff.

It used to be a job you could go into as a working class person, without funding yourself through years of university, and end up with a good profession and a decent income. That was what my mum did. When I was a kid our whole family lived off her nursing bursary.

Now nursing is university-only, bursaries have been cut and wages have fallen in real terms. That route for people (particularly women) to get themselves a good career without having family money to back them up has disappeared.

 

[mojo pixy]

Food choices can fuck off from a class analysis though right? We're so multicultural now that whether someone eats hummous or guacamole or sushi or splashes out on expensive olives or fresh juice or even wine, is down to taste, nutrition, and because its all available these days. As if working class people should stick to stew and beer and rickets.