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

[hitmouse]

If we're talking about Ehrenreich, would she have been using the term PMC rather than middle class? Not that I can claim any great knowledge of what Ehrenreich thought about nurses.

 

[ska invita]

If we're talking about Ehrenreich, would she have been using the term PMC rather than middle class? Not that I can claim any great knowledge of what Ehrenreich thought about nurses.

yes - she talks about what were PMC jobs in the 70s and how significant chunks of those jobs are slipping into working class territory 50 years later.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, in that case I'd expect her to be using language in a fairly precise sense, unrelated to whatever muddles Americans in general have about the notion of a middle class. I'm still entirely unqualified to judge how her actual argument holds up though!

 

[ska invita]

Yeah, in that case I'd expect her to be using language in a fairly precise sense, unrelated to whatever muddles Americans in general have about the notion of a middle class. I'm still entirely unqualified to judge how her actual argument holds up though!

its a great read IMO

https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/ehrenreich_death_of_a_yuppie_dream90.pdf

(Nursing a somewhat different job in the US with no NHS I guess)

 

[A380]

Is there any way to read Capital without reading Capital? I'm only educated to GCSE level (apart from work related stuff) so academia is beyond me.

Start with your mum and dad talking you through it on long journeys and at meal times from the age of about eight.

I don't say this is necessarily a good thing BTW...

 

[danny la rouge]

Start with your mum and dad talking you through it on long journeys and at meal times from the age of about eight.

I don't sya this is necessarily a good thing BTW...

Yes. To be fair both my maternal and paternal grandfathers were Tankies. So there’s that.

 

[danny la rouge]

you need to argue with the 'rich' parts of the working and middle class, thats where the solidarity is really being lost (is basically my point overall)

I’d agree. I think a lot of people have bought the story that they’re middle class.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

FWIW I avoided it for years, but got a few friends together a bit ago and we committed to doing it. We started with 5 of us, one dropped out pretty early, but we stuck with it. We met fortnightly, in a pub sometimes and online sometimes. We started, as some suggest, with Chapter 26 (the history stuff) which is much easier (and interesting) to read and then once finished went back to Chapter 1. We got someone to present every bit, but the expectations were low and it was OK to do a few minutes, even sometimes being clear that it was all a bit confusing and this what was Wikipedia (or similar) said about it rather than the definitive savage analysis. We did it in small chunks and it took us 2 years pretty much exactly.

Alongside it I read 33 Lessons on Capital by Harry Cleaver and Companion to Marx's Capital by David Harvey section by section as we did Capital, both of which were useful in different ways and much easier to read. There's also some really good videos on Youtube that cover some of the chapters (these guys I found very useful https://www.youtube.com/@ChapterbyChapter).

My takeaways from it (as an anarchist that spent years sneering at Marx and Marxists) is that, while not without flaws and bits that are incomplete, is an incredibly useful and relevant analysis of capitalism that still holds the kernel of how capitalism operates today. I think most of the people critising it have not read it and have no idea of what it says tbh. I also think many of the fundamentals could be covered well in a shorter pamphlet (like the ones mentioned)... as he does like to repeat himself. Suprisingly it isn't academic at all imo, but some of it is complicated and very detailed which can be a bit intimidating, but it's well worth sticking with, and I wish i'd read it a long time ago (although had read some other bits of his and other's opinions on it). It's also quite fun and interesting in parts, and you do get a nice feel of the tumult and insurrection of the time as well.

TLDR: Hard work in parts, but well worth it and sometimes suprisingly fun, but defo could be a pamphlet.

E2A: Oh beaten to it by a few above, should have read before posting!

E2A part 2: I think you'd like it Magnus McGinty for me some of the drive to read it came from a complete despair at the moralist direction parts of the anarchist scene/movement had taken, and their analysis of capitalism that seemed to be reduced to a criticism of consumerism, and all that and more that led them into an individualist liberal dead end where their analysis and then political program seemed to be reduced to convincing people to make the correct choices about lifestyle issues, and the variety of strategies of the way to do that (petitions and demos on one end vs. arson and riot on the other) was the difference between them rather than having a better structural analysis of capital.

Ooof, had 2 lagers after a long shift, might not be making complete sense....

I’m libertarian by instinct and can’t see that changing but I’m so unread it’s embarrassing at this point. I find myself nodding in agreement with what others are saying but can’t really join the conversation as I don’t fully understand the concepts so I need to start remedying that.
I’m not really politically active nowadays beyond being a union rep, and more reading can’t harm that either. So I appreciate all the pointers.

I’m pretty well oiled also. Enjoy your Winterval.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Okay, briefly, I’ve said it before but it generally doesn’t go down well. I’ve had interludes into political groups and whether it’s because they are academics or whatever I feel a class difference between myself and those people.
The fact they are talking about how alienated and oppressed they are freaked me out, because I grew up around people who definitely were those things and didn’t end up being post grads discussing it.
I end up being called IDprole. But these differences are glaring.

 

[redsquirrel]

If I've argued that homeowners aren't working class it was only by accident. I'm more arguing for class segmentation according to material interests. As for what to call each class segment, I would go for pragmatic naming, or something that fitted a political narrative that people might be likely to buy.

You previously stated (my bold)

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.

If you are not arguing that home ownership changes your class position, but just that it is a material interest that some members of the working class have (and some don't). Well no offence, but durrr.

The importance of home ownership may be questioned but I do not see anyone of this thread (or anyone except those with the most crude interpretation of Marx) arguing that there are not members of the working class who have materials interests that (they see as) align(ing) them more with capital. Quite the contrary

But ok homeowners are working class but a different segment of the w/c - what does that mean practically? I'm really not bothered about "naming", I'm talking about organising. The importance of a class theory based on the ownership of the MoP is as a political tool for changing the world. how does your class segmentation based on home ownership affect this?

You wrote in the same post that you don't see Marx as having come up with the objectively correct description of society, and that Marx outlined a theory of political change that you seem to see as beyond dispute. Perhaps you can reconcile those two claims for me.

What? I've said no such thing. Are you getting confused by my use of 'coherent'? I'm not using it as a synonym for correct (objectively or otherwise).

Marx's fundamental contention that class is the pivotal strategic point in capitalism because of the position it holds, and thus the w/c is the actor that can dismantle capitalism is coherent. One might not agree with it, but it is coherent.
I also think it is the political philosophy that best meets my aims - hence why I try to organise my actions w.r.t. class struggle.

I've not seen any other 'anti-capitalist' politics that is coherent. Politics that makes ideals, views, race, gender, etc else the pivot point may have good points, organising around such basis may help obtain real benefits for workers. But I have not seen any politics that is able to coherently connect any alternative actor to class with the dismantling capitalism.
There may be an alternative, but I have not seen it so far. Basically what hitmouse and Serge Forward said.

None of the above means that I think Marx is objectively correct or beyond dispute. In fact I think I'd challenge the idea that a political philosophy can be 'objectively correct', and clearly there are disputes about Marx, Marxism, Marxian and class theory.

I think it's an indisputable fact that the working class (in Marx's defn) in the UK is avowedly reformist and shows no signs of being otherwise. 150 years of evidence is in and I'm going with that rather than with what Marx said. I actually think Marx would go with the evidence too. You can wait another 150 years for the prophecy of the working class becoming revolutionary to come true if you like. I'm a bit more impatient than that.

What has this got to do with the discussion?
The position Marx, myself, and other's give to class can be separated from any reformism vs revolutionary debate. The working class has a particular importance for socialists, it has to. But there is nothing incoherent in being a socialist, organising on a class basis, and pursuing a reformist strategy.

 

[bellaozzydog]

I’m libertarian by instinct and can’t see that changing but I’m so unread it’s embarrassing at this point. I find myself nodding in agreement with what others are saying but can’t really join the conversation as I don’t fully understand the concepts so I need to start remedying that.
I’m not really politically active nowadays beyond being a union rep, and more reading can’t harm that either. So I appreciate all the pointers.

I’m pretty well oiled also. Enjoy your Winterval.

You are not alone

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm not sure what you think is silly?

fwiw I don't think I'd characterise what I think is needed, as 'revolution'. It sounds wanky but I think evolution is a better word, but not edgy enough for mass appeal and sounds like hippy shit, oops.

Just need a way to express the idea of going forward to a place we've never been as a species / culture / society, rather than the idea of reversion to a prior state of which exactly none have been ideal.

Still "now it's just getting silly" caught my eye. What is?

150 years of reasons why the working class has not turned out to be a revolutionary class, while still explaining that of course the working class is the revolutionary class.

 

[Brainaddict]

You previously stated (my bold)

If you are not arguing that home ownership changes your class position, but just that it is a material interest that some members of the working class have (and some don't). Well no offence, but durrr.

The importance of home ownership may be questioned but I do not see anyone of this thread (or anyone except those with the most crude interpretation of Marx) arguing that there are not members of the working class who have materials interests that (they see as) align(ing) them more with capital. Quite the contrary

But ok homeowners are working class but a different segment of the w/c - what does that mean practically? I'm really not bothered about "naming", I'm talking about organising. The importance of a class theory based on the ownership of the MoP is as a political tool for changing the world. how does your class segmentation based on home ownership affect this?


What? I've said no such thing. Are you getting confused by my use of 'coherent'? I'm not using it as a synonym for correct (objectively or otherwise).

Marx's fundamental contention that class is the pivotal strategic point in capitalism because of the position it holds, and thus the w/c is the actor that can dismantle capitalism is coherent. One might not agree with it, but it is coherent.
I also think it is the political philosophy that best meets my aims - hence why I try to organise my actions w.r.t. class struggle.

I've not seen any other 'anti-capitalist' politics that is coherent. Politics that makes ideals, views, race, gender, etc else the pivot point may have good points, organising around such basis may help obtain real benefits for workers. But I have not seen any politics that is able to coherently connect any alternative actor to class with the dismantling capitalism.
There may be an alternative, but I have not seen it so far. Basically what hitmouse and Serge Forward said.

None of the above means that I think Marx is objectively correct or beyond dispute. In fact I think I'd challenge the idea that a political philosophy can be 'objectively correct', and clearly there are disputes about Marx, Marxism, Marxian and class theory.


What has this got to do with the discussion?
The position Marx, myself, and other's give to class can be separated from any reformism vs revolutionary debate. The working class has a particular importance for socialists, it has to. But there is nothing incoherent in being a socialist, organising on a class basis, and pursuing a reformist strategy.

This conversation feels difficult. I feel like I am trying to make arguments that your paradigm is wrong, and you present me with evidence that it is right from within your paradigm. It's difficult to progress the argument.

Even the conversation about naming classes: you assumed that a class is either working class or not working class, while I was thinking of naming groups in society (based on material interests) using neither a category of 'working class' nor 'not working class'. This seems to go so strongly against your instincts (developed within your paradigm) that you thought I was saying something contradictory.

 

[Brainaddict]

There's a difference between those who see what Marx wrote as a bunch of predictions and those who see it as a way to understand how capitalism works and, importantly, our own class interests.

But the analysis leads to certain assumptions about the route to escaping capitalism. It assumes the labour movement is absolutely key, for example. From my observations I see the labour movement as in many ways a conservative force in British society, particularly on the question of institutions. Having the killer tactic of the strike (which is very alluring to people with radical leanings because it is clearly powerful) does not make people fight for radical change - they in fact strike for a comfortable life, without any intention of changing institutions in any meaningful way. So some people are aware that 'trade union consciousness' is not enough and think that radical agitation is needed to go beyond this. But what happens in practice? The radical agitator says 'ah but next time we'll get them to push for something more radical', but next time is the same, and so change is infinitely deferred.

 

[mojo pixy]

150 years of reasons why the working class has not turned out to be a revolutionary class, while still explaining that of course the working class is the revolutionary class.

So is it 150 years of navel gazing that you think is getting silly, or 150 years of making excuses for not kicking off a revolution, or is it just the notion of a working class in general that's getting silly?

 

[Brainaddict]

So is it 150 years of navel gazing that you think is getting silly, or 150 years of making excuses for not kicking off a revolution, or is it just the notion of a working class in general that's getting silly?

The second, shading into the third, because the conception of working class has certain inbuilt assumptions, based on certain beliefs about dynamics within capitalism.

Look, if all you want to say is that employees and employers have different interests when it comes to determining levels of wages, you don't need Marx for that, and even the idea of class conflict was brewing in English radical journals in the decades before Marx started writing. I'm not disputing that is one way to see the world and that it can be useful.

 

[Pickman's model]

The second, shading into the third, because the conception of working class has certain inbuilt assumptions, based on certain beliefs about dynamics within capitalism.

Look, if all you want to say is that employees and employers have different interests when it comes to determining levels of wages, you don't need Marx for that, and even the idea of class conflict was brewing in English radical journals in the decades before Marx started writing. I'm not disputing that is one way to see the world and that it can be useful.

Marx can be attacked for a lot of things. But attacking him from a position of abject ignorance isn't a really good idea. For example you say you don't need marx to tell you the interests of bosses and workers are different. But marx does much more than that, he shows how they are different in eg capital. He describes alienation. He analyses capitalism in a way that is still relevant today. And the notion of class conflict is nothing new - when Adam delved and eve span, who was then the gentleman ring any bells? But marx said explicitly the history of all preexisting society is the history of class conflict.

 

[Brainaddict]

Marx can be attacked for a lot of things. But attacking him from a position of abject ignorance isn't a really good idea. For example you say you don't need marx to tell you the interests of bosses and workers are different. But marx does much more than that, he shows how they are different in eg capital. He describes alienation. He analyses capitalism in a way that is still relevant today. And the notion of class conflict is nothing new - when Adam delved and eve span, who was then the gentleman ring any bells? But marx said explicitly the history of all preexisting society is the history of class conflict.

Those are some of the things I disagree with.

 

[ska invita]

Regarding the working class as the revolutionary class my understanding is that as i said earlier in the thread, orthodox marxism posited an 'inevitable' collapse of capitalism, based on Marx's understanding of capitalist contradictions like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall etc - that capitalism will inevitably create the conditions for its own demise ...as the lot of the working class gets ever more desperate and so revolution 'inevitable'.

What would've been a surprise to Marx if he were alive today, and what scuppers the above is the resilience of capitalism + the degree of buying off the working class and integrating within capitalism - welfare state yes but also greatly increased stakeholding within capitalism - a massive change since the 1800s.

That doesn't mean the working class doesn't have a huge amount of latent power if realised - of course it does (though then again so does everyone of any class) - but it does require an update of classical industrial 19thC era marxism to include this stakeholding in the state/economy/system. Obviously those most oppressed are most keen to end their oppression

 

[seventh bullet]

It can be difficult for people to get their heads around the concept of anonymous social forces that they are a part of while also relating to those beyond their particular experiences.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Obviously those most oppressed are most keen to end their oppression

are they?

there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...

 

[chilango]

Okay, briefly, I’ve said it before but it generally doesn’t go down well. I’ve had interludes into political groups and whether it’s because they are academics or whatever I feel a class difference between myself and those people.
The fact they are talking about how alienated and oppressed they are freaked me out, because I grew up around people who definitely were those things and didn’t end up being post grads discussing it.
I end up being called IDprole. But these differences are glaring.

Be interested in hearing more about what these glaring differences are, and how/why they are a class difference.

 

[cesare]

are they?

there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...

"False consciousness' according to Marx.

 

[seventh bullet]

are they?

there's a fair few people in precarious low paid jobs and crap private rentals who have been conned in to thinking that trade unions, people in unionised jobs, council tenants are somehow the enemy...

Yup. Growing up poor you understand the lower reaches of the working class aren't sainted. One thing that has got me anecdotally over the years about anti-union or more widely socialist ideas is that a person would rather see someone have it even shitter than themselves than see their own lot improve along with others. The working class is contested, not to be taken for granted, poor or more oppresed or not.

 

[hitmouse]

This conversation feels difficult. I feel like I am trying to make arguments that your paradigm is wrong, and you present me with evidence that it is right from within your paradigm. It's difficult to progress the argument.

Even the conversation about naming classes: you assumed that a class is either working class or not working class, while I was thinking of naming groups in society (based on material interests) using neither a category of 'working class' nor 'not working class'. This seems to go so strongly against your instincts (developed within your paradigm) that you thought I was saying something contradictory.

OK, so to progress the argument: what do you see as being a better paradigm? I'm not asking you to publish a massive three-volume text that I'm not going to bother reading, just like, do you think there's a better route to escaping capitalism, and what does that look like in a broad sense? I also reckon that it might be worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, fwiw.

 

[seventh bullet]

Be interested in hearing more about what these glaring differences are, and how/why they are a class difference.

And also interested in the relations of power between varying strata and how they are reproduced.

 

[Brainaddict]

OK, so to progress the argument: what do you see as being a better paradigm? I'm not asking you to publish a massive three-volume text that I'm not going to bother reading, just like, do you think there's a better route to escaping capitalism, and what does that look like in a broad sense? I also reckon that it might be worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, fwiw.

I sort of have some half-answers to those questions but U75 isn't really the forum for them. But let me ask another question in return: if one paradigm clearly isn't working, and you don't have another paradigm available, is it better to continue working within the old paradigm, or to spend energy instead on trying to create new paradigms?

There have been a couple of other replies here along the lines of 'Well nothing else works'. But that's not really a good reply to the suggestion your current paradigm isn't working. There's an almost religious ring to it - well you can't come up with any other initiating force for the universe so I choose to continue believing in God. You can't come up with any other force that will overthrow capitalism so I choose to continue believing in the working class.

 

[chilango]

And also interested in the relations of power between varying strata and how they are reproduced.

Absolutely. And the different & conflicting forms of power within various strata, and how they are used (or not).

 

[chilango]

...and on the theme of power, for me at least the centrality of class - and specifically the working class - is about the power to overthrow capitalism rather than the motivation to overthrow capitalism.

 

[LDC]

But the analysis leads to certain assumptions about the route to escaping capitalism. It assumes the labour movement is absolutely key, for example. From my observations I see the labour movement as in many ways a conservative force in British society, particularly on the question of institutions. Having the killer tactic of the strike (which is very alluring to people with radical leanings because it is clearly powerful) does not make people fight for radical change - they in fact strike for a comfortable life, without any intention of changing institutions in any meaningful way. So some people are aware that 'trade union consciousness' is not enough and think that radical agitation is needed to go beyond this. But what happens in practice? The radical agitator says 'ah but next time we'll get them to push for something more radical', but next time is the same, and so change is infinitely deferred.

To me that seems like your framing the question as a moral or maybe a practical one, and talking about labour as conservative (or wanting a comfortable life, like that's so wrong?!) rather than thinking about its position and (potential) power within society. But to me that misses the point; it's a strategic position that they have, the ability to stop capitalism and remake society along different lines, and that's due to their position in capitalism. On that level it's nothing to do with their current politics or outlook, conservative or worse, infact that is the whole political project isn't it, to get the class to understand their position, power and then the possibility of something better.

Yes, the strike is limited, and yes everything has failed so far, but that criticism could be leveled at all analysis and attempts at change couldn't it?