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

[LDC]

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?

Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes). It's the political project that uses that analysis that 'isn't working'. And why that is can be discussed at length, but you can bet a load of us have got some good reasons, and none of them are to do with the analysis we have.

I'd be interested to know (a) what you think is a better paradigm, but more importantly, (b) how that then leads you to a winning political program for 'working'. (Of course capital's got a pretty winning program right, should we use that?)

 

[Brainaddict]

...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.

In theory my siblings and I have the power to overthrow my Mum's power in the family. It's a meaningless theoretical power though, because none of us have the desire or intention to do it. Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations theoretically have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.

 

[danny la rouge]

Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes). It's the political project that uses that analysis that 'isn't working'. And why that is can be discussed at length, but you can bet a load of us have got some good reasons, and none of them are to do with the analysis we have.

I'd be interested to know (a) what you think is a better paradigm, but more importantly, (b) how that then leads you to a winning political program for 'working'. (Of course capital's got a pretty winning program right?)

Yup. There seems to be some idea that Class Analysis is some kind of magic incantation to bring about change. It isn’t. It’s an analysis. I mean the SPGB are waiting for the Inevitable Rapture, but the rest of us think you have to organise.

 

[Brainaddict]

Brainaddict I don't get this, it's not a 'paradigm' that we jettison as it 'isn't working' (I also don't get what you mean by that tbh), it's a structural analysis of capital that does 'work' (with additions and changes).

It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.

 

[chilango]

Imo, David Graeber nailed it with this quote:

"the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently."

 

[chilango]

Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations theoretically have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.

This has actually happened though, right?

(or at least something pretty damned close)

 

[ska invita]

...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.

...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)

motivation seems key to me

 

[ska invita]

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...

well yeah there is that too! as a rule of thumb though those most oppressed are much more likely to want a solution to that oppression than continue the system that hurts them

 

[danny la rouge]

Imo, David Graeber nailed it with this quote:

Very much and exactly.

 

[chilango]

...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)

motivation seems key to me

How would this m/c (who do you mean by this?) use that social, cultural etc. power to overthrow capitalism?

For the w/c it's obviously the withdrawal of their labour power, without it capitalism stops. Dead.

Social and cultural capital also play a role in the reproduction of capitalism, for sure. But, I think we'd need to flesh out how this could be leveraged to halt these cycles of reproduction.

 

[ska invita]

How would this m/c (who do you mean by this?) use that social, cultural etc. power to overthrow capitalism?

no i mean could withdraw their labour power + use other forms of power they have (social cultural personal wealth etc)

 

[chilango]

no i mean could withdraw their labour power + use other forms of power they have (social cultural personal wealth etc)

Yeah, I'm interested in these "other forms of power". What they look like, how they work etc.

 

[mojo pixy]

It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.

I don't think anyone is confusing a marxist analysis with capital-T Truth - it's just an analysis. I'm one of those people who thinks it's still relevant to my problems, and I think my problems (in terms of wealth and power at least) are not untypical in the UK in 2022.

You're saying it's not relevant to yours - so what would be more relevant? I'm trying to understand your approach a bit better.

 

[Pickman's model]

Those are some of the things I disagree with.

Yeh that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

 

[hitmouse]

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.

I mean, the whole question of whether someone needs to propose something better in order to criticise an existing thing is one I, like everyone else, go back and forth on, and will surely continue to do so. But in terms of this particular discussion I think it would be helpful if you could share your working-out with the class (pun not consciously intended) here, if we're all creationists or whatever I'd like to hear what the arguments for evolution are.

In theory my siblings and I have the power to overthrow my Mum's power in the family. It's a meaningless theoretical power though, because none of us have the desire or intention to do it. Or to use an example that might be closer, people who run power stations theoretically have more power than most people in society because they could organise together to hold the country to ransom by turning off the power. Since none of them have any interest in doing so however it remains a meaningless idea to say that power station staff are powerful.

Is it meaningless to say that, for instance, security staff at Fawley Oil Refinery are powerful? Or dockers at the port of Felixstowe?

...what distinguishes the middle class as the revolutionary class then...arguably have as much if not more power (cultural social material etc)

motivation seems key to me

Well, we'd need to come up with a working definition of the middle class first, last time I checked we'd got as far as "sometimes nurses, but not all the time".

 

[hitmouse]

Yeh that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

Could make a decent refrain for a Julie Andrews song, though.

 

[bellaozzydog]

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.

I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you

People, just, do, not, get, it.

And have little interest in political and economic theory wrapped up in the esoteric argot of academia

Unless you are talking to another person with a similar level of knowledge and understanding you are banging your head against a brick wall

British ignorance and lack of interest in the intricacies of these subjects is baked in, systematic stuff

I say this as someone who distributed 100 plus copies of the ragged trousered philanthropists text and comic editions around my home town in a desperate attempt to “do something” to generate some interest/understanding/engagement

 

[danny la rouge]

I mean, the whole question of whether someone needs to propose something better in order to criticise an existing thing is one I, like everyone else, go back and forth on, and will surely continue to do so. But in terms of this particular discussion I think it would be helpful if you could share your working-out with the class (pun not consciously intended) here, if we're all creationists or whatever I'd like to hear what the arguments for evolution are.

Is it meaningless to say that, for instance, security staff at Fawley Oil Refinery are powerful? Or dockers at the port of Felixstowe?

Well, we'd need to come up with a working definition of the middle class first, last time I checked we'd got as far as "sometimes nurses, but not all the time".

Here:
Post in thread 'Are these people middle class?'
https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-these-people-middle-class.346881/post-14676967

My concern with a middle class-led vanguard is, well, the Labour Party is an example. Reformism. Liberalism. Change-without-change.

 

[hitmouse]

Also, not to fall back into quoting The Holy Texts or whatever, but I always think that it's useful to refer back to what Martin Glaberman said about some of this stuff:

Martin Glaberman: Workers' Reality (1997)

Martin Glaberman: A Different Sort of Democracy (1997)

www.marxists.org

And the one thing that I think is an absolute given: workers will resist, because work sucks. Until someone can tell me that work has become real nice under capitalism, whether in the United States or anywhere else, I say that is the fundamental basis of our theory and our practice. Work sucks. And sooner or later workers are going to resist it in whatever way they can...

In other words, what Marx said was: We’re not talking about going door-to-door and making workers into ideal socialists. You’ve got to take workers as they are, with all their contradictions, with all their nonsense. But the fact that society forces them to struggle begins to transform the working class. If white workers realize they can’t organize steel unless they organize black workers, that doesn’t mean they’re not racist. It means that they have to deal with their own reality, and that transforms them. Who were the workers who made the Russian Revolution? Sexists, nationalists, half of them illiterate. Who were the workers in Polish Solidarity? Anti-Semitic, whatever. That kind of struggle begins to transform people.

(And, as above, I still think it's worth distinguishing between The Labour Movement and workers organising, that's another thing Glaberman was good on.)

 

[seventh bullet]

I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you

People, just, do, not, get, it.

And have little interest in political and economic theory wrapped up in the esoteric argot of academia

Unless you are talking to another person with a similar level of knowledge and understanding you are banging your head against a brick wall

British ignorance and lack of interest in the intricacies of these subjects is baked in, systematic stuff

I say this as someone who distributed 100 plus copies of the ragged trousered philanthropists text and comic editions around my home town in a desperate attempt to “do something” to generate some interest/understanding/engagement

That seems to be a you problem. Approaches are important. People do get it, in their day to day lives. Starting where people are at rather than where you want them to be doesn't necessarily mean 'dumbing down,' or whatever horrible and condescending term one wishes to use. There is also unpicking to do with regard to assumptions about people's capabilities vis-a-vis status, work and education level etc to understand what you've got to say (social and cultural capital, and with it the power in who gets to decide what is important, and that shouldn't be ignored).

 

[Brainaddict]

You're saying it's not relevant to yours - so what would be more relevant? I'm trying to understand your approach a bit better.

There are lots of different approaches one might try. One might be to start with people's experience of capitalism/society. They don't experience exploitation in the sense Marx used that word. They don't experience commodity fetishism, they experience being able to buy what they want in 24hrs from Amazon, money allowing. In the UK what they experience is often a good standard of living. When they don't, they are often offered ways in which that standard of living can improve (some people feel hopeless, and that too is an experience worth paying attention to). Another thing they experience is hierarchy at work, with positive and negative effects of it. They experience some boredom at work perhaps, but tell themselves that someone has to do the boring jobs. They experience their rulers going to war when they don't want that. They experience finding some hierarchies difficult but being able to sometimes move to another hierarchical situation that doesn't bother them so much.

You can go on and on. But it enables you to ask the question, how could people be convinced they will have a better experience of life through another political/economic system? How would one design the system, and what would transitional states towards it look like? Who is structurally opposed to such a transition and who can be convinced? Then you might ask where people's power lies to make such a transition towards better life experience. Strikes could certainly be part of the picture, and other methods too.

I can see some people thinking 'but this has all been worked out already', and I think that's part of the problem. It really hasn't been. Partly because so many people start with an abstract structural analysis of society, rather than with where people are at. That doesn't mean we ignore structures, but we can get at them other ways, like really drilling down into the causes of people's experiences. If you're convinced that would just end up back at Marxian structural analysis then that tells me you're still religiously holding to the truth of that analysis.

Anyway, that's just one possible pathway of investigation. Another might be to ask people whether they want to co-own the means of production (I can tell you the answer is largely no) and then drill down into why etc. It starts from a traditional socialist idea but provides a possible route towards something different.
Etc etc

 

[LDC]

I genuinely think that you’ll get about three minutes into casual conversation about it with someone and at best their eyes will glaze over and they will move away from you

People, just, do, not, get, it.

And have little interest in political and economic theory wrapped up in the esoteric argot of academia

Unless you are talking to another person with a similar level of knowledge and understanding you are banging your head against a brick wall

British ignorance and lack of interest in the intricacies of these subjects is baked in, systematic stuff

I say this as someone who distributed 100 plus copies of the ragged trousered philanthropists text and comic editions around my home town in a desperate attempt to “do something” to generate some interest/understanding/engagement

That's just not my experience at all. People are hugely interested in why the world is as it is and how it might be better. My experience is it's the next bit, the 'how to make it better' which is the area people have little to no faith in - unsurprisingly.

 

[mojo pixy]

There are lots of different approaches one might try. One might be to start with people's experience of capitalism/society. They don't experience exploitation in the sense Marx used that word. They don't experience commodity fetishism, they experience being able to buy what they want in 24hrs from Amazon, money allowing. In the UK what they experience is often a good standard of living. When they don't, they are often offered ways in which that standard of living can improve (some people feel hopeless, and that too is an experience worth paying attention to). Another thing they experience is hierarchy at work, with positive and negative effects of it. They experience some boredom at work perhaps, but tell themselves that someone has to do the boring jobs. They experience their rulers going to war when they don't want that. They experience finding some hierarchies difficult but being able to sometimes move to another hierarchical situation that doesn't bother them so much.

You can go on and on. But it enables you to ask the question, how could people be convinced they will have a better experience of life through another political/economic system? How would one design the system, and what would transitional states towards it look like? Who is structurally opposed to such a transition and who can be convinced? Then you might ask where people's power lies to make such a transition towards better life experience. Strikes could certainly be part of the picture, and other methods too.

I can see some people thinking 'but this has all been worked out already', and I think that's part of the problem. It really hasn't been. Partly because so many people start with an abstract structural analysis of society, rather than with where people are at. That doesn't mean we ignore structures, but we can get at them other ways, like really drilling down into the causes of people's experiences. If you're convinced that would just end up back at Marxian structural analysis then that tells me you're still religiously holding to the truth of that analysis.

Anyway, that's just one possible pathway of investigation. Another might be to ask people whether they want to co-own the means of production (I can tell you the answer is largely no) and then drill down into why etc. It starts from a traditional socialist idea but provides a possible route towards something different.
Etc etc

OK so people's individual experiences and desires takes the place of broad structural analysis? How is it an improvement?

Thing is, your experiences and feelings matter to you, but not to me. Mine matter to me, but not to you. How do we enter a state of solidarity when everything depends on each individual's emotions and whims? How can we be sure of standing behind each other if we think our problems are fundamentally different? Why should we even bother? If we put each person's lived experience before a structural analysis that has relevance to many people, whose takes precedent - and how can we apply it more broadly?

This is why I Marx, the analysis in Capital fits not only my circumstances but millions, even billions of ours. This to me is how we achieve solidarity, by seeking and recognising problems we have in common and standing together. As soon as we start to say stay in your lane, and you do you, where is the solidarity to be found? It's just fighting over crumbs at that point IMO

Please explain why I'm wrong, because I feel I'm missing some of the working here.

 

[Brainaddict]

OK so people's individual experiences and desires takes the place of broad structural analysis? How is it an improvement?

Thing is, your experiences and feelings matter to you, but not to me. Mine matter to me, but not to you. How do we enter a state of solidarity when everything depends on each individual's emotions and whims? How can we be sure of standing behind each other if we think our problems are fundamentally different? Why should we even bother? If we put each person's lived experience before a structural analysis that has relevance to many people, whose takes precedent - and how can we apply it more broadly?

This is why I Marx, the analysis in Capital fits not only my circumstances but millions, even billions of ours. This to me is how we achieve solidarity, by seeking and recognising problems we have in common and standing together. As soon as we start to say stay in your lane, and you do you, where is the solidarity to be found? It's just fighting over crumbs at that point IMO

Please explain why I'm wrong, because I feel I'm missing some of the working here.

"My structural analysis works whatever people feel, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."

"I don't feel it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."

"Yes but it's still right."

"Bully for you Einstein."

<capitalism continues to persist for another 150 years or till the planet gives up>

Okay, that's it, I think the debate is worn out.

 

[bellaozzydog]

That seems to be a you problem. Approaches are important. People do get it, in their day to day lives. Starting where people are at rather than where you want them to be doesn't necessarily mean 'dumbing down,' or whatever horrible and condescending term one wishes to use. There is also unpicking to do with regard to assumptions about people's capabilities vis-a-vis status, work and education level etc to understand what you've got to say (social and cultural capital, and with it the power in who gets to decide what is important, and that shouldn't be ignored).

See, half of what you just said is just word soup to me

Sounds impressive, obviously has some meaning and still comes across as condescending

 

[Serge Forward]

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 some, it might lead to that sort of thinking. To others, not.

 

[mojo pixy]

"My structural analysis works whatever people feel, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."

"I don't feel it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."

"Yes but it's still right."

"Bully for you Einstein."

<capitalism continues to persist for another 150 years or till the planet gives up>

Okay, that's it, I think the debate is worn out.

Well no, the debate as you term it isnt worn out, you're just being sarcastic. Maybe sarcasm isn't helping? I'm not getting the point.

 

[Serge Forward]

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.

The working class may not be revolutionary but it is the only class capable of bringing about a revolution. When or if this ever happens is another question. The point is, nothing else can end capitalism (unless you want to include another variant of capitalism). It's fine to be critical of the working class and what currently stands for a labour movement, but it's not what it is but what it must become. Anything else is tinkering - which has its benefits but doesn't end the system based on exploitation.

 

[LDC]

"My structural analysis works whatever people feel, and even though it hasn't produced the desired results."

"I don't feel it's relevant to my life, so I'm not going to do what your structural analysis suggests I should do."

"Yes but it's still right."

"Bully for you Einstein."

<capitalism continues to persist for another 150 years or till the planet gives up>

Okay, that's it, I think the debate is worn out.

Well if you have conversations like that then yeah, people will roll their eyes and be bored shitless. And for sure some boring politicos do. But if you can't have an interesting, engaging and worthwhile exchange with someone on this kind of topic then the issue is what you're saying and how, not the actual topic itself.

 

[LDC]

It's a paradigm. You are talking about it as though it is Truth with a capital T.

But you said it's one we jettison as it's 'not working'. But if that was the grounds then we'd be dumping pretty much every analysis apart from the dominant ones now surely?

FWIW I think this is an important discussion as on some level it gets to the heart of the world as it is now, and the desire for changing it.