Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

ska invita said:
Little overview piece from the author of that book Dan Evans here

www.opendemocracy.net

The petty bourgeoisie is Britain’s most influential class

Labour’s new target demographic is an oft-invoked but poorly understood social class. Can Starmer appeal?
www.opendemocracy.net www.opendemocracy.net

this referenced in the piece looks interesting
The New Petty Bourgeoisie
Nicos Poulantzas
Click to expand...
Absolute bollocks. The idea that everyone who pays off their mortgage is petty bourgeoisie is mental.
 
Last edited:
ska invita said:
What are your disagreements, on what kind of grounds,? Good to know before going in..
Click to expand...
On class structure and struggle he's generally OK. Politically it's hard to pin him down, sort of left reformist. He reminds me of old Socialist Action types. With a heavy dose of Welsh republicanism on top.

I mostly know him through Desolation Radio, which can be a little Welsh focused, but well worth a listen to. It's a sort of on-off podcast over the last few years

I can't exactly remember why, but I have a lingering feeling that he might be a little bit soft on the old Stalinist states and that can hang over into how he views imperialism and national struggles. IIRC (I don't do twitter very well and I've only seen bits and bobs) he seemed to be coming over all Ukraine is full of nazi's and it's all NATO's fault. I may be doing him a huge disservice here due to only seeing bits of his twitter adjacent things though.

On the basis that it's him though, I'd likely give the book a read. I think he lives in this part of town, but I've not encountered him in the real world, which is a shame, as he's generally pretty sound. I'd happily spend an hour with him shouting at Welsh Labour types.
 
Think I'll read this, there are a few quotes that wet my appetite. "The only positive way out of the crisis would be a broad alliance between both parts of the petty bourgeoisie and the working class".
I think these boards are in a unique position, once we find some working class posters we are on our way.
 
Athos said:
Absolute bollocks. The idea that everyone who pays off their mortgage is petty bourgeoisie is mental.
Click to expand...
That's not how he defines 'petty bourgeois' as far as I can tell. Having a paid off mortgage is one middle class indicator but not as key an indicator of specifically PB as being self-employed (ie owning the bucket). I only read the article posted above though, not the book in full.
 
mojo pixy said:
That's not how he defines 'petty bourgeois' as far as I can tell. Having a paid off mortgage is one middle class indicator but not as key an indicator of specifically PB as being self-employed (ie owning the bucket). I only read the article posted above though, not the book in full.
Click to expand...
"The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house..."

Fundamentally misunderstands what capital is.
 
This discussion is exactly why it is useful to have a model that looks directly at hierarchical domination as a process, rather than one that focuses on economics, with domination as an epiphenomenon. The concept of class has become so reified as a concrete phenomenon that causes oppression that people necessarily end up arguing about the definitions of the class. Viewing classes instead as one of the fundamental processes by which oppression is enacted means that you can bypass whether bucket man is in Category A or Category B. It becomes a question of what are the institutional discriminations, legitimising myths, ideological asymmetries and behavioural asymmetries through which the power relations produce categorisations? And how do those categorisations act to reproduce the institutional discriminations, legitimising myths, ideological asymmetries and behavioural asymmetries?
 
Athos said:
"The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house..."

Fundamentally misunderstands what capital is.
Click to expand...
Or he does understand what capital is, and so specifically means the ownership of a house for the purpose of making money, investment, rental, or whatever?
 
I seem to remember in the 80s there was a narrative in some of the press that the miners and the printers wouldn’t go on strike as they ‘had mortgages and foreign holidays ‘ .
 
Almor said:
Or he does understand what capital is, and so specifically means the ownership of a house for the purpose of making money, investment, rental, or whatever?
Click to expand...
That's not how it reads to me, in the context of the the whole article. But, if I'm wrong, and it is what he meant, he'd have been better making that clear.
 
Athos said:
"The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house..."

Fundamentally misunderstands what capital is.
Click to expand...

You could at least have quoted the whole paragraph... "The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house, that gives them a stake in the system. They are both worker and capitalist and this torn position influences everything the petty bourgeoisie does or thinks." IMO the bit in bold is key but you left it out.
 
Last edited:
mojo pixy said:
You could at least have quoted the whole paragraph... "The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house, that gives them a stake in the system. They are both worker and capitalist and this torn position influences everything the petty bourgeoisie does or thinks." IMO the bit in bold is key but you left it out.
Click to expand...
It is after all the athos show
 
On that, we all approach discussions about class with a lifetime of baggage, and sometimes it is hard to get past the framing and angling.

TBH I think 'having a stake in the system' is a useful phrase, because it admits the possibility that nearly all of us have a stake in this system. It's really more a question of what kind of stake, what are the benefits? And I think particularly: is it the kind of stake which can be bequeathed? A 100% owned house or bit of land can be bequeathed as easily as a bucket and that goes right to the heart of what capitalism is and is meant to be.
 
mojo pixy said:
On that, we all approach discussions about class with a lifetime of baggage, and sometimes it is hard to get past the framing and angling.

TBH I think 'having a stake in the system' is a useful phrase, because it admits the possibility that nearly all of us have a stake in this system. It's really more a question of what kind of stake, what are the benefits? And I think particularly: is it the kind of stake which can be bequeathed? A 100% owned house or bit of land can be bequeathed as easily as a bucket and that goes right to the heart of what capitalism is and is meant to be.
Click to expand...
really agree about stakeholding, and as i said earlier i think the right theorised the power of stakeholding and put that theory into action by consciously encouraging and growing stakeholding within the population at large. right to buy was a key one, privatising national assets and encouraging people to buy shares in those companies another perhaps - general stock investment. building a stakeholder society was central to blairism and third wayism. the expansion of the petit bouj another.

the left by comparison hasnt i think sufficiently theoretically grappled with the outcome of this much deeper stakeholding than existed in the past, and what it means. heres stats for home-ownership for example...yes coming down a bit now but before and after 1990 are two different worlds

2_152.jpg


how significant home ownership is towards someones politics is up for debate but i dont think its meaningless
 
mojo pixy said:
You could at least have quoted the whole paragraph... "The petty bourgeoisie occupy a unique position in the class structure. Like the worker, they have to work or starve. But they also either own their own means of production – a shop, tools, a workshop – or a small amount of capital, like a house, that gives them a stake in the system. They are both worker and capitalist and this torn position influences everything the petty bourgeoisie does or thinks." IMO the bit in bold is key but you left it out.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I think that seems to elide "having a stake" with being petty bourgeoisie. And seems to suggest that a house is necessarily capital (which I don't think is right).
 
Athos said:
And seems to suggest that a house is necessarily capital (which I don't think is right).
Click to expand...
I'd be intrigued to know why you think this. Seems to me a house is always capital, unless for some reason it has zero market value. Because it can be sold and the money can be used to buy shares, train as a donkey handler, retire early etc etc. That's capital by definition.
 
Raheem said:
I'd be intrigued to know why you think this. Seems to me a house is always capital, unless for some reason it has zero market value. Because it can be sold and the money can be used to buy shares, train as a donkey handler, retire early etc etc. That's capital by definition.
Click to expand...
That's a meaningless definition, because it could apply to literally anything.
 
Athos said:
That's a meaningless definition, because it could apply to literally anything.
Click to expand...
Anything you can use to make any sort of investment, yes. Things of trivial value wouldn't normally be thought of as capital, maybe, but that isn't usually going to apply to a house.

Still intrigued, btw.
 
Raheem said:
Anything you can use to make any sort of investment, yes. Things of trivial value wouldn't normally be thought of as capital, maybe, but that isn't usually going to apply to a house.

Still intrigued, btw.
Click to expand...
If you own one house and live in it, that frees you from paying rent, which is great, but it doesn't give you capital to make investments except through borrowing against its value. That's a bit different from having actual money in an account.

That said, people do borrow against the value of their houses in order to start businesses all the time, so it's certainly not nothing to have that as an option. Business fails and you lose the house, though, the place you live in, so calling that capital doesn't seem quite right.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
If you own one house and live in it, that frees you from paying rent, which is great, but it doesn't give you capital to make investments except through borrowing against its value. That's a bit different from having actual money in an account.

That said, people do borrow against the value of their houses in order to start businesses all the time, so it's certainly not nothing to have that as an option. Business fails and you lose the house, though, the place you live in, so calling that capital doesn't seem quite right.
Click to expand...
I think it's what you could do that matters, rather than what you are doing. If you have a box of gold bullion and you just keep it under your bed, it's still capital.

(Plus, even if you are doing nothing other than saving in rent, that probably means you are accumulating wealth of the back of your investment, no?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
248
Views
9K
ghost boy
ghost boy
tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
hitmouse
Class background and the arts
Replies
1
Views
362
killer b
K
YouSir
Class in Academia
2 3 4
Replies
118
Views
4K
Funky_monks
F
N
Why do right-wing populists succeed?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
nightowl
N
Back
Top Bottom