Raheem
Well-Known Member
The real question is what owing capital says about your social position, rather than whether houses are capital. Of course they are.
Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?
- Thread starter brogdale
- Start date
They become capital usually upon death for offspring which is something I actually agree with to a certain extent. Why should what I've worked hard for go to the state rather than help my son?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
In Belgium, house tax is based on rentable value, so you're taxed on the potential income you could earn from a house if you didn't live in it.
In a way that seems a fair way to evaluate the value, except that rents exist in an unfair and lopsided market. A principled person might well consider the market rent of their house to be extortionate and unfair and so would not dream of charging such an amount.
Additionally, as we've seen in many parts of the UK, the value of your house could balloon after you've bought it. But if you bought it to live in, that doesn't change your financial position one iota.
At the very least, seems to me people are being coopted into a system of values that they don't necessarily agree with.
Having said that, owning your own home very certainly changes your position in society. I'm just not sure what that new position should be called.
Especially if they have children. Their house becoming half a million quid isn't going to help their kids trying to get on the property ladder in the same community.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's incredibly socially destructive. I think many people who found themselves on the 'right' side of it now recognise that. Back in the 2000s when it first happened, not so much.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
yes and no
some people have re-mortgaged to get money for whatever
others have sold up and moved somewhere cheaper to retire with quite a substantial cash pile
It's incredibly socially destructive. I think many people who found themselves on the 'right' side of it now recognise that. Back in the 2000s when it first happened, not so much.
some recognise it, others blame 'the foreigners' for their kids not being able to buy anywhere or get a social tenancy
There has to be some kind of reckoning at some point. Wages aren't keeping up with housing costs. Either everyone ends up in a HMO (they're mostly filled with couples nowadays) until the point it all collapses. It's a complete joke.It's incredibly socially destructive. I think many people who found themselves on the 'right' side of it now recognise that. Back in the 2000s when it first happened, not so much.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I think the first time I said 'this can't carry on' was in about 2002.
Then I thought the credit crunch of 2008 would be the reckoning. It wasn't.
I suppose the govt could just tinker with housing benefits to keep it all on the rails. But there HAS to be a point where it collapses if it continues on the same trajectory. It's insane.
House prices are only a function of shortage. House shortage is a function of planning permission. Planning permission is a function of an ideological festishism of a 'certain' type of house that meets the middle class wet dream, which in turn becomes a commodity asset which becomes a GDP issue which then 'fixes' the whole system under 'banking' which is the industry that is the UK economy.
If people were happy to live in stone or mud houses or tiny houses, or benders, or caves or communal longhouses all without access to car or road or ownership then planning would be in a whole other realm and shortage wouldn't be a thing, but we are where we are and so there will be no unwinding - just a vague potential of revolution
If people were happy to live in stone or mud houses or tiny houses, or benders, or caves or communal longhouses all without access to car or road or ownership then planning would be in a whole other realm and shortage wouldn't be a thing, but we are where we are and so there will be no unwinding - just a vague potential of revolution
Yeah let's all live in mud huts to solve the problems and let the major landowners off scot-free.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
There is as you say plenty of housing. There are famously many thousands of flats empty in London. But there isn't so much a distribution issue as a refusal to look at land tenure in the UK in the round. Back in the nineteenth century this is something that was very much on the agenda in England as it was in Ireland, where the land league laid the foundations for the breaking up of many of the large estates. But nothing similar happened here and the issue of affordable rural and urban housing has just been left to fester. The land league supported the notion of the peasant proprietary in Ireland, although there was some grassroots pressure to come out for land nationalisation.
Nowadays in Ireland eirigi are promoting the notion of universal public housing, which I've referred to before several times before. It's something which I think should be considered in a british context too. But something needs to be done, to start off a campaign which can start to move this forwards.
ska invita
back on the other side
l listened to all six of these...lots of things covered, but heres some key things ive come away with - long post incomplete summary with some of my own thoughts incoming:
Marx wrongly predicted that the PB would disappear as a result of getting squashed out by monopoly capitalism. I would really love to see a list of all the things Marx has been proven by time to be wrong on - I think that would be useful and make clear what needs updating. Marxism as a theory of what will make a revolution is predicated on the (supposedly growing) numbers of people disenfranchised: it was theorised that capitalism will create a critical mass of alienated, dispossessed worker, a large enough a percentage of the population that revolution becomes if not inevitable then at least achievable.
But in the UK 150 years later that hasn't happened and in fact that class composition has gone the other way: an expanded middle class (possibly around 30%), and also an expanded PB (also posited at around 30%), and a working class (also about 30%) some of whom are well paid relatively. It would be really interesting to get more accurate numbers on that - I'm hoping the 2021 census might provide that soon.
The issue of class composition and the numbers that go with it is the most important part of thinking about all this IMO. It defines how appeals to socialism will land - or not.
Another aspect here is that there is much more class movement than there used to be, in the sense that if you were an industrial wage earning worker in the 1800s that was likely you for life, and also the same for everyone around you. Now if you are a prole you might one day become a PB or get a middle class management position over time as you get older. So people are less fixed to an identity of being a working class worker because they might well think they wont be that for ever.
Also you might be a prole but your partners has a well paid middle class job - all these kinds of factors weaken militancy.
On home-ownership a good point made was that many people put up with their shit adult situation (low wage, renting etc) because they know they will inherit a house when they are 60 or so from parents, so they stick it out. With those high home ownership figures (posted upthread) this affects a lot of people. This is deliberately leveraged by the Tories and why they keep house pries high, as its effectively a pension pay out, or money that can liquidated through downsizing.
Another right-wing tactic has been to encourage people to become self-employed. This was and is pushed by DWP, job centres etc, free courses about filing tax returns etc. Its been effective, swelling the number of PBs.
What is the PB mindset and characteristics
-hard to generalise because there are a variety of structural positions within the group
-historically derided by Marxists for 'support' of fascism in downturns. this can be perhaps be overstated - i think the PB can be a passive class politically, and if not outright support fascism they dont oppose it
-can be more family-minded, the business unit is based around the individual and therefore next of kin can often be drawn in - whereas when working for a bigger employer you work and interact with a more mixed group of people
-one of the key appeals of PB working is the autonomy, not working for someone and not being a wage slave. historically and globally this can often mean earning less money, but would rather do that for the freedom it gives.
- the 'rugged individualism' of a successful PB can lead to a selfishness and antisocial im alright jack mindset.
- its simplistic to put the desire for autonomy and self-making down to neoliberalism or even capitalism as PB activity predates capitalism by hundreds if not thousands of years.
The key issue for me is that the class-centred appeal of the left in the UK has become really problematic. The significant number of workers in the UK are not proles, and even if they are they either dont see themselves as being that forever, or they might have a range of other possible stakes in the system, either now or down the line.
One of the podcasts was with Jamie Woodcock - very much a Marxian - editorial board of historical materialism - and he was saying classic Marxist class terms are somewhat outdated as the world of work has shifted so much in 150 years - but he threw his hands up to say he didnt know how to sufficiently accurately define these schisms and that this was a job that needed doing.
I do think this is an issue. For a start the language needs replacing. Not only can i not spell boojwah, but it means nothing to me - supposedly in the french it meant city-dweller. Considering just how intricate and accurate Marx tried to be we really have got a much more fuzzy view on class now, and that's a real weakness of contemporary left theory, especially so if we believe that class is the key to social change.
Even if we did have a more accurate theoretical picture of contemporary class that still leaves the hard job of how to make a socialist appeal to people, when the significant majority of the working public are not proles.
Last edited:
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
If the theory isn't right or there are bits that need updating in your opinion then it's probably best that we call the whole class struggle thing off tbh. I'll get on the blower to the key people but my South American contacts ( not that they'll probably listen ) are a bit out of date. Can you have a look in your filofax , they are probably under A for Argies and Co.?
ska invita
back on the other side
i dont really know what you are saying here but i'll post something anyway
that a theory based on a deep analysis of the word as it was 150 years ago needs updating shouldnt be a shock - the world has changed massively since then - its become much more complex - as someone who poured over every detail im sure Marx would agree.
many fundamentals are the same, and it also makes a massive difference what country you live in - the class composition of Somalia is very different to the UK, for example.
i think the Right recognise these changes and exploit them very effectively, meanwhile too much of the UK left just repeats itself decade after decade and shrug at the fact the appeal is reaching less and less* people (arguably)
ska invita
back on the other side
oh while i remember a couple more things that came up that were interesting
-discussion about the potential of PB businesses to become co-ops
-how PBs can be more integrated into a socialist-state economy, the example of Poland in soviet era was given, business were allowed but strict trade union standards were required plus some other stuff (was only touched on)
-the rise of landlordism as a PB sideline , air bnb, buy to let etc etc - (also ebay, etsy etc)
-discussion about the potential of PB businesses to become co-ops
-how PBs can be more integrated into a socialist-state economy, the example of Poland in soviet era was given, business were allowed but strict trade union standards were required plus some other stuff (was only touched on)
-the rise of landlordism as a PB sideline , air bnb, buy to let etc etc - (also ebay, etsy etc)
Last edited:
Many updates to Marx HAVE been attempted. That was what I was talking about in my lengthy post that everybody ignored two pages ago.
The biggest thing that Marxism leaves out — mostly because the theory underlying it wouldn’t be invented for another 100 years — is the mechanisms that make the working class ACTIVE AGENTS in the reproduction of the hierarchy. It isn’t just a series of oppressions that are done to the working class. They are not just objects of oppression but also subjects of and subjects to oppression. These mechanisms include differences in behavioural repertoires of individuals at different levels of group dominance (which is why these supposedly unimportant “social signifiers” do actually matter), ideological asymmetries that legitimise the social order but are actively promoted across the social order, and asymmetrical ingroup biases that can even result in outgroup favouritism by those at the bottom of the pile.
All inter group oppression is in some sense a co-operative exercise, requiring co-ordination and collaboration between dominant and subordinate groups. Marx didn’t really attempt to grapple with this, not least because nobody would really construct the most basic of frameworks to start to grapple with it until at least the 1950s. He did identify “false consciousness”, which was a brilliant insight into how the working-class accepts the hegemonic position of the ruling class as fair and legitimate. That was years ahead of its time. But it only goes a fraction of the way. It needs to be more than a passive acceptance; it’s an active construction.
The biggest thing that Marxism leaves out — mostly because the theory underlying it wouldn’t be invented for another 100 years — is the mechanisms that make the working class ACTIVE AGENTS in the reproduction of the hierarchy. It isn’t just a series of oppressions that are done to the working class. They are not just objects of oppression but also subjects of and subjects to oppression. These mechanisms include differences in behavioural repertoires of individuals at different levels of group dominance (which is why these supposedly unimportant “social signifiers” do actually matter), ideological asymmetries that legitimise the social order but are actively promoted across the social order, and asymmetrical ingroup biases that can even result in outgroup favouritism by those at the bottom of the pile.
All inter group oppression is in some sense a co-operative exercise, requiring co-ordination and collaboration between dominant and subordinate groups. Marx didn’t really attempt to grapple with this, not least because nobody would really construct the most basic of frameworks to start to grapple with it until at least the 1950s. He did identify “false consciousness”, which was a brilliant insight into how the working-class accepts the hegemonic position of the ruling class as fair and legitimate. That was years ahead of its time. But it only goes a fraction of the way. It needs to be more than a passive acceptance; it’s an active construction.
Maybe for you. But given property prices are out of reach to most workers and wages aren't rising to keep up, I think the original analysis still holds up. Mister Landlord.
ska invita
back on the other side
Maybe for me, what?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Some of this you can find in Gramsci. But it's interesting how many Marxians will quote Gramsci but how few will pay any attention to what he said.
The Social Dominance stuff I don't know but will have a look at it. One of the ways I look at that problem is that humans evolved for small scale societies and a lot of its problems begin with not being able to adjust psychologically to bigger scales. We certainly haven't adjusted to either the technologies of the present day or to the scale and depth of political organising that they enable. I don't believe capitalism is even the worst solution to how to manage a large-scale society as a species evolved for small societies, though to hear some people you'd think it was the devil itself.
You've earned some of your wealth from having lodgers which is why you think it's 'more complicated'.
I'm saying that it's becoming less complicated once again for those further down the age brackets (and lots above). And Kabbes too ffs.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Engels carefully explained in the Housing Question that rent extraction was not exploitation, because they had defined exploitation as what happened between worker and boss. Seems weird tbh. I think it was a wrong way to approach it at the time (land ownership has never been anything but crucial to class control) and it has got wronger ever since.
A landlord is a boss.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I'm not averse to the idea, but it's pretty deviant for Marxist thought.
Anarchists appeared to understand it.
And Kabbes too what?
ska invita
back on the other side
I agree with that - I made the exact same point on this very thread.
But that doesn't mean all these complexities dont exist now, nor that 60+% of the population are PB or Middle Class, nor all the other stuff i typed up etc etc, nor that there is clearly a reason why the ideas of the left dont resonate with so many people < part of this is IMO a failure in the language and communication of class and class struggle.
One solution to the new complexity was to go the other way and blur away all the distinctions - the 99% thing. There's definitely something in that, but its not classical Marxism and I dont think its not enough on its own.
Telling us all how Marx is now irrelevant. He's becoming more relevant again IMO.
Similar threads
