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

[Pickman's model]

Once again I am begging people not to assume that everyone who disagrees with Marx has not read Marx. Capital is not a factual account of the world, it's one way of viewing what he believed to be happening at the time and the consequences of it. People have found Capital useful in various ways over the years but this still does not make it a factual account which you must agree with as soon as you read it.

What I also find funny is how scathing Marx was about people who used outdated ideas and didn't confront the changes in the world and the problems of the times. I honestly think if he were resurrected today he would be pretty brutal to most of the people who call themselves Marxists and are still sticking fairly rigidly to his ideas despite the massive changes in the world.

doesn't matter, he'd be stuck in a grave and he'd die within hours. very few people who agree with marx have read capital tbh

 

[Joe Chi Min]

To be honest, it was a cure for my insomnia... though it gets more of a page turner in the middle.

 

[deeyo]

This seems a bit of an extreme way of dealing with the petite bourgeoisie if they choose the wrong side.

'alright, before we continue with chapter 17:

Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in Surplus-Value​

i'd like you to recapitulate chapter 14 to 16 & reflect over their significance in today's society. in your own time & words, please'

 

[ska invita]

marx & his contemporaries saw an enormous potential in the emerging industrial working class, & hoped it would be able to do what never had been done before, put an end to oppression & make humanity reach its full potential, the communist utopia. it wasn't the biggest class - far more people were still in agriculture- it wasn't the poorest or 'most oppressed' but - 'Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class'

have you got a breakdown of the class/work split numbers for the period you mention? id genuinely love to see them. i remember reading that at some point in the early 20th century (i forget the precise date) a third of workers were in domestic service in the UK

 

[Red Cat]

Once again I am begging people not to assume that everyone who disagrees with Marx has not read Marx. Capital is not a factual account of the world, it's one way of viewing what he believed to be happening at the time and the consequences of it. People have found Capital useful in various ways over the years but this still does not make it a factual account which you must agree with as soon as you read it.

What I also find funny is how scathing Marx was about people who used outdated ideas and didn't confront the changes in the world and the problems of the times. I honestly think if he were resurrected today he would be pretty brutal to most of the people who call themselves Marxists and are still sticking fairly rigidly to his ideas despite the massive changes in the world.

I'd have thought that what's important is a method, which for me is looking at the economic relationship beneath the surface, the relationship between objective economic relations and ideology and how these relations are experienced day to day, what supports and impedes autonomous collective action, conflict as driver of change, dialectics, alienation, history from below etc. all these ways of understanding our world are still helpful.

One downside is that there's an ideal human to which our current state is compared, so it's used as a transformational fantasy, like a kind of redemption. It's there were people get stuck. (you've even done it yourself with Marx's resurrection).

butchersapron for all his cryptic ways was consistent in his analyses - is this politics right now in the here and now the self-activity of the class?

 

[ska invita]

I'd have thought that what's important is a method, which for me is looking at the economic relationship beneath the surface, the relationship between objective economic relations and ideology and how these relations are experienced day to day, what supports and impedes autonomous collective action, conflict as driver of change, dialectics, alienation, history from below etc. all these ways of understanding our world are still helpful.

I dont think anyone is arguing against the method - the opposite, the method is correct, the discussion here is saying that it needs running again for the world as it is today, with its changes in a globalised economy, class composition, etc etc.

One downside is that there's an ideal human to which our current state is compared, so it's used as a transformational fantasy, like a kind of redemption. It's there were people get stuck. (you've even done it yourself with Marx's resurrection).

I dont understand the first line, but regarding "if Marx was alive today" the point is that someone with such a meticulous way of thinking, pouring endlessly over every last detail, wouldn't brush aside the huge differences and lessons of the last 150 years, he would I'm sure demand a more precise re-analysis, rather than just wave a hand broadly and say yeah its all roughly the same

 

[Pickman's model]

I dont think anyone is arguing against the method - the opposite, the method is correct, the discussion here is saying that it needs running again for the world as it is today, with its changes in a globalised economy, class composition, etc etc.


I dont understand the first line, but regarding "if Marx was alive today" the point is that someone with such a meticulous way of thinking, pouring endlessly over every last detail, wouldn't brush aside the huge differences and lessons of the last 150 years, he would I'm sure demand a more precise re-analysis, rather than just wave a hand broadly and say yeah its all roughly the same

first he'd have to escape the grave and that in itself would be no mean feat

 

[Red Cat]

I dont think anyone is arguing against the method - the opposite, the method is correct, the discussion here is saying that it needs running again for the world as it is today, with its changes in a globalised economy, class composition, etc etc.


I dont understand the first line, but regarding "if Marx was alive today" the point is that someone with such a meticulous way of thinking, pouring endlessly over every last detail, wouldn't brush aside the huge differences and lessons of the last 150 years, he would I'm sure demand a more precise re-analysis, rather than just wave a hand broadly and say yeah its all roughly the same

Its not really clear what the discussion is about. What is it that you think is correct about the method then?

 

[Brainaddict]

I'd have thought that what's important is a method, which for me is looking at the economic relationship beneath the surface, the relationship between objective economic relations and ideology and how these relations are experienced day to day, what supports and impedes autonomous collective action, conflict as driver of change, dialectics, alienation, history from below etc. all these ways of understanding our world are still helpful.

One downside is that there's an ideal human to which our current state is compared, so it's used as a transformational fantasy, like a kind of redemption. It's there were people get stuck. (you've even done it yourself with Marx's resurrection).

butchersapron for all his cryptic ways was consistent in his analyses - is this politics right now in the here and now the self-activity of the class?

I think believing in your ability to model complex systems like this (often a bit delusional I think, because y'know, complexity is maths and you can't escape it) often prevents people from seeing very obvious things that have changed since Marx. He couldn't conceive of the idea of a welfare state, he thought the ruling class would never make such big concessions. He was wrong about that. Once the idea of a welfare state that supports people exists, then working people aren't given the choice between impoverishment or revolution. They have the other choice of welfare-stateism, and they always take it when they can because it can support a good quality of life and is much less risky than revolution. A very stupid ruling class might refuse to offer the concessions when faced with a restive working class, but on average over time the idea of a welfare state almost removes revolution as an option. This isn't about judging the welfare state btw, it has plenty of pros and cons. But if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution - and I believe the empirical evidence is that they will because it is so much less risky - then if we want something new it's not going to be revolution, it will have to be some third option, perhaps not yet imagined, or not well known yet. That's the kind of line of thinking I think you get through observing the trends of the last 100 years. 'Objective economic relations' are in fact less than objective, and not necessarily an inducement to act that is strong enough to overrule a clearly attainable idea like the welfare state.

 

[ska invita]

What is it that you think is correct about the method then?

All the classic methods Marx employed are not in dispute I dont think:
Material view of history
The central role of class interactions in shaping the world
Importance of analysing political economy
Model of base and superstructure
etc etc, all of that remains as important as ever

...but even 50 years after Das Kapital there were 'revisionist' questions coming up as predictions made weren't coming to be, never mind 150 years.

And what makes this a subject that seems crucially important today, not just some academic exercise, is the stuff most recently on this thread well said by smoked out - the bit of the Marxist approach about class interests and balance of power.

 

[Red Cat]

I think believing in your ability to model complex systems like this (often a bit delusional I think, because y'know, complexity is maths and you can't escape it) often prevents people from seeing very obvious things that have changed since Marx. He couldn't conceive of the idea of a welfare state, he thought the ruling class would never make such big concessions. He was wrong about that. Once the idea of a welfare state that supports people exists, then working people aren't given the choice between impoverishment or revolution. They have the other choice of welfare-stateism, and they always take it when they can because it can support a good quality of life and is much less risky than revolution. A very stupid ruling class might refuse to offer the concessions when faced with a restive working class, but on average over time the idea of a welfare state almost removes revolution as an option. This isn't about judging the welfare state btw, it has plenty of pros and cons. But if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution - and I believe the empirical evidence is that they will because it is so much less risky - then if we want something new it's not going to be revolution, it will have to be some third option, perhaps not yet imagined, or not well known yet. That's the kind of line of thinking I think you get through observing the trends of the last 100 years. 'Objective economic relations' are in fact less than objective, and not necessarily an inducement to act that is strong enough to overrule a clearly attainable idea like the welfare state.

Of course, objective is always going to come in scare quotes or with caveats, that goes without saying.

The rest of it seems to be an argument with someone else.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think believing in your ability to model complex systems like this (often a bit delusional I think, because y'know, complexity is maths and you can't escape it) often prevents people from seeing very obvious things that have changed since Marx. He couldn't conceive of the idea of a welfare state, he thought the ruling class would never make such big concessions. He was wrong about that. Once the idea of a welfare state that supports people exists, then working people aren't given the choice between impoverishment or revolution. They have the other choice of welfare-stateism, and they always take it when they can because it can support a good quality of life and is much less risky than revolution. A very stupid ruling class might refuse to offer the concessions when faced with a restive working class, but on average over time the idea of a welfare state almost removes revolution as an option. This isn't about judging the welfare state btw, it has plenty of pros and cons. But if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution - and I believe the empirical evidence is that they will because it is so much less risky - then if we want something new it's not going to be revolution, it will have to be some third option, perhaps not yet imagined, or not well known yet. That's the kind of line of thinking I think you get through observing the trends of the last 100 years. 'Objective economic relations' are in fact less than objective, and not necessarily an inducement to act that is strong enough to overrule a clearly attainable idea like the welfare state.

so your view isn't that the contradictions in capitalism will lead to a revolutionary situation but that hungry bellies will. could you adduce some actual evidence to support your claim about impoverishment and revolution? if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution, what do you think the diminishing of the welfare state in the uk is likely to mean? and how come there isn't more of a revolutionary movement or situation in the united states, which doesn't really have a welfare state?

 

[ska invita]

I think believing in your ability to model complex systems like this (often a bit delusional I think, because y'know, complexity is maths and you can't escape it) often prevents people from seeing very obvious things that have changed since Marx. He couldn't conceive of the idea of a welfare state, he thought the ruling class would never make such big concessions. He was wrong about that. Once the idea of a welfare state that supports people exists, then working people aren't given the choice between impoverishment or revolution. They have the other choice of welfare-stateism, and they always take it when they can because it can support a good quality of life and is much less risky than revolution. A very stupid ruling class might refuse to offer the concessions when faced with a restive working class, but on average over time the idea of a welfare state almost removes revolution as an option. This isn't about judging the welfare state btw, it has plenty of pros and cons. But if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution - and I believe the empirical evidence is that they will because it is so much less risky - then if we want something new it's not going to be revolution, it will have to be some third option, perhaps not yet imagined, or not well known yet. That's the kind of line of thinking I think you get through observing the trends of the last 100 years. 'Objective economic relations' are in fact less than objective, and not necessarily an inducement to act that is strong enough to overrule a clearly attainable idea like the welfare state.

yeah the top of my head list of key material changes from a UK perspective have got to include:
welfare state
massive export of industrial/production jobs to other countries
vast increase in private holdings (property, shares) etc
substantial increase in PB and Middle Class jobs
- all a seismic shifts from 1860

 

[kabbes]

Also, critically, the legitimising myths of society have radically changed since 1870. We had industrial capitalism then consumer capitalism that completely changed how people relate to the self, creating things like the marketing character, and now we have the rise of the multiphrenic self forged in the fires of the portable private territories of smartphones and social media. You can’t understand how hierarchies are maintained (and thus overturned) without including how the existing hierarchy is legitimised.

 

[mojo pixy]

Also the centering of subjective 'lived experience' and individual desire in political discourse, was not a thing when Marx was writing. It's a massive thing now.

 

[smokedout]

so your view isn't that the contradictions in capitalism will lead to a revolutionary situation but that hungry bellies will. could you adduce some actual evidence to support your claim about impoverishment and revolution? if ordinary people will always choose the welfare state over revolution, what do you think the diminishing of the welfare state in the uk is likely to mean? and how come there isn't more of a revolutionary movement or situation in the united states, which doesn't really have a welfare state?

I think it's just obscuring the role of the state more broadly, which can be coercive or benevolent or both in response to changing conditions. There has been state mandated welfare provision paid for by taxes since the poor laws of the 1600s, and before that at a local level, but it was often, as now, used as a form of social control in the form of workhouses, workfare etc. It was only the unique post war conditions in Western Europe that led to what we think of as the modern welfare state. But the state can equally respond to social unrest and deprivation with bullets and mass incarceration, which is closer to the US model.

The state is definitely a weak point, it has to be managed competently (for capital) and they have to be lucky every day. But the facade of democracy helps keep the state in some kind of check and even if it fails, as has happened many times, then all that happens in the emergence of a new bunch of state actors. The economic system remains intact and perhaps political revolutions could be thought of as the last but crucial buffers which protect capitalism.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think it's just obscuring the role of the state more broadly, which can be coercive or benevolent or both in response to changing conditions. There has been state mandated welfare provision paid for by taxes since the poor laws of the 1600s, and before that at a local level, but it was often, as now, used as a form of social control in the form of workhouses, workfare etc. It was only the unique post war conditions in Western Europe that led to what we think of as the modern welfare state. But the state can equally respond to social unrest and deprivation with bullets and mass incarceration, which is closer to the US model.

The state is definitely a weak point, it has to be managed competently (for capital) and they have to be lucky every day. But the facade of democracy helps keep the state in some kind of check and even if it fails, as has happened many times, then all that happens in the emergence of a new bunch of state actors. The economic system remains intact and perhaps political revolutions could be thought of as the last but crucial buffers which protect capitalism.

welfare - and exclusion from it - a tool in the state's armoury, as the miners found out in 1984/85 - alan booth and roger smith, 'the irony of the iron fist: social security and the coal dispute 1984-85,' in journal of law and society 12:3 (1985)

Spoiler

 

[Pickman's model]

and the rest

Spoiler

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Verso

This looks quite interesting and relevant to this - anyone got any more knowledge of it/views on if it's worth reading?

 

[ska invita]

Verso

This looks quite interesting and relevant to this - anyone got any more knowledge of it/views on if it's worth reading?

review of front cover: looks too hard

 

[A380]

Deffo not a sculpture of a member of the working classes…

 

[strung out]

View attachment 361863View attachment 361864

Deffo not a sculpture of a member of the working classes…

See also Bucket Woman

 

[Elpenor]

He probably rents both buckets out and sits on his throne enjoying the unearned income

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

View attachment 361863View attachment 361864

Deffo not a sculpture of a member of the working classes…

Might take him a while to come round to the cause of proletarian revolution.

I think it's going to be a long, long time.

 

[deeyo]

have you got a breakdown of the class/work split numbers for the period you mention? id genuinely love to see them. i remember reading that at some point in the early 20th century (i forget the precise date) a third of workers were in domestic service in the UK

late reply, sorry.

mostly old & half remembered knowledge, tbf, had to think & look around a bit.

marx was born in 1818 & died in 1883. he researched & wrote the first part of the capital 1840-1867.

here's figures from the 1871 uk census:
agriculture 14.2 %
fishing .2
mining 4.5
building 6.5
manufacturing 31.6
'dealing' (stores) 7.8
transport 4.9
public/professional service 5.5
domestic service 15.8

&.here is some data of transitions over time:

Spoiler: clunky graphs

but the uk was unique. in germany, 67 % of the population still lived in rural areas 'at the birth of the empire' (1871) & in most of europe agriculture remained the primary sector of economy for many decades (until the 1940s according to this article - though no source given).

re domestic servants: i don't think that sector ever occupied a third of the work force (see figs above), found this that says 1/3 of women between ages 15-20 - more than a million - were in d.s. in 1891.

The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure » The oc&hellip

www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk

Populations Past – Atlas of Victorian and Edwardian Population, Cambridge

www.populationspast.org

 

[ska invita]

late reply, sorry.

mostly old & half remembered knowledge, tbf, had to think & look around a bit.

marx was born in 1818 & died in 1883. he researched & wrote the first part of the capital 1840-1867.

here's figures from the 1871 uk census:
agriculture 14.2 %
fishing .2
mining 4.5
building 6.5
manufacturing 31.6
'dealing' (stores) 7.8
transport 4.9
public/professional service 5.5
domestic service 15.8

&.here is some data of transitions over time:

Spoiler: clunky graphs

View attachment 361953
View attachment 361952

but the uk was unique. in germany, 67 % of the population still lived in rural areas 'at the birth of the empire' (1871) & in most of europe agriculture remained the primary sector of economy for many decades (until the 1940s according to this article - though no source given).

re domestic servants: i don't think that sector ever occupied a third of the work force (see figs above), found this that says 1/3 of women between ages 15-20 - more than a million - were in d.s. in 1891.

The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure » The oc&hellip

www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk

Populations Past – Atlas of Victorian and Edwardian Population, Cambridge

www.populationspast.org

fantastic stuff, really appreciate it. would love to see job sector graphs for the 20th century...am working this weekend but hopefully will have a dig at a later time (unless someone else wants to )

 

[redsquirrel]

yeah the top of my head list of key material changes from a UK perspective have got to include:
....
vast increase in private holdings (property, shares) etc
.....
- all a seismic shifts from 1860

From 1860? Can you expand this and back it up?


(kabbes I remember some time ago you posted plots showing wealth/income(?) distributions at different times, can you remember the thread?)
ETA - found it it was income.

ETA2: Piketty has plots of private and public capital from 1870 to 2010 in Capital in the 21st Century - available here
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F5.1.pdf

which is more in accordance with what I kind of expected - 1870 being closer to today than mid-century.
(From looking at data Europe = UK, Germany and France - http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F4.4.pdf)

 

[ska invita]

Interesting read here, more than just a book review

Book Review: Dan Evans “A Nation of Shopkeepers: The unstoppable rise of the petty bourgeoisie” (2023) - Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)

A review of Dan Evans' latest book about the middle class in the UK, and how the One Big Union can build class alliances to build a better world.

iww.org.uk

 

[kabbes]

I just came across this excellent paper, which although not directly about economic class still provides a great insight into the question asked in this thread title.

Shibboleth Authentication Request or I have attached it as a pdf.

The point made is that all classifications of people are “(1) perspectival, (2) historical, (3) disrupted by the movement of people, and (4) re-constitutive of the phenomena they seek to describe.” Why do people of “privileged” backgrounds “misidentify” themselves as “working class”? Well, you have three perspectives right there, all defined in different ways by different people for different purposes. People are moving in and out of economic relations, and you can’t divorce your classification (or theirs) from the constitution of the class and its purpose.

 

[ska invita]

interesting video essay here about class and clothes...kind of fits this thread i think