I think the reviewer Bruce is a mate of Dan so he may have gone in a bit easy. I just finished the book and put a brief review here but I'm a bit soft on him as well.
1/59 The Rooster Bar - John Grisham 2/59 The White Album - Joan Didion 3/59 Storm Watch - CJ Box 4/59 Oath of Loyalty - Kyle Mills 5/59 SAS : Rogue Heroes - Ben Macintyre
www.urban75.net
great that youve read it as i'd like to talk more about it with someone.
am copying in your review here
----
nogo:
I'm probably a bit easier on this than if it were written by anyone other than Dan Evans a I have a bit of a soft spot for him. To my mind he hugely overstates who's in the PMC and petite-bourgeoisie. He's really salty that he hasn't bought a house and his degree means he ended up not in a choice academic career, but working in the usual minimum wage jobs that everyone else has to do.
He redeems himself in the conclusion, having a go at the sections of the liberal left whose identity is protest and those building a nice media career off it, and looks to build a movement led by the working class, well outside the Labour Party and the stagnant bureaucracy of most of the trade unions, dragging the petite-bourgeoisie along with it and away from reaction.
It chimes with what a mate said about the book. He likened it to marking a maths test where you look at all the working out the student has done and it's wrong all the way through, but somehow manages to get the right answer at the end.
-------------------
A rattled off response to that from me is:
-its very good that he has been upfront about his class position, frustrations and motivations. No doubt these have been genuinely formative in his world view and inspired him to write the book, but however resentful he is or not, I don't see this in any way a bad thing for the book. Some people will feel 'called out' by this book and he is being honest that he is archetypal New PB . The thing about class is that it positions everyone, and an important part of talking about class is everyone being honest, primarily with themselves but also others, about that position.
Regarding who he says is in the PMC and Old PB and New PB, I dont think its unfair to say that he is taking his lead directly from others: Barbara Ehrenreich for the PMC and Nicos Poulantzas for the new and old PBs. I dont see a problem with either definition.
In 2011 Ehrenreich identified a split in the PMC, whereby some parts are now falling down the class ladder (nurses and teachers), whilst others retain old privileges.
Old PB definition seems pretty uncontentious regarding trades. Solo traders are identified as a massive new growth area.
New PB is trickier. My understanding is its graduates forced into the working class,
but who will likely rise up eventually over time.
There's also those working class people pushed into self employment by the state.
That there is a blur of movement and position here is part of the analysis...the crucial thing is the above are not within the traditional working class category, and I broadly agree with that - I think it is very useful to be more precise about class positions, trajectories and alliances,
The book also challenges the broad cultural absence of talking about Old PB political outlooks. A massive oversite, and so many parts of the Old PB get treated as working class by everyone, including class conscious leftists.
I dont think I agree with "all the working out the student has done and it's wrong all the way through, but somehow manages to get the right answer at the end." Maybe you can explain what is so wrong and what is so right in a bit more detail?
The working out looks good to me, and in fact I balked slightly at the final chapter diatribe, and its dig at identity politics in particular. Class analysis must accommodate an intersectional element