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

[A380]

More seriously, it's not the anarchists who have created this issue that you're now merrily throwing in our faces. You're wanking on about how our abstaining is so very damaging (all several thousand of us, more usually living in solid Labour seats), but we've been consistently campaigning to push the public away from conservative politics for decades and have worked damn hard at it no matter the weather.

You know who's done more to get Toryism elected than us? You. Because every single time Labour's proposed a right-wing ticket you've pulled this shit. That "anyone but" behaviour provided cover for Blair, Brown, and now Starmer. And their victories were steps along the road to Cameron, Bojo and Sunak.

Your ilk have done more to create modern hard-right Toryism than than most Tories, frankly, let alone the anarchists.

I’ve touched a nerve there I see. Always know you are losing an argument when you have to start throwing the words of Thatcher about.

You have spectacularly missed my point. There is, I accept , a cogent argument that by you helping the Tories win in the short term, which there is absolutely no doubt this tactic does, you are laying the ground work for a better society in the long (although take that argument to far and you get the Ref Brigade position.) . The trouble with us Wishy washy liberals is we have this unpleasant habit of holding people to account for their actions, which is nasty I know.

Anyway, I’m glad to see you stating that it’s OK for you to do this if you live in a ‘solid Labour seat’ . I assume that’s because you know you will be protected from the worst excesses of the Tories by the hard work of wanky reformist Labour councillors doing things like reforming stuff…

 

[Rob Ray]

I’ve touched a nerve there I see.

Inasmuch as I can't stand this holier than thou line that's been trotted out for 30+ years while things got worse every fucking time, yes I find it rather annoying.

You have spectacularly missed my point.

It was a request, not a point. And the request was bunk. The continued logic is that unless I go out and campaign for Labour I'm "helping" the Tories, because anything short of a pro-active effort in Starmer's favour is allowing them to get in. You've drawn this line completely arbitrarily, a system in which I could change the minds of 100 dyed in the wool Conservatives through extra-parliamentary activities, but I'm "helping the Tories" if I don't vote. It's utterly facile.

stating that it’s OK for you to do this if you live in a ‘solid Labour seat’

It's "okay to do this" wherever you are, because we don't live in a society where we're all required to vote. But it is a fact that the anarchist vote has very little actual influence, and that most of us live in leftie areas (which we do quite a lot to keep leftie - you're welcome), making our voting decisions largely valueless either way. Like most people's, in fact, not that most pro-vote partisans seem to take much interest in geographical disenfranchisement.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well that does support the Tory party in the here and now. And whilst it probably shouldn’t be it is true whether you like it or not.

Objectively, Starmer individually, and a number of his front bench, directly financially benefit from interests in private healthcare. They have direct financial links to companies with an interest in undermining the NHS. In 2023, and no doubt will continue to have these links in 2024/5. That’s just one example you've already been given. You have been given others.

So, I will not be taking part in campaigning for or voting for that agenda in 2024/5.

I will instead, if my chronic fatigue and chronic pain allow, continue the political work I do in my community and workplace (if I have one), linking up where applicable with others around the country and further afield. In 2024/25. Rather than contribute in the selection of either band of neoliberal bawbags working in the interests of the capitalist class. In 2024/5.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There is no doubt it does support the Tory Party and will in 2024/5. You wish it didn’t, I really really wish it didn’t.

I’d be interested in reading coherent argument about how it doesn’t support the Tory party. Not a statement that hearing this truth makes you feel uncomfortable.

It’s a false dichotomy though isn’t it? When was the last time you were at an anti-fascist event? Never? Well you must support the EDL then.

 

[hitmouse]

Well that does support the Tory party in the hear and now. And whilst it probably shouldn’t be it is true whether you like it or not.

Did you vote Labour today? When was the last time you voted Labour? I bet you've not voted Labour all month, you raging tory.

 

[hitmouse]

Terrible news from the recent British Social Attitides Survey


View attachment 392433

Is the terrible news that the Midlands has gone missing?

 

[The39thStep]

Is the terrible news that the Midlands has gone missing?

We had a Midlands ?

 

[kabbes]

Have the Marxists on this thread read Sohn-Rethel? I’ve just started reading Intellectual and Manual Labour - A Critique of Epistemology (1978). It’s freely available as a PDF online. From the introduction, it does appear that he grapples with the underpinnings of a lot of what has been discussed on this thread. In particular, he is suggesting that although Marx never directly addressed whether “science” forms part of the superstructure or the base, it is clear from the way he approached historical materialism that he viewed it as superstructure, and himself as writing from within the confines of that superstructure. This means that attempts at socialism that privilege “scientific” thinking as being some kind of neutral arbiter are doomed to technocracy. However, to understand the superstructure of science requires understanding how and why the ruling class managed to divide intellectual labour from manual labour, and how they gained control of the former. He notes that a certain level of intellectual independence is necessary (in any epoch), and that intellectual labourers (eg priests, scientists) are rarely the primary beneficiaries of the controlling system. As he notes:

This question leads on to the need for a further extension of Marxist theory which did not arise at an earlier epoch: what is in fact the effective line of differentiation between a class society and a classless one? They are both forms of social production relations but this general concept does not convey the difference on which depends the transition from capitalism to socialism, and the varying shades of socialism. What is needed is a specific and unambiguous criterion of social structure, not of ideology, by which a classless society should be recognisable as essentially different from all class societies.

And thus (which is where it starts to become relevant to this thread):

As social forms develop and change, so also does the synthesis which holds together the multiplicity of links operating between men according to the division of labour. Every society made up of a plurality of individuals is a network coming into effect through their actions. How they act is of primary importance for the social network; what they think is of secondary importance. Their activities must interrelate in order to fit into a society, and must contain at least a minimum of uniformity if the society is to function as a whole. This coherence can be conscious or unconscious but exist it must - otherwise society would cease to be viable and the individuals would come to grief as a result of their multiple dependencies upon one another.

You might argue that this is simply historical materialism, but Sohn-Rethel explains his extension from Marx:

’It is not the consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.' This statement of Marx is not meant as the pronouncement of an intrinsic truth, but is part of the precis of general methodological tenets characteristic of the materialistic conception of history given in the Preface of 1859. This precis indicates how the determination of men's consciousness by their social being can be established in any particular instance. My investigation is in strict keeping with the Marxian outline. But, while in that outline the reference is to 'the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophical - in short, ideological forms' in which men become conscious of their social conflicts and fight them out, my preoccupation is with the conceptual foundations of the cognitive faculty vis-a-vis nature which in one form or another is characteristic of the ages of commodity production from their beginnings in ancient Greece to the present day.

So he’s saying that knowledge production is not just ideological, but is also a function of the very form of commodity production.

This is more relevant than ever to all these discussions about “what class am I?” in a modern society. I might expand on that at some point but this post is already long enough, and I’m interested in the views of anybody that has already been through this reading before?

 

[Brainaddict]

I haven't read it I'm afraid but it still strikes me as very optimistic about our ability to model social/material worlds, in the face of complexity that weaves together generations-long ideological development (that ultimately sprang from material sources, as I believe everything does) with new input derived more directly/recently from the material base, which itself is difficult to grasp (for instance we as workers are also living on the work of previous generations, this being part of what enables us to live a higher standard of living than them - e.g. we literally live in the houses they built).

And by complexity I mean actual non-linearity. Which doesn't preclude the existence of stable 'attractor' social arrangements/conflicts, but we don't have enough information to model them well, and I don't believe we ever will, except to rough approximations. We can use those approximations to take political action but always understanding how rough and read the modelling is and that we might need to abandon hypotheses and try new ones.

 

[nogojones]

 

[Serge Forward]

Maybe he nicked it?

 

[The39thStep]

Forward with the downwardly mobile / precarious alliance

 

[brogdale]

Watching the Fifth round reminded me of this gem:

 

[redsquirrel]

Thanks. Posting a link to a very long thread very much does not deal with my question about why you, personally, think some low-paid sole traders are petit-bourgeois and others aren't (I genuinely do not know), but meh, it's not like you're obligated to answer it

I linked to Danny's post in this thread because it provides a good summary of key points, and it and other posts on that page are directly relevant to the question(s) you were asking - see also the discussion here
But if you want me to expand then ok. First, noting the points LDC makes below danny's,

I demand a full audit of exploitation!

That's exactly the thing you're getting stuck on/mixed up about isn't it, demanding an exact individual categorisation for everyone?

Of course there's some complexities and complicated stuff, but none of that contradicts or negates the useful categorisation Danny and others have outlined does it? It's just a bit of noise around the edges, not fundamental to the overarching view.

There are people who while classed as sole traders in modern parlance or by HMRC are effectively outsourced employees, selling their labour to a sole employer - they would (IMV) be classed as part of the proletariat.

 

[ska invita]

I think kind of relevant for this thread... Can't think of anywhere else to post it




The fact India has regular general strikes with hundreds of millions of people taking part and then returns Modi at the election box is something to think about

 

[Funky_monks]

Maybe he nicked it?

Like that Jetski that was filmed being ridden down the ship canal the other summer?

 

[Winot]

"Deflecting privilege is one part of a wider strategy we detected among today’s elite to present themselves as ordinary, regular, and unspectacular. These people generally eschewed their influence, and directly counterposed their meritocratic trajectories with the stuffy aristocratic elites of the past. Claims to ordinariness were also staked via lifestyle."

New book out by Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman. Article/extracts in link below (£ but free trial - on the excellent Comment is Freed substack.)

Common People

Who's really in the "new" elite?

open.substack.com

 

[isvicthere?]

"Deflecting privilege is one part of a wider strategy we detected among today’s elite to present themselves as ordinary, regular, and unspectacular. These people generally eschewed their influence, and directly counterposed their meritocratic trajectories with the stuffy aristocratic elites of the past. Claims to ordinariness were also staked via lifestyle."

Common People

Who's really in the "new" elite?

open.substack.com

This also explains why Dunkirk and the charge of the light brigade are two episodes traditionally taught about in British history. Thy both "celebrate" plucky defeats in a rich tapestry of endeavour, thereby drawing attention away from the overwhelming way Britain used its economic and military power to ruthlessly subjugate large swathes of the world.

 

[zedr]

"Deflecting privilege is one part of a wider strategy we detected among today’s elite to present themselves as ordinary, regular, and unspectacular. These people generally eschewed their influence, and directly counterposed their meritocratic trajectories with the stuffy aristocratic elites of the past. Claims to ordinariness were also staked via lifestyle."

New book out by Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman. Article/extracts in link below (£ but free trial - on the excellent Comment is Freed substack.)

Common People

Who's really in the "new" elite?

open.substack.com

This is funny coming from Freedman's blog (can't tell which Sam is writing that quote, but assume it's the sociologist Friedman, not the govt/policy Freedman). Freedman was private school into oxford educated. He was Gove and Cummings advisor at the DfE, Executive Director at Teach First and Senior Advisor for Ark Academies. He has had a significant hand in policy decisions which have wrecked comprehensive state education yet tries to put the blame onto other people/politicians. Can't stand him.

 

[Winot]

This is funny coming from Freedman's blog (can't tell which Sam is writing that quote, but assume it's the sociologist Friedman, not the govt/policy Freedman. Freedman was private school into oxford educated. He was Gove and Cummings advisor at the DfE, Executive Director at Teach First and Senior Advisor for Ark Academies. He has had a significant hand in policy decisions which have wrecked comprehensive state education yet tries to put the blame onto other people/politicians. Can't stand him.

Yep but he's pretty open about his background and past mistakes (and hasn't sent his kids to private school).

 

[zedr]

Yep but he's pretty open about his background and past mistakes (and hasn't sent his kids to private school).

Yes, fair enough. I think my issue with him is more that he downplays his influence, rather than his social class. And also that he is doing what all destructive politicians/policy ppl do which is rehabilitate/distance themselves after the fact. Anyway, not the focus of the thread. Apologies for the sidetrack/beef.

 

[chilango]

Yes, fair enough. I think my issue with him is more that he downplays his influence, rather than his social class. And also that he is doing what all destructive politicians/policy ppl do which is rehabilitate/distance themselves after the fact. Anyway, not the focus of the thread. Apologies for the sidetrack/beef.

I'm with you on this. He's now pulling a supposed volte face and will continue to be listened to rather than those who stuck to their principles and opposed all the Govian nonsense in the first place. No time for the fella.

 

[JimW]

Verso

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

Just started reading this so searched to see if it had a mention here. The foreword and intro have been pretty promising Will perhaps attempt a book report but I'm a terrible essayist/thinker.

 

[Brainaddict]

Just started reading this so searched to see if it had a mention here. The foreword and intro have been pretty promising Will perhaps attempt a book report but I'm a terrible essayist/thinker.

I've read bits of it. I'm not sure of the politics/usefulness of basically saying 'we're all ground up by a senseless capitalist machine' without talking about effective ways to intervene in it. Someone will be along in a moment to defend the right to critique without offering ways forward but that's 150 years we've been trying to perfect the critique now, maybe we need to move it along a bit?

 

[ska invita]

Good to see Keir International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency Starmer (KIRMTS) applying some material class analysis to the population:

"Sir Keir Starmer said on Thursday that anyone who owns shares and rental property is not a “working person”, as his chancellor Rachel Reeves prepares to unveil a Budget that will feature numerous tax increases.
The prime minister promised in Labour’s election manifesto he would “not increase taxes on working people”, ruling out rises in income tax, national insurance or value added tax.
Starmer is coming under increasing scrutiny about what he means by the phrase “working people” given the October 30 Budget is due to involve up to £40bn of tax rises and spending cuts."

Tax the asset owning class!!! Sweat the landlords!!! Reappropriate the wealth of the corporate share-holding appropriators!!!

 

[brogdale]

Good to see Keir International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency Starmer (KIRMTS) applying some material class analysis to the population:

"Sir Keir Starmer said on Thursday that anyone who owns shares and rental property is not a “working person”, as his chancellor Rachel Reeves prepares to unveil a Budget that will feature numerous tax increases.
The prime minister promised in Labour’s election manifesto he would “not increase taxes on working people”, ruling out rises in income tax, national insurance or value added tax.
Starmer is coming under increasing scrutiny about what he means by the phrase “working people” given the October 30 Budget is due to involve up to £40bn of tax rises and spending cuts."

Tax the asset owning class!!! Sweat the landlords!!! Reappropriate the wealth of the corporate share-holding appropriators!!!

As ever, there's the classic Starmer back-track...

The prime minister’s spokesperson later clarified that he was referring to people who “primarily get their income from assets” and was “not precluding people that have a small amount of savings” in stocks and shares.

Reckon he's been reading our threads on class?

 

[ska invita]

As ever, there's the classic Starmer back-track...

The back track is just good politics to placate anti revolutionary elements...Starmer spoke... and we heard him

 

[Pickman's model]

Good to see Keir International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency Starmer (KIRMTS) applying some material class analysis to the population:

"Sir Keir Starmer said on Thursday that anyone who owns shares and rental property is not a “working person”, as his chancellor Rachel Reeves prepares to unveil a Budget that will feature numerous tax increases.
The prime minister promised in Labour’s election manifesto he would “not increase taxes on working people”, ruling out rises in income tax, national insurance or value added tax.
Starmer is coming under increasing scrutiny about what he means by the phrase “working people” given the October 30 Budget is due to involve up to £40bn of tax rises and spending cuts."

Tax the asset owning class!!! Sweat the landlords!!! Reappropriate the wealth of the corporate share-holding appropriators!!!

the labour party today announced that its philosophy will be starmerism-maoism-marxism-leninism or 'keir thought' for short

 

[ska invita]

The landlords and shareholders at the Guardian are spooked - moving to push back against him with this picture choice drinking from a golden cup, running it as lead story etc...feel the bourgeoisie quake

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The landlords and shareholders at the Guardian are spooked - moving to push back against him with this picture choice drinking from a golden cup, running it as lead story etc...feel the bourgeoisie quake
View attachment 448291

'You chose...poorly.'