working class, what does it mean?

[dennisr]

As for dennisr, well done on finally getting round to what your argument has been amounting to this whole thread and publically renouncing class politics and Marxism for populist politics, in which class is nothing but a precarious alliance of different cultural interest groups. The peasants are workers? What Marx have you been reading?

oh dear you seem to have lost it a bit, mate. have you had one proletarian shandy too many?

if you could translate that into something that relates to the the actual thread i could then continue needling you

 

[Das Uberdog]

If you can't see how your argument logically extends to that conclusion (it doesn't even need to be logically extended, in reality, you actually say it) then you're quite simply not bright enough to be engaged with in any form of actual conversation - a fact I should have really worked out from the fact you've failed to comprehend a single one of my posts so far. What can I say? I give people too much leeway. Too utopian, perhaps.

But that's right - you go ahead reducing the argument into personal insults and randomly claiming I'm not engaging with the actual questions whilst simultaneously repeating your bizarre analyses of our discussion over and over without adapting them to the changing discussion.

Oh, and learn to read.

Edit: and 'uber' means 'over'

 

[dennisr]

utopian

too 'utopian'? - hysterical would be more appropriate

 

[dennisr]

IEdit: and 'uber' means 'over'

Ya, ich verste, danke....

 

[Das Uberdog]

I can't decide whether or not it's funny or tragic that you've been sitting behind your keyboard all this time making yourself look like a complete moron, whilst being so uncritically self-assured about your superior intellect and understanding. Please, please, for the sake of the Urbanites who like you and find it hideously undignified for you to be shown up so badly, go back and READ THE THREAD. All the answers to all the 'points' you've made are there, repeated, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

 

[dennisr]

and over...

bye, bye then, pillock

 

[Das Uberdog]

lol

It's both funny AND tragic!

 

[ymu]

OMG OMG U MEEN SOMTIEM TEH BILDER GET PAYD LES THAN WORKER OMG Y DIDNT ENE1 SAY THAT B4!?!?!?!!!111??!??/!?

No, that's precisely what I did not say.

Learn to read.

You first.

 

[ymu]

That was a remarkably self-aware post from DU that snuck in there.

 

[dennisr]

That was a remarkably self-aware post from DU that snuck in there.

"hideously dignified"

 

[DotCommunist]

See what happens with class threads now sinbad?


They always end up like this.

 

[dennisr]

See what happens with class threads now sinbad?


They always end up like this.

its a struggle

 

[Das Uberdog]

omg t3h rofl t3h ymu iz t3h witty

So let me get this straight, when you said:

The fact that he gets to keep more of the total profit than an employee would is irrelevant - there's nothing forbidden about being working-class and making a good living. He just wouldn't get the work if it was cheaper to have an employee instead, so he cannot possibly be receiving a greater share of the profits - he's just not having as much of his share siphoned off to pay other low paid administrative workers and estate costs.

You WEREN'T saying that self-employed builders were working class because they sometimes make less of a living than workers?

If you guys are gonna keep saying things you don't mean, seriously wtf chance do I have?

And, you're wrong. The builder gets 100% of the profit from whatever they've done. Just because that might not be 'much' profit is completely irrelevent, as is the fact they have to compete with other businessmen in a capitalist system. Tesco competes with Asda. They are not members of the working class. You're talking about small-businessmen - though you can physically deny that 'til you're blue in the face in theory, you can only do that by completely ignoring reality.

 

[articul8]

How about you actually respond to the questions and not stamp your feet in a tantrum and scream "learn to weeeeaaad!"?

Exactly how does an individual self-employed builder or plumber or spark "own the means of production"? Just where are they expropriating surplus value?

And what use is it to talk of peasants in the context of a discussion of late capitalist post-industrial society?

 

[Das Uberdog]

I've responded to absolutely everything that everyone on this thread has put to me, with much more decorum and patience than was actually fair to ask of me (seeing as none of you are really interested in answers to your questions anyway).

They own their means of production, you fucking moron. Do you know what the 'means of production' are? Do I need to get you a definition of that too? Does a builder own his tools? Yes?

And as a small-businessman, are his interests tied into low taxation and easy employability? Yes?

So he has different economic interests, and a different economic relationship to his work? Yes?

So he is of a different economic class.

If you call yourself a Marxist and can't comprehend basic class definitions you seriously need to get your head sorted.

 

[ymu]

omg t3h rofl t3h ymu iz t3h witty

So let me get this straight, when you said:



You WEREN'T saying that self-employed builders were working class because they sometimes make less of a living than workers?

Obviously not - that would be ridiculous. Income per se is not part of the Marxist definition of class; the source of it is.

Who's work is the self-employed builder siphoning surplus value from?

 

[ymu]

And as a small-businessman, are his interests tied into low taxation and easy employability? Yes?

Not really no. He's self-employed, not a small business.

He'd like low taxation for the same reasons other workers would like low taxation (within their income bracket) - a bigger net income. It's not because it allows him to exploit other workers more easily. How could it? - he has no workers to exploit.

He'd be against easy employability because this would make it cheaper to have employees and thus relatively more expensive to employ a contractor. He'd get less work.

 

[articul8]

They own their means of production, you fucking moron. Do you know what the 'means of production' are? Do I need to get you a definition of that too? Does a builder own his tools? Yes?

So by your definition a self-employed odd job man with his own spanner "owns the means of production". Or a writer who has a cheap bic biro? Or a spark with a screwdriver? You really don't think this at all funny.


For Marx being part of a class that collectively owns the means of production, does not mean individually possessing the immediate tools of his (or her) own productive employment.

In any case the question now goes far beyond formal ownership, since workers often do have a share - however remote and atomised - in the ownership of the means of production if they invest in a pension fund that owns shares. Or aren't they part of your revolution either?

 

[dennisr]

So by your definition a self-employed odd job man with his own spanner "owns the means of production". Or a writer who has a cheap bic biro? Or a spark with a screwdriver? You really don't think this at all funny.


For Marx being part of a class that collectively owns the means of production, does not mean individually possessing the immediate tools of his (or her) own productive employment.

In any case the question now goes far beyond formal ownership, since workers often do have a share - however remote and atomised - in the ownership of the means of production if they invest in a pension fund that owns shares. Or aren't they part of your revolution either?

And there is also the forced 'self-employment' that dominates some sectors of industry - building being the key one - electrical in london and manchester for example - apparently these folk all suddenly become 'petty-bourguois'

 

[Xerxes]

I've responded to absolutely everything that everyone on this thread has put to me, with much more decorum and patience than was actually fair to ask of me (seeing as none of you are really interested in answers to your questions anyway).

They own their means of production, you fucking moron. Do you know what the 'means of production' are? Do I need to get you a definition of that too? Does a builder own his tools? Yes?

And as a small-businessman, are his interests tied into low taxation and easy employability? Yes?

So he has different economic interests, and a different economic relationship to his work? Yes?

So he is of a different economic class.

If you call yourself a Marxist and can't comprehend basic class definitions you seriously need to get your head sorted.

So if you don't own the means of production but are employed by it you are working class.

However if you own your own tools you aren't .

By this definition the head of a hospital trust is working class and the subcontracted electrician is not.

Perhaps it is you that can't comprehend basic class definitions.

 

[fractionMan]

this is brilliant

 

[DotCommunist]

So if you don't own the means of production but are employed by it you are working class.

However if you own your own tools you aren't .

By this definition the head of a hospital trust is working class and the subcontracted electrician is not.

Perhaps it is you that can't comprehend basic class definitions.

he's looking at too rigidly. Class is almost directly tied to personal capital.

 

[Das Uberdog]

It's not, and you're all idiots. articul8 - you're saying a 'writer' is working class? - Moron.

ymu - you don't need to exploit someone elses labour to be petit bourgeois. Read some Marx, then you might understand you stupid dipshit.

Xerxes - a subcontracted electrician is not working class. Well done. Read some Marx, get to grips with yourself, slam your head in a door.

Ad infinitum/nauseum.

 

[articul8]

Calm down, dear and stop misrepresenting people. I was parodying your apparent view that a plumber with his own tools "owns the means of production". By that view writers are automatically bourgeois because they have a pen!

Of course I wasn't claiming that all writers are by definition working class, but there is a whole category of people that make an "independent" living from writing that by are by no means part of a class that "owns the means of production": freelance journo's, copy writers, etc.etc. and, on the contrary, are forced to sell their labour power to capitalists.

 

[Xerxes]

Xerxes - a subcontracted electrician is not working class. Well done. Read some Marx, get to grips with yourself, slam your head in a door.

Ad infinitum/nauseum.

But the head of a hospital trust is?

 

[Aldebaran]

Your angle on all this is different from most of the other folk here Aldebaran.

Yes. Which isn't unusual I am not targeting you, but the whole of societies who create and sustain “class” divisions, which are artificial by their very created existance.

I imagine you would probably argue that this definition is just one among many.

No, it is matter of – visible - fact.

I don't give any view of how individuals look at themselves.
Marx had an utopist's view on the ideal society (haven't we all). I don't believe in “all power to the Worker” for the simple – obvious - reason that both investor and worker are interdependent if any of them wants to profit – hence make a living – out of anything. Hence the artificiality of any “class” divisions. There is no other class than the class of humanity.

Leadership (elected or not) of and within societies exists for as long as documented human history. So is distribution of gained wealth and so is distribution of contribution to this wealth.
Labor is and was offered and sold - or taken from, in case of slavery - at all times to and by those in a position to offer or demand it. (On your arguemtn that for most of human history people had no concept of ownership: More carefully read human history.)

Like others before and after him, Marx argued against exploitation of the poor and had in his time and age reason enough to do so, yet this exploitation was not a new element in human society. It only appeared under a shape and form more apparent and directly visible due to the factor “industrialism”. Which indeed disturbed known patterns and led to uncontrolled up to uncontrollable urbanization. Not a new element in the scope of human history either; but so it was in Western eyes and experience.
Furthermore, there is no comparison possible between the period in which Marx exposed his ideas and the dynamics of current (Western) societies, which makes "class struggle" in this time and age all the more an upbeated artificial.

How on earth can you claim that your boss “steals” your labor if you get paid for it?
You object to an investor making profit while you need his investments to have a job.
You freely call any profit made by your investor “stealing” yet if a firm goes bankrupt, employees are very quick to claim that “no investments were made in time” all while they claim investors can't make a living accordingly to their investment in them and and their paid labor.

You seem to find all such reasonings completely logical.
Investors all must look at their investment as if they give away their money to charity and hence not expect any return but the joy to give employees a paidjob. Still you call them “parasites”. I would think following your line of reasoning it is completely the opposite. “Workers” must be able to parasite on the input of the investors to make a living while denying them a living of their own.

I want a classless society

Then first apply the reasoning that there is no such thing as “class” but in the minds of those who like to think there is, for whatever reason. On the other hand, “equality” if measured in terms of social, financial, personal success is an utopy. We are all born humans, yet we are not all the same, nor are our circumstances of birth or the opportunities we get in life, if we manage (or want) to exploit them or not. Humans aren't robots.

Look at the vast majority of the world (not just at the uk) for a moment - look at bangladesh, china, india, etc etc etc. Billions of people are forced to live a hand-to-mouth existence (regardless of religion, creed or colour). Yes, of course they constantly act back on that (we only have to look at the hundreds of virtual uprisings going on in china over the last few years). The world working class is robbed, beaten, stolen from and starved - literally in the case of poorer workers and peasants.

You simply overlook all the various contributing factors to poverty and deprivation. Of course governments (local or other powers) are often enough part of the problem but so is history, geography, demography and what not. It is beyond oversimplification to label all people who are victim of such intertwining factors as “working class”, just because they are deprived of what is looked at as of highest importance in Western Consumerist societies.

salaam.

 

[nino_savatte]

You've never been a teacher have you?

Innit?

 

[Das Uberdog]

But the head of a hospital trust is?

If you read my actual definition the head of a hospital trust is management/middle-class.

Of course I wasn't claiming that all writers are by definition working class, but there is a whole category of people that make an "independent" living from writing that by are by no means part of a class that "owns the means of production": freelance journo's, copy writers, etc.etc. and, on the contrary, are forced to sell their labour power to capitalists.

Writers are bourgeois academics - bourgeois academics often live in poverty, as has been established. As has also been established, being 'working class' does not equate to being poor and having to work hard.

You've correctly linked the professions of 'writer' and 'self-employed builder' though. They are economically the same, as in both cases they own their own means of production. They also do not have their surplus labour value extracted by a capitalist (necessary for membership of the working class). Of course they can be members of the workers' movement - but that is different from analysing them from a basic Marxist class perspective. On a tangental note, Aldebaran's post is almost completely nullified from the point at which he fails to understand the extraction of surplus labour; a capitalist cannot employ a worker unless the worker is remunerated to a lower degree than their labour input creates wealth. The worker is alienated from the vast bulk of the wealth they produce, and the capitalist (whilst producing no wealth themselves) reaps the bulk of the benefit. Not to mention the rest of it is based on some profound misunderstandings of Marxist theory and some quite brazen assertions (which I doubt he will be able to back up).

We had builders, sculptors and tradesmen of all kinds before the emergence of an 'actual' working class. They are, by Marxist definition, differentiated from the 'workers' by degree of their independence from a capitalists means of production; they also do not have their surplus labour extracted as profit by a capitalist. The small shop-keeper, self-employed GP, plumber, builder, etcetera are motivated by the same economic incentives. Their relationship to the means of production is also the same. Their position as a seperate class is made clear when you see the members of their profession 'made good'. Those who do employ labour, those who rake in the profits. A self-employed builder working by themselves is distinguished only from these people by the fact that business isn't going as well.

Self-employed builder, lorry driver, taxi-driver, electrician - not workers. Nor would a member of the petit bourgeois class have been considered a worker by Marx, Lenin or Trotsky.

 

[emanymton]

You've correctly linked the professions of 'writer' and 'self-employed builder' though. They are economically the same, as in both cases they own their own means of production.

Writers own printing presses and distribution networks capable of producing thousands of copies of books and delivering them to bookshops throughout the world?

 

[butchersapron]

Jesus wept. Hooverbag can tell the bosses by their top-hats as well. Such out of date 1930s nonsense -and from a member of a party that has spent the last 5 years organising around small businessmen.

I note that housewives, the unemployed and the retired are handily airbrushed out of the working class by this crude useless aproach.