Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Class


Swan Red

Recommended Posts

I agree with most of this and as no class seems intent on doing anything as a class it suggests that it is largely irrelevant in the minds of people. This is a case for its redundancy rather than against.

 

I don’t think a simple income or wealth distinction corresponds to class as we understand it but I do think it’s of utmost importance in focusing attention. But this is about rich and poor and various gradations of both this isn’t about class. We make distinctions on profession but these aren’t always reflective of the incomes of those professions.

 

The question is whether we should call it the working class or not. Or consider these interests somehow working class interests. What makes a decent education system a working class interest? Or a decent health service? Our focus should be those least fortunate, at the expense of those most working though progressive rates of taxation. It seems that you referring to what we might or used to call the working class is again making the point, it may have been relevant to talk about working class interests but it isn’t now.

 

It is my belief that there aren’t a coherent set of interests we can consider working class, that the granularity evident in modern scales of social division aren’t suited to homogenising into the broad types of historical class division. Earlier notions of class were based on the relationship with the means of production, distribution and exchange. This is no longer appropriate.

 

I have a dog in this fight, some years ago Mrs Sutty made it clear she didn’t consider me working class and I argued strongly against, a couple of years ago a mate said similar and I strongly disagreed again. I don’t know that I would argue so strongly now, it is the case that my considering class redundant as a concept is a result of me no longer caring about whether I’m working class or not. If I am then me not needing to be the recipient of government tax cuts distinguishes me from those that do. If I’m not then how is my current security reliant on the two of us staying in work.

Class has certainly changed in the UK over the last 30-40 years. The end of mass industry, much of it state-owned, the change in the economy resultant from that, has made it more difficult to slot people into boxes - because that's what class labels were, in effect. Useful boxes, but boxes nonetheless. It also ignored women to a large degree, where they didn't work.

 

Class based on occupation was always a broad brush and it would be today. Class based on wealth or income is more refined, but the point you make about why we would use it stands. It doesn't really matter to me whether we talk about the needs of the working class or the needs of people on low incomes, I won't go to the barricades to defend categorisation, it's about how we give people opportunities they lack through the circumstances of their birth.

 

It seems to me that the interests of the low paid/unwaged/poor are exactly the same as they were 40, 50, 60, 100 years ago - housing, education, decent jobs, health. They may be harder to define, but they are still there. So why not call them the working class? If the label helps us to define people with common interests, rather than with common occupations, why not keep using it? The upper class still exist, as do the middle classes.

 

FWIW, I think the working class has shrunk. Thanks to the opportunities that people of my generation and the one above had. That doesn't mean there aren't still millions without opportunities, or that the division between this generation and mine hasn't grown, and is still growing. Thanks to the failures of the thatcher subsequent governments.

 

when did "Class" start though. years ago there was basically the aristocracy and then everyone else. Is it a Victorian thing? And has it just become obsolete now as its become more fluid. I'd imagine that anyone born into poverty 150 yearsa go wouldf have found it virtually impossible to get out of it.

I think the notions of class that we now understand date back to the industrial revolution. There was always a mercantile class even during feudalism. Changes dating back to the reform acts and extensions of the franchise started giving people the opportunity to move up. That's now stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems to me that the interests of the low paid/unwaged/poor are exactly the same as they were 40, 50, 60, 100 years ago - housing, education, decent jobs, health. They may be harder to define, but they are still there. So why not call them the working class? If the label helps us to define people with common interests, rather than with common occupations, why not keep using it? The upper class still exist, as do the middle classes.

 

I agree with this the interests of the low paid/unwaged/poor are exactly the same as they were, that is not being low paid/unwaged/poor. Let's target those interests specifically, those other interests, housing, education, decent jobs and health are interests we all share and we should call these out as society's interests not restrict them to a class.

 

This thread arose in part because of the sacrifices some are making for their kids education, that there's the disposable income available to pay for a child's education precludes them from being poor but it doesn't preclude them from having an interest in a good free education system nor is this interest relevant only to them by class.

 

I'm arguing that we should be aggressively redistributive but in order to do this we have to separate the interests of the poorest in order to prioritise them. I don't know what class adds to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be good if people wanted less money and less things. The bloke I work for owns property worth millions, while, for most of his employees, a mortgage is but a dream.

 

There needs to be less disparity between top and bottom, but as the bottom seems to have lost most of its power, I can't see how that's going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be good if people wanted less money and less things. The bloke I work for owns property worth millions, while, for most of his employees, a mortgage is but a dream.

 

There needs to be less disparity between top and bottom, but as the bottom seems to have lost most of its power, I can't see how that's going to happen.

 

I'm not sure how much power the bottom ever had. I think they have less because society has become so fractured but it's this fracturing that makes class less useful as a concept.

 

I'm okay with people wanting more things as long as we ensure that the basic needs are met. As distasteful as consumerism can be it can drive progress which can benefit the worst off. There's a lot of qualifiers there but the point stands. There does need to be less disparity and we should continually look to uplift the conditions of the worst off.

 

I think what we often miss is that the content, the book, the record, the meal, the view, the conversation, these don't have to be expensive. It doesn't cost money to have a fulfilling life but you need money to ensure that basic and some less basic needs are met in order that we can really enjoy the ones that cost little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it's constantly wanting more that is maybe our major flaw as a species. It's not just about consumerism. We don't know when to stop.

 

Consumerism might drive progress in some parts of the world, but at what cost?

 

There has to be some kind of balance, but I'm not sure we're capable of finding it. Not unless it's forced on us.

 

I think that the bottom, in the UK at least, had some say in the post-war years, but the demise of the unions and the left has taken that away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the poorest were ever as isolated as they are now. Unions were stronger but they were stronger in part because they represented a more coherent set of class interests. This isn't the case and it's this change that those that would be redistributive need to account for.

 

Access to information is a thing and that barriers to this are being dismantled on the back of consumer demand for technological development it's not all bad. There are costs but there is also provision for some of this to be directed back. It's probably better that Gates made the wealth he did than someone else despite the amount he retains I consider immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for most technology isn't about access to information, but entertainment. If religion was the opium of the masses in the nineteenth century, surely its place has now been taken by technology/entertainment. I'd include football in that. For me, modern football is so much of what's wrong with society writ large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're often complacent about it but there are significant benefits in sharing information, whether it means we can better target aid or enabling remote locations to stay connected. The charity I support uses mobile phone technology to make cash transfers to the poorest communities in Kenya and Uganda. This is only possible because these poorest communities have access to phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there not a case then for strengthening a more coherent class identity? My concern is that by attempting to weaken class definitions, you play right into the hands of neoliberals who actively wish to dismantle class identity.

 

 

I play an active role in the Transition movement in the north west and one of the main aims of this is to create a whole series of more sustainable communities. To a large part part, these involves opting out of mainstream consumer led capitalism. Revolutionary politics dressed up as organic gardening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to be an a***, Phil, but how do you square that with stuff like buying music, technology etc? The music industry is uber-capitalism.

 

I sometimes ask myself the same question. I'm happy to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while, at the same time, denigrating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know it's possible to identify a coherent set of class interests. For me for class to be interesting there should be some feature of a class that is unique to it and universal, working and middle class identification offers neither of these things. I don't know much about the transition movement outside of looking through the why what how where do on transition network, I wouldn't condescend to offer an opinion other than there are real issues that will benefit from a plurality of approaches I'm also generally in favour of people empowering themselves.

 

I don't know we can strengthen a coherent class identity without a coherent set of interests and those interests are neither unique nor universal, our appeal has to be both narrower in favour of the least fortunate and broader in favour of the majority of what's left.

 

Tim wrt Gates I don't know about their investment in pharmaceuticals or prisons and both have serious potential to undermine any investment elsewhere. I'm still good with the general idea better him than someone who gives much less given there would be even fewer ethical constraints on the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I can consider that suggestive of questionable investment but not sufficient to form any strong opinion.

 

There's some good analysis of their work at givewell

 

The Gates Foundation has been integral in the creation of many of the organizations it has made major grants to, such as GAVI (which has received several of its largest grants), Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Innovative Vector Control Consortium, Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

 

There's also a piece somewhat more critical of it's approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is whether we should call it the working class or not. Or consider these interests somehow working class interests.

 

 

 

Interesting point. I believe there is the need for the biggest shake up in politics in this country for over a hundred years. The vast majority of people believe they are being represented by the big parties but it's just not happening. Big money and the ruling elite drive everything. Unless things change over the next couple of decades this will only become more true.

 

I've generally thought it would be a good thing for the Scots to turn down the chance for independence but if they actually vote for it and get leaders with any moral fiber it could be revolutionary for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to be an a***, Phil, but how do you square that with stuff like buying music, technology etc? The music industry is uber-capitalism.

 

I sometimes ask myself the same question. I'm happy to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while, at the same time, denigrating it.

 

Yeah, not an arsey question at all and one that I ask myself all of the time.

 

As ever, you do the best that you can, which is becoming increasingly difficult in this day and age. And I am ok with not being 100% wholly consistent (I don't actually think it is possible to be 100% consistent, so I'm not gonna beat myself up over this and neither am I really gonna beat anybody else up for the same reason).

 

To me, it's about trying to rebuild resilient and sustainable communities and to try and create new identities for those and a network of other communities. For each community to become more sustainable in terms of energy, transport, food, natural resources, arts and culture etc. This can only work when we, once again, realise that we have far more in common with each other, a coherent set of interests and values, than we are led to believe. I see this as the most effective way to counter capitalist realism. To gradually withdraw from this system and to do so on your own terms.

 

And, at present, technology is vital if we are to achieve these goals. There are very few public spaces left where people can meet and share ideas so things like social media are often the only realistic means of communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for the idea of stronger more sustainable communities as long as there's a sense of community among the communities. Where we live people have tried to establish alternative forms of payment. Not with massive success, but the ideas are good.

 

Personally, I'd like to see things like restrictions on the amount of property an individual or company can own and on how much people can use their cars or on the maximum difference between the top and bottom wage in a company, but I know those ideas are unrealistic in our current political world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the footnote says 'all written history', of course

 

I always assumed that what Marx meant was that the class struggle is the factor that tends to dominate in the long term - if so then I think we was (and is) right.

 

I think the modern state of class struggle needs to be understood in international or globalized terms. Looking at a modern post-industrial state (e.g. Britain) in isolation or as part if a group of similar states tends to lead to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie has become the majority, which it has of course, but not on a global scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...