Questions of Class
Nov 2 2009 17:45
Is Class simply about ones relationship to the means of production?
I like this as a rough framework but it does throw up some problems. What about really rich workers like footballers? Surely they cannot be seen as Working class with the ammount of money they have yet if money becomes a factor then surely u get to an arbitary point where u say this is too much money to be Working class etc and this just seems silly
Do people think class has anything to do with culture? Ive just had a debate where I was the only one claiming Alan Sugar to be upper class whereas everyone else saw him as working.
What about retired people, house wives or husbands etc where do they all fit in
Thoughts?
(sorry if this has been done a million times over)
Nov 2 2009 18:10
#2
I agree withthat analysis basically but it still means some workers who are millionaires are part of the working class and I find that illogical
Nov 2 2009 18:16
#3
No it doesn't, because it's not a system for classification of individuals.
Even if you did want to engage in the pointless exercise of classifying individuals, anyone with millions of pounds would de facto be a capitalist because money kept in banks is capital which is then invested in businesses to valorize itself, i.e. to increase itself.
This is where interest comes from - the exploitation of workers in the enterprises in which this capital is invested.
Nov 2 2009 18:23
#4
"Even if you did want to engage in the pointless exercise of classifying individuals, anyone with millions of pounds would de facto be a capitalist because money kept in banks is capital which is then invested in businesses to valorize itself, i.e. to increase itself."
but surely almost every worker, at least in the western/1st world, has money kept in banks which is then invested etc?
I would have thought it was about classyfying Individuals just on a big scale? So you know who is enemy, potential ally etc
Nov 2 2009 18:36
#5
By the way, sorry if I sound a bit short in my above two posts, it's just because I've had this discussion so many times...
Can anyone think of a good article to refer people to?
Sure, most western workers have money in the bank, although most are net in debt, either with overdrafts, credit cards or mortgages. Even those quite well off, mostly older workers who may have paid off their mortgage and credit cards won't mostly have enough capital to live off, so they will have to sell their labour power to survive.
If you have millions of pounds in the bank, then you obviously don't have to do this.
In terms of who is an enemy, or potential ally, well like I outlined above, it's the working class which has the potential to change society.
Capitalist individuals could be supportive of a revolutionary working class project, and many working class people could be completely against it - Nazis, police officers, etc. Individuals within classes can have vastly different behaviours.
But the economic interest of the working class is in the overthrowing and abolition of capital. And workers are constantly fighting in this interest - on a collective level in mass strikes and occupations, or a more individualised level of slow working, absenteeism, theft of work produce or time, etc.
Nov 2 2009 18:51
#6
"Capitalist individuals could be supportive of a revolutionary working class project"
surely capitalists would never be allowed in a working class revolutionary organisation for obvious reasons,
I don't see how say a major shareholder of a big coorperation say could be an ally
Would you say when someone retires off earnings they have made as a worker they are no longer WC then?
What about the fact that its hardly impossible for quite a few Working class people to enter ownership of capital at a small scale (petty bourgesoise)
I have a friend who works on a market stall for 6 pounds an hour, his plan is to eventually save enough money to get his own stall - does the fact that this is possible for quite a lot of WC people mean anything? I mean does this not kinda go against the idea you HAVE to sell your labour to survive?
also cheers for the responses I know it must be boring if its all been said before and that
Nov 2 2009 21:02
#7
Steven. wrote:
Can anyone think of a good article to refer people to?
Richard Gunn's Notes on Class is pretty good imo, but extremely jargony. Actually I think Joseph Kay sums the class relation up really well with minimal jargon in the parecon debate, particularly the parts in the first half: 1, 2.
Nov 2 2009 23:43
#8
D wrote:
"Capitalist individuals could be supportive of a revolutionary working class project"surely capitalists would never be allowed in a working class revolutionary organisation for obvious reasons,
I don't see why not. Engels was a capitalist, who funded Marx to write the world's most important critique of capitalism.
Quote:
I don't see how say a major shareholder of a big coorperation say could be an ally
Well as I said a few times already, I don't think this sort of thing about individuals is important.
But from a purely hypothetical level, there is no qualitative difference between someone who is a shareholder in one company, to someone who has the same amount of money in a bank (and so invested in lots of companies). So if you're saying you would not permit this, then if a member of your group, or if you yourself say won the lottery, then surely you should not have to be expelled? This makes no sense.
Quote:
Would you say when someone retires off earnings they have made as a worker they are no longer WC then?
no, because our pensions are paid by either private pensions - which are made up of our wages while working, or state pensions which are part of the social wage.
Quote:
What about the fact that its hardly impossible for quite a few Working class people to enter ownership of capital at a small scale (petty bourgesoise)
I have a friend who works on a market stall for 6 pounds an hour, his plan is to eventually save enough money to get his own stall - does the fact that this is possible for quite a lot of WC people mean anything? I mean does this not kinda go against the idea you HAVE to sell your labour to survive?
also cheers for the responses I know it must be boring if its all been said before and that
I have friends that work on market stalls as well. They don't sell their labour to an individual capitalist, but they are still compelled to work, but does sell their services to the general public.
Yes, some people are petty bourgeois, or self-employed, but then the dynamic which shapes society is still that between capital and labour. Lots of people are on a spectrum in between, but this fundamental conflict is what drives social change.
Nov 3 2009 00:33
#9
Steven. wrote:
I don't see why not. Engels was a capitalist, who funded Marx to write the world's most important critique of capitalism.
i think it's different for propaganda than agitation/organising. capitalists can argue against capitalism, they can't organise against it and remain capitalists - what are they going to do - incite their workers to strike? of course at an individual level it should be discretionary, but if your income comes from owning a business you simply can't act against its interests for long, although in principle you could support workers everywhere else struggling i guess.
Nov 3 2009 00:36
#10
Joseph Kay wrote:
Steven. wrote:
I don't see why not. Engels was a capitalist, who funded Marx to write the world's most important critique of capitalism.i think it's different for propaganda than agitation/organising. capitalists can argue against capitalism, they can't organise against it and remain capitalists - what are they going to do - incite their workers to strike? of course at an individual level it should be discretionary, but if your income comes from owning a business you simply can't act against its interests for long, although in principle you could support workers everywhere else struggling i guess.
they can't organise against it as capitalists, but they can provide funding for revolutionary organisations, propaganda, and potentially other groups of workers in struggle. Small numbers of rich people have always done stuff like this. Hell, there's one of them in London.
Nov 3 2009 00:41
#11
Steven. wrote:
they can't organise against it as capitalists, but they can provide funding for revolutionary organisations, propaganda, and potentially other groups of workers in struggle. Small numbers of rich people have always done stuff like this. Hell, there's one of them in London.
i think it's far less problematic for one-off projects. i would oppose any ongoing dependence on said funds though, or you end up with conflicts of interest. like Morning Star journos wanting to properly criticise the unions (who fund it).
Nov 3 2009 00:49
#12
Exactly, it's just about not allowing any one person to have too much power, but having a blanket rule would be pointless. If I won the lottery tomorrow I would give money to the anarchist movement,* as I'm sure you probably would, it would be ridiculous to expel you from Solfed for that.
*but I would spend most of it on cars and hoes. And a few pairs of jeans would be nice!11!!
Nov 3 2009 01:21
#13
Steven. wrote:
Exactly, it's just about not allowing any one person to have too much power, but having a blanket rule would be pointless. If I won the lottery tomorrow I would give money to the anarchist movement,* as I'm sure you probably would, it would be ridiculous to expel you from Solfed for that.
but there's no getting away from the fact that in capitalism, wealth is power. i don't think there's a problem with a general rule, so long as it's discretionary in implementation (like i know one guy who's a self-employed gardener who has been told by Trots that he's 'not a worker' so isn't really welcome in class struggle stuff - although he may well be technically petty bourgeois i don't see a problem there at all).
there is also a difference between someone who's rich by having money in the bank (from the lottery, inheritance, whatever) and someone who owns a business since the latter directly employs people whose interests contradict their own. but obviously i agree with the general point that for revolutionaries class is a means of understanding (and developing) the tensions in society and not classifying individuals.
Nov 3 2009 05:36
#14
Joseph Kay wrote:
there is also a difference between someone who's rich by having money in the bank (from the lottery, inheritance, whatever) and someone who owns a business since the latter directly employs people whose interests contradict their own. but obviously i agree with the general point that for revolutionaries class is a means of understanding (and developing) the tensions in society and not classifying individuals.
I think it comes down to deciding what it is you want to get out of the concept of class, which itself depends on context. If you want to guess who will be on which side of the barricades, the poor self-employed person can be called working class. If you want to understand capitalism, classifying individuals becomes less intuitive but also unimportant.
I'd have a quick search of the forums about this. It has been done about a million times I'm afraid - there is a big discussion in a theory forum at the moment about it (called the middle class).
Basically, it depends how you use the concept of class.
If you're talking about social class in the way most people do, then yes Alan sugar is working class, as that's his cultural background.
If you're a revolutionary interested in overthrowing capitalism, then the important fact about class is that capitalism is based on the creation of a dispossessed class - those with nothing to sell but their labour power. This class, us, creates all the world's wealth, but do not own it. We represent the power which remakes the world every day, and we ultimately have the power to transform it.
With the revolutionary definition, therefore, classifying individuals in terms of "what if coalminer wins the lottery?" or things like that doesn't come into it.