Are all children working-class?

[The Idler]

Are all children working-class because they are not in control of the means of production?

[9]

No.

[el_chavista]

Are all children working-class because they are not in control of the means of production?
Only in the eyes of the poor patriarchs.

[Dimentio]

Are all children working-class because they are not in control of the means of production?

WTF? :lol:

No, they are not. Children are basically belonging to the social class their parents belong to until they get out in society themselves. Class is not something biological, and a person could see herself sink down or be raised up in the class ladder during a lifetime.

[ZeroNowhere]

They can be, for example, those that engage in child labour. However, most children in the West won't have a class, because they're going to school or some such rather than taking part in the social relations that involve classes, such as selling of labour power and so on. Of course, most will go on to become working class, but as classes are determined by social relations, and they are not part of the social relations that make somebody proletarian, they are not proletarian, regardless of not owning the means of production.

Of course, them not being proletarian does not make them unimportant, especially given the fact that the educational system tends to mirror the surrounding social system.

[Psy]

They can be, for example, those that engage in child labour. However, most children in the West won't have a class, because they're going to school or some such rather than taking part in the social relations that involve classes, such as selling of labour power and so on. Of course, most will go on to become working class, but as classes are determined by social relations, and they are not part of the social relations that make somebody proletarian, they are not proletarian, regardless of not owning the means of production.

Of course, them not being proletarian does not make them unimportant, especially given the fact that the educational system tends to mirror the surrounding social system.

Actually students are grade slaves, they have produce paper work in exchange for grades that are valued by the teaching class (that are only a teaching class within the class system of education) using standards setup by the bourgeoisie to reproduce the classes. So it is not simply mirroring the surrounding social system but a social system onto itself that exists to serve the surrounding social system. In the students case it is not a of not owning the means of production but not being masters of their own education, instead they are expected to learn on command thus the educational system teaches even the future bourgeoisie to follow the commands of their superiors and not to challenge the social hierarchy.

[ZeroNowhere]

If you wish to use economic categories metaphorically in referring to education (though teachers are proletarian, and are more analogous to cops or managers than capitalists), then you may do so, keeping in mind that it is a metaphor. I would also argue that schooling tends to reinforce bourgeois society through the imposition of powerlessness (in the form of grades, and such, and indeed distant rulers over your life, in the form of school boards and such), which mirrors the rule of things that forms capitalism, the fact that people are already taught not to question the system within which they work, and to only work within it (indeed, the idea that schools could be radically changed would seem rather absurd to the students. And, as they are generally children, this means that their first taste of this comes from adults, so that unlike civil society, enforcement is that of adults over children, hence imposing enough for them to not see much chance in changing things when getting into the flow of things), the fact that generally one can only see teachers, rather than the people behind the scenes, similar to how rich bankers have been made scapegoats for crises and such, and teachers will often be despised for doing what they must to keep their jobs, or following what they have been told to do, and of course the strict hierarchy and so on.

[gorillafuck]

Actually students are grade slaves, they have produce paper work in exchange for grades that are valued by the teaching class
There's no "teaching class". Teachers don't gain anything off their students through getting papers turned in to them, they don't live off of good grades their students get.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There's no "teaching class". Teachers don't gain anything off their students through getting papers turned in to them, they don't live off of good grades their students get.

Agreed. A lot of the teachers are working class themselves, if anything is gaining from student progress it would be the Educational Committee Board that decides what's what, who goes forward, & who stays back. Hell, here in NC, they're trying to implement a law where teachers get paid based on how many students pass. This will put them down, low on money, even more given to how much apathy is present in the kids today within the educational system.

[ZeroNowhere]

There's no "teaching class". Teachers don't gain anything off their students through getting papers turned in to them, they don't live off of good grades their students get.Well, to be fair, they keep their jobs. That is gain, in a sense, though it is not analogous to the gain that the bourgeoisie attain.


This will put them down, low on money, even more given to how much apathy is present in the kids today within the educational system.That's interesting, it seems a pretty clear way of creating conflict between teachers and pupils, and hence more trivial struggles that obscure the elephant in the closet. Especially as said apathy is created by the system itself, and is perfectly understandable; grades generally mean nothing, they only get their relevance from enforcement from above, and this is obviously going to lead to the reaction of estrangement, and, coupled with powerlessness from other sources, apathy.

[Dimentio]

They can be, for example, those that engage in child labour. However, most children in the West won't have a class, because they're going to school or some such rather than taking part in the social relations that involve classes, such as selling of labour power and so on. Of course, most will go on to become working class, but as classes are determined by social relations, and they are not part of the social relations that make somebody proletarian, they are not proletarian, regardless of not owning the means of production.

Of course, them not being proletarian does not make them unimportant, especially given the fact that the educational system tends to mirror the surrounding social system.

Don't tell me children don't have class.

There's a clear social hierarchy in schools formed upon class (even though its less pronounced than in adult life). One of the first things children ask one another is "what does your daddy work with?"

Children who come from lumpen-proletarian families are often quite badly treated by schools if they encounter problems there. Children who behave similarly bad but come from well-off families are treated better. There is also a resentment amongst kids from poorer backgrounds against children who are perceived as from a wealthy upbringing.

Class do matter for children, alas though in a filtered state.

[Psy]

There's no "teaching class". Teachers don't gain anything off their students through getting papers turned in to them, they don't live off of good grades their students get.
As I said the teaching class only exists as a relationship between the student and teacher thus does not exist outside the classroom.

I never said teacher were like the bourgeoisie, the product is not what the student hand the teacher the product is the graduated student be it a indoctrinated proletariat or indoctrinate bourgeoisie (even the bourgeoisie have to act with the set ground rules of capitalism thus have to be indoctrinated so they know their role as exploiter in society). Thus the teachers managers the production of new indoctrinated members of the classes of capitalism that are produced by the students themselves in exchange for grades for the long term goal of getting the best position as an adult in society (though grades does not guaranty a good position).

[ZeroNowhere]

Don't tell me children don't have class.

There's a clear social hierarchy in schools formed upon class (even though its less pronounced than in adult life). One of the first things children ask one another is "what does your daddy work with?"

Children who come from lumpen-proletarian families are often quite badly treated by schools if they encounter problems there. Children who behave similarly bad but come from well-off families are treated better. There is also a resentment amongst kids from poorer backgrounds against children who are perceived as from a wealthy upbringing.

Class do matter for children, alas though in a filtered state.
There is a difference between having a class, involving being part of certain social relations which children are generally not, and being treated based on the class of one's parents, which is exactly that. Though yes, it certainly is significant, as is competition in schools in general, teaching people to know their place. Class, however, is an economic category, and used to describe the economy, and indeed capitalists could be treated as workers or poor people generally are, say, due to clothing choices, or workers treated as capitalists generally are due to mistaken identities. These phenomena, that is, different classes being treated with different level of reverence, arise from class systems, incriminating them, perhaps, but they do not define them.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Maybe in the literal sense, children do not have a designated class (working, middle class, bourgeois/proletariat) until they're old enough to participate in actual work environments. In the U.S., that's 16.

In the educational setting, however, there is a real class divide, and it's oftentimes clearer than in the "real world." Microcosms like public schools have a smaller population with representatives from every class sharing the same tight space. This actually results in somewhat higher class-consciousness. Poor/working/"middle" class kids hate the jocks/cheerleaders/preppy rich kids. Sometimes fights break out amidst the two.

[Tablo]

In my school there has never been very clearly defined groups. We have people ranging from impoverished working class families to the heirs of multi-million dollar fortunes. People where I go to school generally divide up between the types of hobbies, shows, and music they listen too. Even then it is largely mixed up. It may be because we have very few people who even bother with buying the expensive clothing and such that divides students.

[IllicitPopsicle]

It's different for everyone, of course.

[The Idler]

Correct me if I'm wrong but working-class doesn't mean you have to be working, it includes those unable to work through disability, the able-bodied working-age unemployed and pensioners.

Hence children aren't in control of the means of production, so if a working class bully decides to exploit a rich bourgeois kid, the rich kids can't generally hire private security. Likewise, if a teacher punishes a rich kid, they can't do anything about. Also rich kids get grounded by their parents. Rich kids have no independent means of income. So surely they're still working-class?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Correct me if I'm wrong but working-class doesn't mean you have to be working, it includes those unable to work through disability, the able-bodied working-age unemployed and pensioners.

Hence children aren't in control of the means of production, so if a working class bully decides to exploit a rich bourgeois kid, the rich kids can't generally hire private security. Likewise, if a teacher punishes a rich kid, they can't do anything about. Also rich kids get grounded by their parents. Rich kids have no independent means of income. So surely they're still working-class?

But the kids that are not of the status', & haven't been around long enough to try & work & then get put into the realization that they have some deficiency, in turn haven't been around long enough to be put into a type of class just yet. Not to mention they have many years left of environmental conditioning to go through to find out where exactly they stand, or better yet, those who are teaching them want them to stand.

[Misanthrope]

Working class: A social class that is forced to sell their labor in order to survive. You can't say that an entire age group is in the same economic situation.

[Dimentio]

Working class: A social class that is forced to sell their labor in order to survive. You can't say that an entire age group is in the same economic situation.

What about women who are married to working class-men but are housewives?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What about women who are married to working class-men but are housewives?

Before one was to put them within a class, wouldn't it depend on the reasoning behind why she is a housewife? My mom is one, but not because she chose so, but because she has seizures & the workforce does not allow women to work for them if they have seizures, at least not towards the degree of how she has them.

[Pawn Power]

I think the confusion comes about when you see class in ridged terms- relationship to the means of production- and not what that relationship actually entails. That is, one's relationship to 'the means of production' determines their power in society, or their ability to make things happen. So, in terms of power, children, of any class, have very little. Obviously, wealthy children live much more comfortably and are provided with a better education but they don't have significant power... yet. However, the have future potential access to power which clearly distinguishes children of the elite from the rest of us. If you look at it this way children do have a class position, but not necessarily in term of ownership of capital.

[StalinFanboy]

Students are workers, thanks. The role of the university, and of all education, is to create more workers. It's a fucking social factory.

[StalinFanboy]

What about women who are married to working class-men but are housewives?
Housewives are working class. They may not be directly producing things, but their role is to make sure their partners are able to make it through the work week without murdering their bosses (by taking care of the kids, house, and meals, and sexual pleasure).

[StalinFanboy]

children are parasites cuz they leach off their parents and i read this from mao :(
Mao is the man.

[syndicat]

a class is made up of families, not just the individuals. the proletarian condition has to do with one's prospects being dependent on one's being able to find employment where one is subject to the power of management and doesn't manage others. dependents in one's family are also working class, if the family is.

when a man and woman marry and are members of a different class, then it creates a class ambiguity tho usually the man's class is considered more important due to the relative dependence of women on men due to sexual inequality. housewives are not automatically working class. the wealthy classes are better able to afford to keep a stay at home wife. such a wife has the class position of her husband since she shares his prospects in life.

the prospects in life of children are very strongly influenced by who their parents are. for example, test scores in school using things like the SAT in the USA have a tendency to strongly correlate with class background. wealthy parents can provide all sorts of advantages to their children to ensure they will end up in an elite class position, not just inheritance of money but things available to the kids while they are growing up.

[Revy]

One does not have to be employed to be working class. One does not have to have a direct relationship to the means of production (job) in order to have a relationship to it.

[jake williams]

While I think the analysis of the internal workings of the education system is extremely valuable, and much more so when this is related to its context in larger capitalist society and reproduction, I think such analysis misses the point.

In the most broad and rigorous Marxist (Marxist here not a collection of set facts but a methodology and set of principles) sense, people constitute a class (a group of people, not an abstract category) on the basis of their material relationship to society. Moreover, the most significant class phenomenon when one looks pretty broadly across society is one's relationship in particular to the economy, the process of production and distribution. This includes how one is obligated or allowed to spend one's time, what material resources one has at hand, how one's work (or free time) causes one to develop consciousness, and in critical situations, especially how one gains ones material subsistence.

However, when Marxists speak generally of class, especially in contexts where one is trying to explain quite simplistically a number of broad phenomena, they also often take for granted, though it's certainly within the realm of debatability, that even beyond economic circumstances being predominant, a person is a member of some class and not another solely on the basis of how certain events will affect their material situation. This is done because the concept of class in the first place is implicated not simply because it makes sense on a conceptual level, but because it attempts to explain how and why certain people act in certain ways.

Under this latter specification, because cuts in wages (for example) will negatively affect the children of the people who earn those wages, and positively affect the children of the people who obtain their position in society based on the exploitation of labour, the former children are members of the working class and the latter are members of the bourgeoisie. It's also the case, of course, that children of the working class go on to work, typically, and that children of the bourgeoisie go on to exploit labour, typically, or at least out of proportion to working class children; but I think that fact is less pertinent to the reality at any given time.

[syndicat]

It's also necessary to keep in mind that some people change their class position. So people who are born in poverty, or are from working class families, can go on to set up businesses or go through college and enter managerial or high-end professional jobs. CLass within capitalism is not a rigid caste but is somewhat porous. so working class children in their adult life can sometimes scratch their way into one of the dominating classes. Most people, however, die in the class they're born into.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's also necessary to keep in mind that some people change their class position. So people who are born in poverty, or are from working class families, can go on to set up businesses or go through college and enter managerial or high-end professional jobs. CLass within capitalism is not a rigid caste but is somewhat porous. so working class children in their adult life can sometimes scratch their way into one of the dominating classes. Most people, however, die in the class they're born into.

Like Joe Stack :thumbup1:

[jake williams]

It's also necessary to keep in mind that some people change their class position. So people who are born in poverty, or are from working class families, can go on to set up businesses or go through college and enter managerial or high-end professional jobs. CLass within capitalism is not a rigid caste but is somewhat porous. so working class children in their adult life can sometimes scratch their way into one of the dominating classes. Most people, however, die in the class they're born into.
Sure. One's class refers to ones position in the capitalist system (if one happens to live in a capitalist society) at any given time, it's in no way a permanent designation, but the dynamics of capitalism are such that one's present position is typically pretty stable moving into the future.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sure. One's class refers to ones position in the capitalist system (if one happens to live in a capitalist society) at any given time, it's in no way a permanent designation, but the dynamics of capitalism are such that one's present position is typically pretty stable moving into the future.

One could use the society as a way of helping gain attention of class conscience as well, can't we? Like those that get money from documentaries, but have used those documentaries to expose why the system they're living in isn't what the world needs.

[jake williams]

One could use the society as a way of helping gain attention of class conscience as well, can't we? Like those that get money from documentaries, but have used those documentaries to expose why the system they're living in isn't what the world needs.
Sure. There are subjective factors, so to speak, which means that (clearly) your position in class society isn't the sole determinant of what you decide to do.

It's worth clarifying, though, that people who make millions of dollars as film directors are of sort of a complex class position - there's an argument that they're members of the working class, there are arguments that they're not.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sure. There are subjective factors, so to speak, which means that (clearly) your position in class society isn't the sole determinant of what you decide to do.

It's worth clarifying, though, that people who make millions of dollars as film directors are of sort of a complex class position - there's an argument that they're members of the working class, there are arguments that they're not.

Though, would one have to necessarily be of the working class to show support of such & to help bring power to the working class? If not, then that would help broaden the numbers within the workers resistance, in my opinion that is.

[redwog]

As a teacher I can definitely attest to the social function of schooling being the reproduction of classes.

I teach in a 'working class' school with a high immigrant population, whilst some of the kids are of petite-bourgeois stock, they are all taught as if they were working class! Some are encouraged to be aspirational, some are funnelled out of school into work early and most just cruise along having the freedom and youthful spirit sucked from them.

As a teacher, I think I am part of the working class in the same way that a 'housewife' (why did she marry the house?) is, in terms of the social factory. Our work is the reproduction of labour (power). But I can understand why some may suggest teachers are part of the state, like the police and therefore are purely reactionary and incapable of contributing to worker emancipation.

The bourgeosie, who number very few, have their own schools. Very rarely do working class kids attend bourgeois schools. Sure there are some aspirational petite-bourgeois who find the cash to get to an elite school. But by and large it is a system designed for them.

What does this mean? Children are related not to the means of production but the means of reproduction.

Working class kids, in general terms are subordinated, oppressed and domesticated by the means of reproduction; whereas the ruling class kids are instructed on how to maintain the conditions for a system that advances their interest. This is the difference between 'schooling' and 'education'.

Any micro class stratification is superfluous, issues such as wealthy or poorer workers or small business owners sending their kids to the same school is not important in the macro sense.

Ultimately, why is the original question important? We need to know who the working class is, because they are the ONLY ones who can bring about their liberation. Can children engage in this revolution, well if kids can revolt in an organise fashion in their schools (which occasionally does happen) then their may be some argument that they are part of the wider movement. But it would be difficult to imagine them as the counter-hegemonic force capable of leading the revolution...

[The Vegan Marxist]

As a teacher I can definitely attest to the social function of schooling being the reproduction of classes.

I teach in a 'working class' school with a high immigrant population, whilst some of the kids are of petite-bourgeois stock, they are all taught as if they were working class! Some are encouraged to be aspirational, some are funnelled out of school into work early and most just cruise along having the freedom and youthful spirit sucked from them.

As a teacher, I think I am part of the working class in the same way that a 'housewife' (why did she marry the house?) is, in terms of the social factory. Our work is the reproduction of labour (power). But I can understand why some may suggest teachers are part of the state, like the police and therefore are purely reactionary and incapable of contributing to worker emancipation.

The bourgeosie, who number very few, have their own schools. Very rarely do working class kids attend bourgeois schools. Sure there are some aspirational petite-bourgeois who find the cash to get to an elite school. But by and large it is a system designed for them.

What does this mean? Children are related not to the means of production but the means of reproduction.

Working class kids, in general terms are subordinated, oppressed and domesticated by the means of reproduction; whereas the ruling class kids are instructed on how to maintain the conditions for a system that advances their interest. This is the difference between 'schooling' and 'education'.

Any micro class stratification is superfluous issues such as wealthy or poorer workers or small business owners sending their kids to the same school.

Ultimately, why is the original question important? We need to know who the working class is, because they are the ONLY ones who can bring about their liberation. Can children engage in this revolution, well if kids can revolt in an organise fashion in their schools (which occasionally does happen) then their may be some argument that they are part of the wider movement. But it would be difficult to imagine them as the counter-hegemonic force capable of leading the revolution...

haha, nice small joke in the third paragraph. My answer to that jokingly question would be 'What you own ends up owning you!" (yeah I know, a quote from Fight Club, but damn it, what Communist DOESN'T love that movie?)

[Psy]

The bourgeosie, who number very few, have their own schools. Very rarely do working class kids attend bourgeois schools. Sure there are some aspirational petite-bourgeois who find the cash to get to an elite school. But by and large it is a system designed for them.

Even schools for bourgeois kids are designed for class reproduction just geared to the reproduction of the bourgeoisie, future bourgeoisie have to be indoctrinated into the system too as the established bourgeoisie fears class traitors coming into their midst thus for bourgeoisie kids the school system reassures the established bourgeoisie that those they allow into the bourgeoisie class have no significant sympathies for the proletariat that will hamper the exploitation of the proletariat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Teachers help bring about class awareness as well, though it depends what exactly they're teaching. My history teacher when I was in high school was a socialist, & was very open-minded about history. Taught us a lot of things that the U.S. textbooks didn't. He helped bring class awareness in my eyes. So I feel teachers are vastly important in allowing children to build themselves within a class conscience within the growing working class.

[Psy]

Teachers help bring about class awareness as well, though it depends what exactly they're teaching. My history teacher when I was in high school was a socialist, & was very open-minded about history. Taught us a lot of things that the U.S. textbooks didn't. He helped bring class awareness in my eyes. So I feel teachers are vastly important in allowing children to build themselves within a class conscience within the growing working class.

That is a exception. The workplace is the primary classroom of the proletariat, the workplace is not only where the proletariat mostly experiences their exploitation but where the proletariat experiences their class power.