The Problem with Classes

[MarxSchmarx]

Economic classes are a valid political, historical, sociological, economical and even, I dare say, philosophical entity. But in the global north - from Japan to America to Scandinavia - the term "class", particularly in the leftist sense, is not only meaningless to the overwhelming majority of the population, but impedes our ability to communicate our message.

Let me take, as an example, the difference between one's class and one's union. A union is usually tangible - it involves paying dues, meetings, people we hear from, and in some cases the individuals we work with. Or, for example, "taxes". Taxes are something every working person sees on their pay-stub - usually in the form of a deduction, although in some cases these are translated into something concrete like discounts on grains or even subsidies for raising children.

But class - well, class is far from tangible. For better or worse, class consciousness is only as realistic as the material facts of day to day life. Do workers see a deduction for "surplus value" on their pay stubs? Do they still think that people like Steve Jobs or Ingvar Kamprad have a "job" that means they get a salary like the rest of us, and are hence "working for a living" and my gosh even "working class"?

I give people a lot of credit in terms of how they approach life and their acumen about social problems. Look for example at the Americans of African descent - they see themselves as American, yes, but to many people "being black" is a very real social phenomenon. Or, for that matter, "being white" has incredible resonance in large segments of the population not only in the global north but also in places like Mexico and Algeria.

What I question is whether class is anything remotely like this. To most people, "class" at least in the leftist sense, remains very abstract and removed from their day to day existence. I am very familiar with all the arguments about why class matters - in fact, I agree VERY MUCH with them. But I am in the overwhelming minority, again at least in the global north - to the vast majority of people in the "advanced countries", I posit, the concept of "class" is very nebulous if not downright irrelevant from their current perspective. And part of this is because what "class" they belong to, as they see it, has no impact on their day to day existence - this is part of why so many people think they would enjoy that "beer with George Bush".

If this is so - if "class" is really something that most people, especially in the producing/working class, do no see it as anything that is concretely tied to their daily lives -its utility as a basis for organizing seems zilch. Sure, we can say that the "ignorant masses" lack "class consciousness", but such patronizing attitudes aside, "class" has a distinctly more abstract, less resonant basis among an enormous segment of the population, at least in the global north. And while it may be useful for our analysis, it gets us nowhere in practice.

So how do we deal with this situation in the global north? Should the rhetoric around class be replaced with something more concrete - perhaps we should focus more on the un/under-employed, for example? Or how do we make class relevant?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about, for starters, "precariat" stuff (see Theory) and identifying based on precarity re. employment security?

[FreeFocus]

I mean, people on here talk about how people making $300,000 are "working class," or how millionaire entertainers or athletes are "working class." It's just senseless. If people don't have to worry about bread and butter issues, or about (other) very serious violations of their human rights, they will not put their necks on the line for revolution.

Yeah, it's a good point to make that workers are exploited and don't get the full value of their labor. But the world is not like it was in the 1860s and to use this to say that some millionaires are "working class" is unbelievable. No one is going to concretely act to smash the state and capitalism just because they aren't getting the "full value" of their labor. That's an abstract concept and means very little if people aren't struggling for survival. It's an ethical issue too, but ethical concerns by themselves won't be enough to smash global capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

I mean, people on here talk about how people making $300,000 are "working class," or how millionaire entertainers or athletes are "working class." It's just senseless. If people don't have to worry about bread and butter issues, or about (other) very serious violations of their human rights, they will not put their necks on the line for revolution.

Yeah, it's a good point to make that workers are exploited and don't get the full value of their labor. But the world is not like it was in the 1860s and to use this to say that some millionaires are "working class" is unbelievable. No one is going to concretely act to smash the state and capitalism just because they aren't getting the "full value" of their labor. That's an abstract concept and means very little if people aren't struggling for survival. It's an ethical issue too, but ethical concerns by themselves won't be enough to smash global capitalism.
Agreed, people who say a middle class (which means upper middle class, generally) doesn't exist are basically denying a very observable and sociologically relevant phenomenon.

[syndicat]

What has a very concrete reality for people, which you don't mention, is their subordination to bosses and landlords. this is a very central part of the reality, of what makes it a form of oppression.

class "consciousness" can only develop if the forms of resistance against bosses and landlords develop more broadly in terms of linkages and people have experiences of solidarity, see the need for broader solidarity. in that case, then, class becomes relevant as a way to explain that needed line of solidarity, and the broader nature of the fight.

the reason class now seems abstract is due to the low level of struggle, especially in the USA, but to some extent throughout the first world countries.

and unless that broader kind of solidarity does develop, things will simply continue to get worse because the working class won't be developing the power to change things. so, what i'm saying here is activity first, consciousness second.

but even now the concept of class is not useless because it is useful to take apart and critique the myth of the USA as a "middle class" nation, which is a concept that undermines solidarity between better paid (unionized, lower level professionals) workers and less well off workers.

[apawllo]

i'll toss this out here, cause it's an idea i've been toying with...maybe someone can expand on it, or perhaps (more likely) it's an already established idea.

basically it goes like this...there are workers who are one degree away from the means of production - construction, trade workers, mechanics, engineers, doctors, etc. they use products (sometimes even make them) and see the results of their labor.

more recently there are those who are two degrees away for lack of a better term. if it isn't a recent development it has expanded dramatically of late, and is more prevalent in what you'd call the global north. these workers often don't use products or often even see them, but are responsible for them in some way. these would be office workers, sales people, marketing and advertising individuals, etc. the distinction could be made, i think, because it could potentially result in further alienation.

again, just a random idea i've been thinking over...

[StalinFanboy]

I don't think what you call it really matters because I think the driving force behind the development of class consciousness is material reality, and pro-rev propaganda is only a secondary force.

[Widerstand]

Agreed, people who say a middle class (which means upper middle class, generally) doesn't exist are basically denying a very observable and sociologically relevant phenomenon.

How do you define middle class though? How does it fit into Marxist class theory where classes are defined by their relation to the means of production?

[Savage]

Just because you're not working in a factory for 14 hours a day doesn't mean you're not proletarian.

[Jose Gracchus]

The "middle class" is simply a combination between the residual petty bourgeoisie, the lower strata of the coordinator class, and the 'labor aristocracy'. De-industrialization and financialization has tended to erode the latter segment. Large components of the politically-important "middle class" (perhaps a better term would be somewhat privileged or middling strata) are being harshly (re-)proletarianized and de-privileged by austerity, union busting, and recession.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Middling strata? I like that! :thumbup1:

[Jose Gracchus]

To be honest I wonder seriously if a thorough political economic examination of this sociological income-cultural group in the 20th century would not reveal that a.) dollar-per-head they are some of the most thoroughly propagandized sections of the population, and b.), they receive all kinds of state protection, transfers, defense of (fundamentally exploitative and illegitimate) claims to rent incomes, etc. - a political bribe, in essence.

There is right now intense class warfare in this superficial liberal social group; some strata are turning toward reactionary populism of a very virulent character in the Tea Party, while others are being precariat-ized by the economic medicine and being politically marginalized.

[MarxSchmarx]

Don't get me wrong - I think class analysis is incredibly useful and foundational to serious political and social understanding.

But I think what has to happen is that the way we communicate the issues, especially to people outside the radical left, has to change. Phrases like "means of production" and "class" are too nebulous and hard to visualize. I think this is one reason we can't spread our movement's appeal beyond those already committed, and we should rethink how we seek to convey our message esp. viz terms that are hard to visualize and conceptual

I appreciate the suggestions here - and I think the task really is to come up with a coherent story that we can tell people that doesn't require falling back on our old stand-ins. We can go after this or that gripe, but until people unaccostomed to thinking about "the class struggle" or "worker's state" etc... are on board for a general world view it would be hard to present our case except for piecemeal reforms.


What about, for starters, "precariat" stuff (see Theory) and identifying based on precarity re. employment security?

Employment security is certainly an avenue around which to raise class consciousness. Rather than presenting the issue as giving people job security or not, the focus has to be on building an organization skeleton for the next struggle. then once job security is achieved (as happens under capitalism in many areas) then we can use infrastructure that was set up.

[Savage]

^I agree, it's important not to confuse 'outsiders' with leftist jargon, though i don't think the 'means of production' is necessarily hard to visualize, i've heard plently of rightists use the term, its not a particularly complex concept.

[ZeroNowhere]

People still work, and still alienate their product. Class exists in the capitalist production process, because people alienate their product. If one is arguing that we should drop class, one is also arguing that we should ignore alienation, in other words pretend that capitalism does not exist. I generally think that how we communicate with others is largely irrelevant at present, but I think that they already get enough substanceless bickering and meaningless, surface-obsessed gibberings from politicians. Though, really, ultimately it doesn't matter much what 'we' say, the revolution would happen without us.

For reference, though, I've never found that it was particularly difficult to explain class to people after they had accepted the law of value.


How does it fit into Marxist class theory where classes are defined by their relation to the means of production?I don't think that this was Marx's definition, in either case. In fact, he seemed fairly opposed to such things in the last few chapters of volume III of Capital.

[Rooster]

I disagree. Most people here have a very good understanding of class and many identify their selves as working class. I'd say that's the same from across much of world. The reason you don't hear it much on television or in the papers coming from ordinary people is that the idea of class can't be allowed to exist in a neoliberal democracy, but it still does. Problems start with the high earners who disagree with the idea of class, not with people who are lowly paid and who already identify their selves as working class.

[Widerstand]

I don't think that this was Marx's definition, in either case. In fact, he seemed fairly opposed to such things in the last few chapters of volume III of Capital.

Then what was the Marxist definition?


I disagree. Most people here have a very good understanding of class and many identify their selves as working class. I'd say that's the same from across much of world. The reason you don't hear it much on television or in the papers coming from ordinary people is that the idea of class can't be allowed to exist in a neoliberal democracy, but it still does. Problems start with the high earners who disagree with the idea of class, not with people who are lowly paid and who already identify their selves as working class.

Well at least in German debates, class is a politically-loaded word that is often connected to Communism - hence, it is avoided like the plague by politicians or people in the mainstream media (as are the terms "working class", proletariat, bourgeois, etc.). In Academic debate, I found that Marx' ideas are largely considered obsolete or "too broad" or similarly, and replaced by mileu or layer theories (which are often used for designing advertisements or political campaigns).

[ed miliband]

I disagree. Most people here have a very good understanding of class and many identify their selves as working class. I'd say that's the same from across much of world. The reason you don't hear it much on television or in the papers coming from ordinary people is that the idea of class can't be allowed to exist in a neoliberal democracy, but it still does. Problems start with the high earners who disagree with the idea of class, not with people who are lowly paid and who already identify their selves as working class.

Perhaps in Scotland.

I find that "working class" can be used to describe anyone from self-employed plumbers to Alan Sugar, simply because of the way he talks. Meanwhile "middle class" is everything else, from office workers on £21k to David Cameron. The common understanding of class in England seems to be so skewed as to be essentially meaningless.

[Die Rote Fahne]

There's the exploiting class and the exploited class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be honest I wonder seriously if a thorough political economic examination of this sociological income-cultural group in the 20th century would not reveal that a.) dollar-per-head they are some of the most thoroughly propagandized sections of the population, and b.), they receive all kinds of state protection, transfers, defense of (fundamentally exploitative and illegitimate) claims to rent incomes, etc. - a political bribe, in essence.

That has been the case with the petit-bourgeoisie since the 19th century.

I remember reading some blog about the notion of "property-owning democracy" (though I'm pretty sure this term wasn't used at all) whereby the petit-bourgeoisie compete with one another for largesse from the bourgeoisie.

Which claims to rent incomes are you referring to?

[apawllo]

i'll be the first to admit that some of what marx offered is outdated within the context of the modern global economy. the focus shouldn't be on reinventing the wheel, however, but to adapt relevant concepts to our conditions. that should basically be our job at this point imo, cause improving our understanding of what we're all dealing with on a material level is paramount in fostering class consciousness, and essential for proper communication of our ideas. i'm not sure how abandoning class analysis will assist us in conveying anything particularly helpful.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

middle class exists but not in the marxian sense where class refers to one's relationship to the means of production
generally speaking the middle class is working class

also what we're doing doesn't make any sense if we stop talking about class for self evident reasons. this is a class movement.

[MarxSchmarx]

I generally think that how we communicate with others is largely irrelevant at present, but I think that they already get enough substanceless bickering and meaningless, surface-obsessed gibberings from politicians.

The problem is this works very well for the right. Witness all the right-wing memes like "welfare queens", "tree-hugger" not to mention "Horatio Alger" and the preachers that have come to sum up so much of what the right is about. No, propaganda isn't everything, but it has to be a part of the struggle ("Workers of the world, unite!", for one, had a good run) and to demean it is to cede to the massive propaganda assault that the right has carried out. We neglect "surfaced-obsessed gibberings" at our peril.



Though, really, ultimately it doesn't matter much what 'we' say, the revolution would happen without us.


The logical conclusion of this strikes me that one would have to say activism is merely a hobby. Or am I missing something? Although it is probably true that a lot of what passes for activism is futile soap box oratory and indeed quite irrelevant. Still, the lesson I take from this isn't that it's a waste of time to make banners at protests or speak to on-lookers who are curious about why we're there - what is a waste of time is to throw away the opportunities we have to capture the thought of people who don't know what we're about. And if we go on about the "the alienated working class", in my experience people who don't see themselves as political politely nod their head but basically roll their eyes.

And even within our own ranks, some of this can be counter-productive. We all know those people at rallies from a rather dogmatic, sectarian group that go on and on on a megaphone about the need for a "red government" and "working class as a whole owning the means of production" and "taking down the bourgeoisie" and so on - the speech I'm sure we've all heard in its various forms several times. It's material most of us would agree with, but we know that even when they do this in front of what would normally be a sympathetic audience hardly anybody listens to them, and frankly it doesn't even work to get mixed crowds with non-communists in them fired up. Now would people listen if they had something more compelling and accessible to say? Probably not, because the speeches drone on. But if they have a phrase that captures that the essence of our critique, for example, in an effective way that conjures up all sorts of images and whatnot (like "Peace Land and Bread"), why then I'd think this person is doing something useful.



For reference, though, I've never found that it was particularly difficult to explain class to people after they had accepted the law of value.


That is not a trivial first step, to be sure.

Ultimately to grow the movement we need to speak to people who are unlike us in some ways - in particular, they don't spend their time online on RevLeft or Kasama or some such, and many of them have never heard of Trotsky, much less Panakoek or Proudhon. Questions about how to make our case to say colleagues in school are frequently asked on this forum, and thinking seriously about how to convince people effectively, far from being irrelevant, is part of getting out of the current spiral of irrelevance. And if you think it's a waste of time, if nothing else it hones the communication skills of these comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is this works very well for the right. Witness all the right-wing memes like "welfare queens", "tree-hugger" not to mention "Horatio Alger" and the preachers that have come to sum up so much of what the right is about. No, propaganda isn't everything, but it has to be a part of the struggle ("Workers of the world, unite!", for one, had a good run) and to demean it is to cede to the massive propaganda assault that the right has carried out. We neglect "surfaced-obsessed gibberings" at our peril.

Protocols of the Chambers of Commerce and Federations of Small Businesses? :confused:

[That was a rhetorical question re. agitation.]

[MarxSchmarx]

Protocols of the Chambers of Commerce and Federations of Small Businesses? :confused:

[That was a rhetorical question re. agitation.]

I wouldn't put it past them. I believe they are called "talking points" and I've read that fox news in america for example circulates them to all the talk show hosts, radio djs, politicians to repeat over and over again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, comrade, that was my suggestion regarding left agitation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/zeitgeist-addendum-t147038/index.html?p=1973268#post1973268


But there are cabals which the class-strugglist left should take advantage of in upping their agitation: Chambers of Commerce, Federations of Small Businesses, etc. Portraying them as cabals can be more effective than anti-lobbyist populism.

Political education on steroids should go beyond SPGB-style discussions (Renaissance education comes to mind for political programs), and organization on steroids should emulate the SPD model. Agitation on steroids, however, may have to be not be above class-based conspiracy theories in appealing even to the most backward sections of the working class. Resentment towards these strategic lobbyist organizations of the propertied classes - and their funders and "fellow travellers" - by the most backward sections of the working class would then be comparable to identity scapegoating (think "Protocols of the Chambers of Commerce and Federations of Small Businesses"):

One Born Every Minute: Blog on Agitation and Demagogues (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-born-every-t144497/index.html)