Who are the 'working class'

[balaclava]

Who are the ‘working class?’ In terms of who qualifies for the support of the Left.

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?

Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?

What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?

[Mac]

I'm sure other people will give you better answers, but the working class are basically people who work for rich people but often gets paid less than they produce.

[thefinalmarch]

“By proletariat [is meant], the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.”
- Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1888 English edition

[RGacky3]

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?


Where are these mystical people that just are happy with being unemployed? I've never mett one, there may be 1 out of maybe 1000 of the unemployed that are like this, but come on now, treated them as a class or somehow sociologically important is stupid.



What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?

Working class has to do with someone that must, in a capitalist system, sell his labor for a wage to survive, but has no control over the capital, that includes those unemployed and receiving benefits because without those benefits they would need to sell their labor (if they could'nt, which they cannot generally because they are unemployed, they would have no source of income).

Its pretty simple and no need to overcomplicate things.

[Revolution starts with U]

The vast majority of the working class works full-time jobs, or more. As thefinalmarch said, it is the members of society who have only their labor power to bring to the market. The class dynamic, tho generally solid, can be very fluid; born working class, died ownership, or vice versa.
Members of these two classes, in any given snapshot of history, have intrinsically opposing interests in the market place; the worker wanting the most pay for the least work, and the owner wanting the most work for the least pay.

[balaclava]

Where are these mystical people that just are happy with being unemployed? I've never mett one.


I've met a few; one of them is my nephew. He's is his early 30's and lives with his parents. He has had one full time job in his life which lasted about a year and has been unemployed and receiving benefits for more than 10 years. He's perfectly fit and healthy, he has no qualifications, he is not very clever but would not consider taking a job unless it was somthing that interested him and paid him good money. He (well actualy his mother) has applied for some of these interesting and lucrative jobs but he doesn't get them. He's never seen the morning light for over 10 years sleeping till way after mid day. He spends his social time either playing war games or out there doing whatever who knows and gets back into bed between 4am and 6am. He doesn't steal to get his trainers or iphone because his parents buy them for him. If his parents didn't buy those things would it be justified for him to class himslef as deprived working class and steal them from the bourgeoisie.

Btw, this is all true.

[Manic Impressive]

Who are the ‘working class?’ In terms of who qualifies for the support of the Left.
A proletarian is anyone who is forced to sell their labour to a capitalist and does not receive other income from investments.


If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?

Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?
The unemployed make up the reserve pool of labour. A reserve pool of labour is necessary to keep wages low and competition for jobs high. So their relation to the means of production does not change, they are still workers.

What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?
see first answer but it comes down to their relation to the means of production.

[balaclava]

Could it be that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and that there was an absolutely clearly defined culture where everybody worked or sought work and that nobody other than the independently rich chose not to work?

Could it be that the descriptions and definitions used my Marx are not valid today in a society which includes a group of people who choose not to work and live their whole lives off what they get for free? If that is the case should society not create a description for that class e.g. Idle Class to distinguish them from the good and noble workers of the working class?

[Pretty Flaco]

Couldn't people who don't work (they do exist, but not to the extent some people exaggerate to be) be considered lumpen proletariat? I never read what marx had to say about the lumpen so I don't know how he defined them. The fact is that people need to be productive members of society (even in a socialist one) to reap the benefits of it.

[Jazzratt]

You should put down whatever fucking rag it is you read that has you convinced there's some sort of scounging culture around benefits, which is basically what you're aiming at with this thread.

There is already a Marxian term for people who do not work but instead are idle (like beggars or this mythical class of benefits loafers you've just made up) or criminal (like benefits fraudsters and burglars) that is lumpenproletariat.

[balaclava]

So how many lumpenproletariat ARE there amongst the genuine ‘working class’ looking for a job; any job. Of course nobody knows but however many they are they are amongst the 850,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year and amongst the 75% of incapacity benefit claimants who are fit for work.

The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998)

Three-quarters of incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work, says DWP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp)

And why does it irritate some here that I identify that these people exist. Nobody can deny that they do exist the only thing we can argue about is how many but for reasons I don’t understand simply identifying that they exist irritates some of you – why?

[balaclava]

wow my negative rep points have gone up to -48; I must really be pushing someone’s buttons

[hatzel]

People are reluctant to go out and slave away for some boss for hours on end to earn a pittance? Good on 'em, I say, I'm sure half this site would jump at the chance to avoid having to be some boogie's little whipping boy/girl/etc., if it weren't for the whole kind of needing money to live 'thing' that we've got going on at the moment...

[PhoenixAsh]

Could it be that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and that there was an absolutely clearly defined culture where everybody worked or sought work and that nobody other than the independently rich chose not to work?

Could it be that the descriptions and definitions used my Marx are not valid today in a society which includes a group of people who choose not to work and live their whole lives off what they get for free? If that is the case should society not create a description for that class e.g. Idle Class to distinguish them from the good and noble workers of the working class?

Aside from the fact that your nephew might possibly not be as psychologically healthy as you think he is; seeing as you at least mention3 of 5 indicators of depression....

First and foremost, your own personal experiences aside, there have been ample studies into people who do not want to work and how large a group this is. They are there and nobody is going to deny this, but contrary to popular myth these people make up about less than 0,1 promile of the entire populations ellegible workforce.

Marxism explains the occurance of these people perfectly through disenfranchisement and alianation...which according to Marx is a direct result of capitalism. An increasing number of people are fed up and psychologically unable or unwilling to work given the fact that there is no real reward in actually doing so and therefore a human being becomes unproductive. People become unproductive when, for example, they continue to have to struggle to get by without any chance of actually bettering themselves or are stuck in menial jobs which do not get the recognition which they deserve. This is also expressed in Anarchist theories which states labour is not valued for itself but is instead valued for its price and for the reason of survival and capacity of surplus value creation making the process of labour and working unrewarding in itself and making the worker a tool rather than a human being.

This in itself would not occur in a post revolutionary society. For one reason because the entire concept of work as you now currently understand it would change and would become much more voluntary and above all rewarding in itself since it is no longer needed for survival and no longer exploited for its surplus value.

But just in case people refuse to paricipate and instead decide to become unproductive or counter productive they would starve but they would also not be further rewarded and can not participate in the benefits of society unless the reason they are unproductive is not free choice.

The percentage of people not working and staying unprodcutive members of society increases as the wealth of their class background increases. Very little workers are unproductive members of society and more children from wealthy families decide to live of mommy and daddy wealth and trustfunds. Which is fine by me...but I wonder why you decide in focussing on a very tiny part of the popuation to disprove Marxism by making the logical fallacy that this somehow discredits the theory???????????

[PhoenixAsh]

So how many lumpenproletariat ARE there amongst the genuine ‘working class’ looking for a job; any job. Of course nobody knows but however many they are they are amongst the 850,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year and amongst the 75% of incapacity benefit claimants who are fit for work.

The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998)

Three-quarters of incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work, says DWP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp)

And why does it irritate some here that I identify that these people exist. Nobody can deny that they do exist the only thing we can argue about is how many but for reasons I don’t understand simply identifying that they exist irritates some of you – why?


First and foremost your initial link does not suggest that these people are long term unemployed because they chose to be. instead the article states experts which say long term unemployment is because of lack of jobs and teh failure of government to increase the amount of jobs. Its a logical fallacy to equate long term unemployment with unwillingness to work. Seeing as this is a trend because of the economic crisis you may have missed is happening at the moment and for the last two years.

The second article I suggest you reread. Because it is a correction on the claim and actually included people who closed their claim by themselves; or were reassessed which, not mentioned in your article, did feature a set of new testing standards in which what constituted fitness to work demands were altered and standards were changed. As is often the case when governments seek to make cuts in these kinds of spending. This is nothing new and goes for England as much as it goes for Holland in which this happens regularly.
The article also managed that 40% of the people who were designated fit to work this was NOT upheld on appeal. So the claim made by the government, which has motivations of making cuts instead of being honest, was at the very least 100% in slightly under half of the time....another 36% was judged unable to work but could work with aid in the foreseeable future.

Now that leaves preciously little of that initial claim that 75% was fit for work.

Thank you for playing.

[balaclava]

wow my negative rep points have gone up to -48; I must really be pushing someone’s buttons

Why am I getting negative repped I asked myself. It suddenly hit me - those people neg repping me are the 'lumpenproletariat'. You are on benefits and like it and don't like someone like me calling you an scrounger so you neg rep me. That's OK guys, I understand, take it out on the worker, I can take it!

[Thirsty Crow]

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?Absolutely.


Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?Absolutely.


What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?
No, it has nothing to do with the actual labour being performed.
In stead, it has everything to do with relations to the means of production. The working class is determined by their necessity of selling labour power to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. The unemployed are part of the working class even though they do not provide sustenance for themselves in the same way as employed workers do.

[Thirsty Crow]

wow my negative rep points have gone up to -48; I must really be pushing someone’s buttons
That might be connected to the fact that you peddle the ideological line put forward by capitalist apologists (implicit statement that long-term unemployed are happy to live on state support; which is ridiculous given the statistics of average amount of state support compared against purchasing power of ther currency in question).

By the way, I didn't neg rep you. Unfortunately, I'm accustomed to dealing with dishonest arguments and implicit assumptions arising from the ruling ideology (an example of these assumptions would be that workers are inherently in conflict with the unemployed since they are scrounging off their hard earned money which was transformed into taxes).
Just for the record.

[#FF0000]

a million people could leech benefits for years and it wouldn't come close to the amount of money lost and damage done by the richest people in the country.

I'm totally serious too. The amount of money given to people as a part of the social safety net is peanuts compared to the money the economy will never see when the biggest companies avoid their taxes, or, perhaps, fuck up the entire global economy.

I mean if someone's receiving benefits and then spends it all on expensive consumer goods, that money goes back into the economy. There is literally 0 loss there.

[#FF0000]

Why am I getting negative repped I asked myself. It suddenly hit me - those people neg repping me are the 'lumpenproletariat'. You are on benefits and like it and don't like someone like me calling you an scrounger so you neg rep me. That's OK guys, I understand, take it out on the worker, I can take it!


Of course, people who disagree with you must be on welfare.

You remind me of some moron who said I must be a dope-shooting welfare leech because I argued against drug tests for welfare recipients. This is while I was working 12 hour night shifts in a production plant.

Anyway my point is: don't be a twat

[Viet Minh]

Who are the ‘working class?’ In terms of who qualifies for the support of the Left.

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?

Thats precisely the point of the welfare state, its an invention of the capitalists to satiate the proles and fend off the inevitable revolution. But for all intents and purposes the working class includes the unemployed, because £45 per week puts you in the very lowest income bracket.


Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?

That sounds more like the upper or upper middle classes to me. Think of that moron Boris Johnson who is basically what we would call 'slow' and yet because of his privilieged upbringing is now Mayor of London. In fact politics seems to be a popular choice for the rejects of Eton and oxbridge..


What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?

Its more what qualifies someone as a leftist thats in question, nobody judges by your social standing but rather by your political beliefs, which is exactly the way society should be.


I've met a few; one of them is my nephew. He's is his early 30's and lives with his parents. He has had one full time job in his life which lasted about a year and has been unemployed and receiving benefits for more than 10 years. He's perfectly fit and healthy, he has no qualifications, he is not very clever but would not consider taking a job unless it was somthing that interested him and paid him good money. He (well actualy his mother) has applied for some of these interesting and lucrative jobs but he doesn't get them. He's never seen the morning light for over 10 years sleeping till way after mid day. He spends his social time either playing war games or out there doing whatever who knows and gets back into bed between 4am and 6am. He doesn't steal to get his trainers or iphone because his parents buy them for him. If his parents didn't buy those things would it be justified for him to class himslef as deprived working class and steal them from the bourgeoisie.

Btw, this is all true.

Was it justified for the bourgeouise to steal wealth from the labour of poor uneducated people? Is it justified for the royal family to do fuck all every day and recieve 10,000 times as much public money just because their ancestors killed more people, or had more people killed, to attain their position? Your priorities are severely fucked up, you blame the most powerless people in society for all of its ills, and your own nephew who it seems has never hurt anybody is, in your view, the problem with society?


Could it be that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and that there was an absolutely clearly defined culture where everybody worked or sought work and that nobody other than the independently rich chose not to work?

Could it be that the descriptions and definitions used my Marx are not valid today in a society which includes a group of people who choose not to work and live their whole lives off what they get for free? If that is the case should society not create a description for that class e.g. Idle Class to distinguish them from the good and noble workers of the working class?

Have you ever been on benefits? I mean really on benefits, no parents to buy you stuff and bail you out? Its just great, widescreen plasma tvs, nhs drugs, luxury council mansion etc, you should try it! Why slave away at the bank 20 hours a week when you could have all that for doing nothing?


So how many lumpenproletariat ARE there amongst the genuine ‘working class’ looking for a job; any job. Of course nobody knows but however many they are they are amongst the 850,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year and amongst the 75% of incapacity benefit claimants who are fit for work.

The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998)

Three-quarters of incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work, says DWP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp)

And why does it irritate some here that I identify that these people exist. Nobody can deny that they do exist the only thing we can argue about is how many but for reasons I don’t understand simply identifying that they exist irritates some of you – why?

If the DWP thinks someone is fit to work, they will let them know. I wouldn't divulge any personal details to a condescending prick like you but my mother (who worked hard all her life but became ill in her late 40's) had to go on incapacity. A fair part of my childhood was spent in dole queus where she filled in endless amounts of paperwork and jumped through hoops just to keep recieving her pittence per week.

What irritates me is you are some upper middle class tory boy who had a good home and stable family and probably swanned into some cushy job because you lived on the right street and had the right accent and skin color and probably gets a company car and lunch expenses or paid trips and now thinks you can pass judgement on someone who is unable to work as being a waster. It doesn't irritate me because I have any respect for your opinion, at least none that you've vocalised thus far, but because the arrogant smug self-righteous pricks like you actually think you understand the first thing about the people you hate so much.


Why am I getting negative repped I asked myself. It suddenly hit me - those people neg repping me are the 'lumpenproletariat'. You are on benefits and like it and don't like someone like me calling you an scrounger so you neg rep me. That's OK guys, I understand, take it out on the worker, I can take it!


No its because you are a tory ass licker who spouts only the vilest jeremy kyle daily mail crap without the slightest ability to think for yourself

[ColonelCossack]

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class? [/SIZE]

No-one does that, people need something to drive them in life. This is a common argument used by right wing idiots to argue rugged individualism, but it is in fact in most cases complete bullshit. normally, the only people who sprout shit like that are rich people who have absolutely no experience of anything to do with poverty, and have never even met anyone on benefits.

[Viet Minh]

I remember watching Michael Portillo in a documentary program where he had to survive on benefits for a week. Not even TV license/ council tax/ electricity bill week, just an average week. He was in tears halfway through it. But of course he later retracted his comments and said something along the lines of 'yeah but its okay if you're used to it'

[syndicat]

The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998)

Three-quarters of incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work, says DWP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp)


Doesn't show there are jobs for them. The problem with the present structural crisis is that employers have destroyed jobs and aren't creating new ones, even tho they are sitting on a huge cash hoard and corporate profits are at an all time high. That's because as they've diminished real wages for several decades, there has been a decline in what people can buy.

Anyway, to answer your original question: the working class are those people who are forced to seek work from employers to live and who don't manage other workers, plus members of their dependents, and people who retired from a life of working working class jobs. that's about 3/4 of the population in the USA.

[Delenda Carthago]

The working CLASS is everyone who's economic status is depended on the Labor- Capital relationship. That includes the proletariats wife, kids etc that live from the wage the worker gets.

[RGacky3]

Of course nobody knows but however many they are they are amongst the 850,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year and amongst the 75% of incapacity benefit claimants who are fit for work.



Fit to work has nothing to do with it, there are 5 applicants for every job.

BTW, I really don't care about your nephew, unemployment has skyrocketed this last decade and its not because people suddenly got lazy.

Also, THIS is your problem with society? A couple lazy people not getting benefits??? Thats your crusade? Not the Banking system dispossessing the world, not the capitalist class destroying the world and exploiting more and more. Its your nephew who's not trying as hard as he should to get a job.

How many economies have been destroyed by people getting unemployment benefits? I'll answer that for you, ZERO, NONE, nothing, not one economy, not even a recession has been caused by that, but there will be many things which do destroy economies which you are all for.

Again, its so insignificant its pointless to discuss at leangth in class theory or economics.

[RGacky3]

You are on benefits and like it and don't like someone like me calling you an scrounger so you neg rep me. That's OK guys, I understand, take it out on the worker, I can take it!


Even though this is'nt true, this statement here is very telling on how right wingers think, you guys hand out jems everyday. Your utter disdain for the poor, your lack of basic human empathy, sometimes I think right wingers just need a father figure and then they'll be ok.

Capitalism does'nt hire people who are "fit to work," its based on demand and cost.

[robbo203]

Who are the ‘working class?’ In terms of who qualifies for the support of the Left.

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?

Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?

What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?

This actually is a more interesting question than it at first seems . Some would argue that a strict application of marxian class analysis would interpret working class as that section of the population that, having little or no means of production, are compelled to sell their labour power in return for a wage which is less than the value of the actual wealth they produce. In other words the working class are those who 1) economically compelled to work for wages 2) produce surplus value.

I would say say this this is far too narrow a definition of working class. It would preclude the unemployed, for example, since obviously and by definition they are not working for wages and not producing surplus value. Marx himself seems to have rejected this strict defintion. In Capital vol 1 he says

"Taking them as a whole, the general movements of wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve army, and these again correspond to the periodic changes of the industrial cycle. They are, therefore, not determined by the variations of the absolute number of the working population, but by the varying proportions in which the working-class is divided into active and reserve army, by the increase or diminution in the relative amount of the surplus-population, by the extent to which it is now absorbed, now set free."http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm

So for Marx the unempolyed were defintiely part of the working class which means the simple fact of working for a wage is not in itself the primary criterion by which to define working class. That must be something else - namely the fact that within capitalism the great bulk of the population possess little or no capital and are therefore economically obliged to earn a living. How they earn a living is less important than the fact that they are compelled to.

The strict defintion of working class would also preclude unproductive workers - those who do not produce commodities and therefore do not produce surplus value. Take the civil service for example. What they do does not take a commodity form. Civil servants are paid out of the surplus value produced by the productive workforce. This does not mean civil servants are not exploited or are not working class. Their task is essential to the administration of capitalism as a whole. It is not a case of individual capitalists exploiting individual workers that capitalist exploitation consists in but rather of the capitalist class as a whole exploiting the working class as a whole. From that pint of view, civil serrvants and numeorous other categorties of non productive workers constitute the exploited component of an overall system of capitalist exploitation which redistributes surplus value among the capitalist exploiters in order to even out the rate of profit between different branches of industry.

So a wider and more inclusive definition of working class is what is needed which places the emphasis on the fact that people own little or no capital and are therefore obliged to earn a living irrespective of how they earn living. Even struggling small shopkeepers ,loaned money by the financial institutions and, in effect, multifariously employed as glorified salespersons by the different companies whose products are sold in the shop , would be included in this definition of working class despite being "petit bourgeois"

The advantage of a wider definition of working class is that it makes the point that a lot more people have a real vested interest in overthowing capitalism than would be the case if we go by the strict definition of working class

[Jose Gracchus]

Why don't we ban sniveling little shits who spread "welfare queen" tales? These cretins are all the same, its always some bullshit 'anecdote' or 'personal witness' account, never statistical evidence and support (because of course, there is none: the idea that there is continuous unemployment in capitalist society is due to capitalism, and not because there would be jobs but the unemployed don't want to work).

[RGacky3]

We ban and restrict to many people already, remember this is opposing ideologies.

[robbo203]

Why don't we ban sniveling little shits who spread "welfare queen" tales? These cretins are all the same, its always some bullshit 'anecdote' or 'personal witness' account, never statistical evidence and support (because of course, there is none: the idea that there is continuous unemployment in capitalist society is due to capitalism, and not because there would be jobs but the unemployed don't want to work).

This is true though I dont favour banning people for no better reason than their lack of understanding of the situation. We should be fostering dialogue not curtailing it. You are certainly not going to change anyone's mind by branding them a cretin

The problem as i see it is their not seeing the matter in broadly structural terms, not seeing the wood for the trees. Its a reflection of the kind of atomised existence in which we live that people resort to so called anecdotal personal evidence to bolster their own prejudices.

The concept of the "working class" is, of course, a generalisation a simplification of reality which is unavoidable when you are theorising about society. However, it is not invalidated by a minority of cases of individuals living on so called benefits. Generally speaking it remains the case that the great majority of the population own little or no capital to live upon and therefore are obliged to earn a living. If they did not do som or if more and more individuals chose to live on benefits instead rather than engage in wage labour, then what would happen is that the state would be increasingly overwhelmed by the flood of benefits applications and the value of individual benefits would be progressively cut back to the point at which would be literally impossible for anyone to live on benefits.

So a marxian class analysis is not contradicted at all by the claim that a few of can apparently escape the need to work by claiming benefits the levels of which, pitiful as they are are steadily being cut back as capitalism struggles to deal with the crisis. As a generalisation it remains true that the great majority of have no option but to work . We are the working class

[Tommy4ever]

Who are the ‘working class?’ In terms of who qualifies for the support of the Left.

If someone chooses not to work because they simply do not want to work and are happy to live off benefits are they still a member of the working class?

Does it include people who would work but only if they are given something interesting and lucrative to do even though they do not have the qualifications, skills or abilities to do it?

What qualifies a person as ‘working class,’ a member of the group of people fighting for better conditions for the workers and worthy of the support of the Left? Has it got anything to do with work?

If we are taking basic Marxist definitions then anyone who works for a wage, and owns no means of production himself is a proletarian - in other words a member of the working class.

Criminals, prostitutes, the unemployed etc would be considered a part of the lumpenproletariat. Not a part of the working class itself but still closely associated with it (although their economic influence is considered to be negative to the class).

I know there is a great idea of the voluntary unemployed amongst millions of people who can often come up with examples themselves. But the fact is that in situations in which jobs have been plentiful, in all societies, unemployment has tended to fall to extremely negligible levels. Since the 70s work has become much less plentiful in western economies, making full employment impossible. Also, what jobs have been created to fill the gap often leave potential workers in precarious employment with very low wages and little prospect of any sort of advancement. Being involuntaryily unemployed for an extended period of time does not only make employers less willing to give you a job, it also has serious negative effects on the unemployed person which often leads them into a sort of malaise where they just accept their situation.

In the end, if there was plentiful work the voluntary unemployed would almost certainly re-enter the jobs market. If there is no or little work available they may be unable to attain a job, or just feel the whole enterprize is pointless as there is little possibility of success.

[thefinalmarch]

The working CLASS is everyone who's economic status is depended on the Labor- Capital relationship. That includes the proletariats wife, kids etc that live from the wage the worker gets.
Allow me...

Only if you think that class is a mystical, cultural, or genetic quality.

Economically children are most certainly not the class of their parents - they neither own investment property nor do they work for wages while expanding profit and/or expanding capital - so they are neither bourgeois nor proletarian - they are dispossessed of property and work like lumpen proletariat, but unlike lumpen proletariat they 1. have access to but not legal control over consumer goods and shelter of various qualities 2. they are not disproportionately engaged in criminal activity 3. they are legally subjegated to the will of superior private persons who control their movement, location, and behavior.


Children are actually closest not to any modern class of adults, but to domestic slaves, or serfs, or indentured servants, or wives under coveture, or even pets, - though none of these analogies is perfect. Children are treated as highly valuable objects of affection, like pets, without the legal rights of every other class of humans apart from prisoners.

Maybe the best way to say it is that children typically share the benefits/drawbacks of their parents' class while existing outside the traditional class system and facing unique forms of domination. If one has to predict the loyalty of children, probably the best indicator is the anticipated class position.

[hatzel]

...kind of boring how nobody can even mention children anywhere on this forum without the exact same quote being thrown at them all the time...don't know why people can't make their own arguments, rather than just relying on what other users have said...my my, my my...

[thefinalmarch]

...kind of boring how nobody can even mention children anywhere on this forum without the exact same quote being thrown at them all the time...don't know why people can't make their own arguments, rather than just relying on what other users have said...my my, my my...


I agree with it
Like I can be bothered to think

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why don't we ban sniveling little shits who spread "welfare queen" tales? These cretins are all the same, its always some bullshit 'anecdote' or 'personal witness' account, never statistical evidence and support (because of course, there is none: the idea that there is continuous unemployment in capitalist society is due to capitalism, and not because there would be jobs but the unemployed don't want to work).

I think it's a better idea to comprehensively destroy such idiotic notions in OI, rather than just ban the utterers - it gives everyone else a chance to hone their skills at debate and rhetoric, as well as presenting an opportunity to find out the facts of the matter.

I'd like to think of this thread as a bang-up example.

[Viet Minh]

If a user is reactionary, then chances are they will say something to get themselves banned anyway, in the meantime we should give people the benefit of the doubt and the chance to learn. There's never any harm in debate, its actually nice to see people on here agreeing who normally spend their time sniping at each other about historical political/ social theory and frankly irrelevant crap. Nobody in particular just a tendency I've noticed..

[balaclava]

In starting this thread with this question, it simply occurred to me that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and so when categorising groups he would not have had a category for that group of people who chose not to work but to live off benefits. It never occurred to me that there were people here that would deny the existence of this group. To the people here who took the time to try and give a serious answer to the question I’d like to say thank you I do very much appreciate learning from you. To the people here who have been angered by my suggestion that this group exists I’d like to say – get a life or better still get a job!

[Viet Minh]

In starting this thread with this question, it simply occurred to me that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and so when categorising groups he would not have had a category for that group of people who chose not to work but to live off benefits. It never occurred to me that there were people here that would deny the existence of this group. To the people here who took the time to try and give a serious answer to the question I’d like to say thank you I do very much appreciate learning from you. To the people here who have been angered by my suggestion that this group exists I’d like to say – get a life or better still get a job!

Nobody denied the existence of unemployed people, I can't speak for anybody but myself but I disagree with your notion that people on benefits just don't want to work. There may be some, and who can blame them considering the minimum wage menial jobs available to them, jobs that you yourself would not do if you weren't lucky enough to have a good education (if not intelligence) and priviliged status. But those few probably cost the country about the same amount one lazy selfish mp does.

[brigadista]

"incapacity benefit" is now called ESA =Employment and Support Allowance


See below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849

Tests claim few benefit claimants 'unfit to work'



Only 7% of people claiming sickness benefits were unable to do any sort of work, new figures have shown.

New claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) must undergo tests to see if they are capable of some sort of employment.

Of 1.3 million tests between October 2008 and November 2010, some 88,700 were considered unfit for any work.

The TUC said the tests were a money-saving exercise, adding that disabled people were not "trying it on".

The Department for Work and Pensions figures come on the day a report warned tests caused anxiety among claimants.

Fitness
ESA is the successor to Incapacity Benefit and claimants are required to go through a series of tests to judge their fitness for work.

The department has released the results from 1.3 million tests over a period of more than two years which showed:

7% were incapable of any work
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance
36% dropped out of the application process
1% of applications were still in progress
"These figures show that many people are able to work with the right help. We have strengthened the support now available tailoring it to individual needs so they can overcome whatever barriers they face," said Work and Pensions Minister Steve Webb.

Analysis

Alison Holt
Social Affairs Correspondent, BBC News
These figures - which echo previously published statistics - need to be seen in context. They are more complicated than whether somebody is fit to work or not.

For example, those who drop out of the assessment process may still have a legitimate claim. For instance, someone with a mental health problem may find the process too difficult to stick with. Today's select committee report says more needs to be done to understand why people are dropping out.

In addition, a significant number of cases go to appeal and 39% of the decisions are overturned.

Finally, changes to the work capability assessment were introduced at the start of the year because of serious criticism about how the system was working. We do not know what impact that has had on the figures yet.

"Those who cannot work will always receive our unconditional support but for those who can work it is right that they get the help they need to get into employment.

"We are continuously improving the medical test to ensure that it is as fair and effective as possible."

But there has been some criticism of the tests.

"The new incapacity benefit assessment is a much tougher test than previously and is designed to save the government money by excluding more people," said TUC general secretary Brendan Barber.

"It is therefore unsurprising that more disabled people have been declared fit for work. These figures certainly do not suggest that thousands of disabled people are suddenly trying it on.

"The TUC has heard from disabled people all around the UK who feel the tests have been unfair and ineffective. The government needs to do much more to help disabled people back into jobs, rather than cracking down on the benefits they get when they are unable to work."

Vulnerable
The figures came as a report by the Work and Pensions Committee concluded that some vulnerable benefit claimants had payments stopped because of administrative errors in work assessments.


"People are suspicious that the government's only objective is to save money”

Dame Anne Begg
Work and Pensions Committee
This affected some of the 1.5 million existing incapacity benefit claimants who are being reassessed with work capability assessments to encourage them back into jobs.

Overbooking of slots led to some people being marked as failing to attend, leading to suspended payments.

"The government's aim of helping benefit claimants back into work is laudable, but the scale of the challenge should not be underestimated and nor should the level of anxiety which surrounds the process," said Dame Anne Begg, who chairs the committee.

"People are suspicious that the government's only objective is to save money."

Tests
The reassessment process, which began nationwide in April, determines whether applicants are entitled to ESA, or are considered "fit for work", in which case they are put on jobseeker's allowance instead.

The assessments are carried out by Atos Healthcare. It was criticised in the committee's report, although the committee accepted that some improvements had been made.

"[The service] has often fallen below the standard claimants rightly expect. This has contributed significantly to the widely felt mistrust of the whole process," the report said.

It added that it was unacceptable that some people had found their benefits were stopped as a sanction for failing to attend the assessment when it was no fault of their own.

Cases had been the result of overbooking, administrative errors, or benefits claimants being too ill to attend the test.

Atos declined to comment on the report when contacted by the BBC.

The report called on the government to be more active in explaining the support available to people, irrespective of the outcome of the assessment.

It was also critical of the "irresponsible and inaccurate" media coverage of the issue which labelled some benefit claimants as "workshy".

[Tommy4ever]

In starting this thread with this question, it simply occurred to me that when Marx wrote his stuff there was no benefits system and so when categorising groups he would not have had a category for that group of people who chose not to work but to live off benefits. It never occurred to me that there were people here that would deny the existence of this group. To the people here who took the time to try and give a serious answer to the question I’d like to say thank you I do very much appreciate learning from you. To the people here who have been angered by my suggestion that this group exists I’d like to say – get a life or better still get a job!

Indeed, prior to the emergeance of unemployment benefits in the western world roughly in the first couple decades after the war unemployment meant starvation for the vast majority.

But the class of lumpenproletarian can also be used for the voluntary unemployed. But as my previous post noted, the majority of the overwhelming voluntary unemployed would actually be in work if reliable employment existed.

[Delenda Carthago]

Allow me...

Is "TC" Theorie Communiste?

[black magick hustla]

Why don't we ban sniveling little shits who spread "welfare queen" tales? These cretins are all the same, its always some bullshit 'anecdote' or 'personal witness' account, never statistical evidence and support (because of course, there is none: the idea that there is continuous unemployment in capitalist society is due to capitalism, and not because there would be jobs but the unemployed don't want to work).

i am against most bannings but i agree with your emotional reaction. people who harp on about "welfare queens" or whatever are fucking scum and probably racists who whine about dem n*gers to their white friends when they have beers. i met a lot of people who harp on about "lazy people on welfare" and almost immediatedly i want to stop being their friends