There is no American working class?

[Lokomotive293]

Ok, I was talking to that Jucheist on another forum, and all of a sudden, he wrote this:


I insult the American working class because there is no American working class. You should know this yourself. The entire manufacturing base was destroyed, and the emphasis on human capital was removed, replaced with professional specialisation in mental labours combined with machine-numeration based production methods to raise production, and open welfare (for those proles untrainable intellectually) and credit channels to raise consumption, a tactic of distraction so as to ameliorate the 'problem' of a class consciousness for the ruling bourgeois. This much we can agree on, right? So in effect, you've all worked together to destroy your own working class; I didn't exactly observe in American history any active attempt to stop it or slow it down -- most of the riots and concerted movements were unrelated to those matters, and scapegoats of race and creed were squabbled about instead.

What is he trying to tell me? And how do I respond to this?

[Red Rabbit]

Fast-food workers, cashiers, construction workers, computer programmers, nurses, flight attendants, etc apparently don't count, right?

[Rooster]

The person is spouting shit. America still has the largest manufacturing output of any country. They're trying to say that because there's some sort of welfare for people in the US and there's credit, then that somehow makes them not working class. They make no comment about the relation to the means of production apart from denying the manufacturing levels in the US.

[Conscript]

For some people, if labor doesn't appear in a specific form or do a specific job, it's not 'working class'.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Those working in mines, farm fields, assembly lines, construction, etc. are just mental laborers too I suppose.

Also, being a "mental laborer" doesn't make you any less of a proletariat. Teachers for example.

They're a Jucheist. They need to just be quiet, before they make even bigger asses out of themselves.

[CleverTitle]

Ok, I was talking to that Jucheist on another forum, and all of a sudden, he wrote this:



What is he trying to tell me? And how do I respond to this?

He's probably hoping you won't notice that everything he typed is total gibberish. All style (if you can call it that) no substance.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I insult the American working class because there is no American working class.Well there's his problem right there, how do you insult something that doesn't exist? What a funny statement. Can I insult a fictional character then?

He is completely ignorant, what he is talking about is the destruction of the American manufacturing base but that was not the "Destruction of the working class" that was deindustrialization. They are two totally different phenomena. When you go into McDonalds and talk to the people employed there, do you think they are petit bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie? Maybe lumpen? Oh, they are working class. Well then.... you don't need to work in a fucking steel factory to be working class.

Even if that were the case, the USA still has a huge manufacturing base. Deindustrialization did not completely destroy American industry even if it reduced its size.

As for credit ... yeah, American working classes were duped by easy credit, that doesn't mean they are not working class it just means that they are easily taken advantage of by deceptive snake oil salesmen from banks and other firms which offer credit.

[dodger]

Random girl......was he accusing American leftists of being race obsessed and not taking up the fight for industry?
" I didn't exactly observe in American history any active attempt to stop it or slow it down -- most of the riots and concerted movements were unrelated to those matters, and scapegoats of race and creed were squabbled about instead."

Were you... all squabbling?....Race and creed.....creed...what trotsky-baptists vStalin-pentecostals? What's this about concerted movements of race....did I miss out?

Has he got a point, does his opinion hold water? Were we all asleep or chasing hares?
POLISHING THE DOOR BELL RATHER THAN SHAKE THAT FILTHY MAT.
CREED....ANARCHO-MORMONISM.........Why so bloody cryptic.....bloomin' crossword puzzle.I'm stuck....somebody else like to try?

[thefinalmarch]

Ok, I was talking to that Jucheist on another forum
fifty bucks says it's just a basement-dwelling troll

[marksist-leninist]

Fast-food workers, cashiers, construction workers, computer programmers, nurses, flight attendants, etc apparently don't count, right?

all of they is in non-productive category of labor. they aren't in proletariat. rather, they are in "middle class" created by large capital.

[Left Leanings]

Fast-food workers, cashiers, construction workers, computer programmers, nurses, flight attendants, etc apparently don't count, right?


all of they is in non-productive category of labor. they aren't in proletariat. rather, they are in "middle class" created by large capital.

This is not true.

Cashiers, most nurses, fast food workers etc, are working class, because of their role and place, in relation to capital, and those who manage and supervise on behalf of capital. Irrespective of how much one earns (a nurse may earn more than a fast food worker, for example), a person is working class if they receive instructions, and are supervised by managers. So a senior nurse, and the managers above him/her, are 'middle class', in that they have a managerial role, but those below them are working-class.

[Proukunin]

working my ass off 12 hours a day in caustic and alumina and getting reduced pay wages and not being able to join a union until a certain amount of time paid through labor while getting fired without an explanation is definitely not working class right?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Some people often forget that there are two, and only two, classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Anything else (other classes) is smoke created by the ruling power in order to give workers the feeling of freedom when in reality they have none.

[Proukunin]

there's still them damned petty bourgeois. :laugh:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

there's still them damned petty bourgeois. :laugh:

IKR? ...some people insist that they are a class in their own; sub-divisions are our friend though?

[Left Leanings]

Some people often forget that there are two, and only two, classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Anything else (other classes) is smoke created by the ruling power in order to give workers the feeling of freedom when in reality they have none.

I see what you mean.

But the ruling class rely on managers and supervisors, to order the workforce about don't they? And consequently, they pay these people more, offer them better working conditions and so on. But ultimately, the ruling class own and control the means of production, and can dispense with these managers and supervisors, and replace them with other managers and supervisors, if they see fit.

But you are right. Managers - the so-called middle class - are merely slightly more privileged workers.

[Prometeo liberado]

Take a look at almost any other thread and you'll see left-coms saying that this or that wasn't, isn't or never could be socialist. This line of thinking also extends to definitions of what constitutes the working class. Constantly looking for proof that could dismiss ever larger movements until finally they turn to liquidating themselves. I tend to think that this jucheist is nothing more than a closet left-com.

[Blake's Baby]

Some people often forget that there are two, and only two, classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Anything else (other classes) is smoke created by the ruling power in order to give workers the feeling of freedom when in reality they have none.

That's neither true nor Marxism, if you think that in this case that these might not be the same thing. Don't know whether you consider yourself a Marxist, but even if you don't, I presume that you at least think you're speaking the truth.

Other classes are real. The petite-bourgeoisie is real. The aristocracy is real. The peasantry is real. They're just mostly not terribly important in most of the world. But they are there.


Take a look at almost any other thread and you'll see left-coms saying that this or that wasn't, isn't or never could be socialist. This line of thinking also extends to definitions of what constitutes the working class. Constantly looking for proof that could dismiss ever larger movements until finally they turn to liquidating themselves. I tend to think that this jucheist is nothing more than a closet left-com.

Man, you're a pillock. Teachers = proletarian; call centre workers = proletarian; service industry workers = proletarian. Anyone who's trying to claim that there's a new non-working class revolutionary subject isn't a Left Communist, they're a Maoist. It is precisely the working class in the advanced capitalist countries that are going to be the ones fighting the most crucial battles (because the biggest concentrations of workers + the biggest concentrations of capital = the most contested power during the revolutionary process). That's a Left Communist position.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Other classes are real. The petite-bourgeoisie is real.

They are considered part of the bourgeoisie; they still have to work but they are not dependent on selling their labor. If to help people understand a term needs to be applied to these people than you are more than free to add that term but if so such doesn't negate the fact that they are not a class in their own.


The aristocracy is real. The peasantry is real. They're just mostly not terribly important in most of the world. But they are there.Yes and no...


No. There have always been poor and working (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#) classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

The peasants and aristocracy are not classes in the Marxian sense.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah they are. They have differeing relationships to the means of production. That's what classes are.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah they are. They have differeing relationships to the means of production. That's what classes are.

How do their relationships differ? Both "classes" (petite-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie) employ workers and reap the benefits of exploitation...

[Pretty Flaco]

Some people often forget that there are two, and only two, classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Anything else (other classes) is smoke created by the ruling power in order to give workers the feeling of freedom when in reality they have none.

You might be misunderstanding what Marx said. He didn't say the only classes were workers and bougies, but he said that they were the two most important classes in modern capitalist class struggle and that the working class was the only class with the potential to bring revolutionary social change.

[Rafiq]

He's a Bourgeois ratinalist who has no conception of the Marxist definition of class whatsoever.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He's a Bourgeois ratinalist who has no conception of the Marxist definition of class whatsoever.

Who is: me or Blake's Baby?

[Thirsty Crow]

all of they is in non-productive category of labor. they aren't in proletariat. rather, they are in "middle class" created by large capital.
Really?
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Construction workers are non-productive workers, middle class created by large capital? That's really enlightening.

Productive labour under capitalism, for Marxists at least, is productive insofar as it produces surplus value, and it is irrelevant wehther we're talking about "traditional" work in industry or construction, transport, services. The point is that the worker produces more value than the value of her wages, and this value is appropriated by the capitalist (be it a private person or a "collective person" - state industry for example). Non-productive labour is also essential for capital, as evident in the case of the repressive apparatus and teachers for instance (which is not to imply that teachers occupy a similar position in relation to the state apparatus, far from it). But the case where Marx, for instance, makes this distinction is the case of a hypothetical tailor. One situation would be that the tailor sells her/his service directly to some other person, let's say a business owner. No new value is thus produced and what we have here is not at all the same as the wage labour-capital relation. On the other hand, if the tailor of ours was to be employed by an enterprise in the garment industry, then what we have is surplus value and conversely surplus labour. So, actually we could have one and the same kind of work, one and the same kind of activity, which may be conducted as embedded in different sets of social relations (though, there are similarities between the service provider, the self-employed tailor, and the wage worker; they both rely on their labour in order to obtain the means of subsistence).
Also, the working class, without which capital cannot remain in operation as a social relation of production, is a class insofar as there are multitudes of people who share the same basic relation to the means of production - in other words, this relation being dispossession (we only have our labour power to sell). It's a big fat lie that the US, or any other part of the world, "has" no working class since wage workers, the working class, are not only those who work in heavy industry (the so called blue collar).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think a class in the Marxian sense should be distinguished from a relationship to the means of production. The second is the most important - is one a controller of the means of production, or is one controlled by it, i.e. does one have to sell their labour in order to maintain at least the resemblance of economic autonomy?

It seems appropriate to put bourgeois and petit-bourgeois in the former camp, while placing workers, peasants and lumpen in the latter camp.

[Prometeo liberado]

That's neither true nor Marxism, if you think that in this case that these might not be the same thing. Don't know whether you consider yourself a Marxist, but even if you don't, I presume that you at least think you're speaking the truth.

Other classes are real. The petite-bourgeoisie is real. The aristocracy is real. The peasantry is real. They're just mostly not terribly important in most of the world. But they are there.



Man, you're a pillock. Teachers = proletarian; call centre workers = proletarian; service industry workers = proletarian. Anyone who's trying to claim that there's a new non-working class revolutionary subject isn't a Left Communist, they're a Maoist. It is precisely the working class in the advanced capitalist countries that are going to be the ones fighting the most crucial battles (because the biggest concentrations of workers + the biggest concentrations of capital = the most contested power during the revolutionary process). That's a Left Communist position.

I am not debating the definition of working class. I am simply stating that the left-coms will only give reasons why this or that can not be or never was or will be working class. If your problem is between moaist and left-coms take it up with that ilk.

[Rafiq]

Who is: me or Blake's Baby?

The Jucheist the OP was talking about.

[Blake's Baby]

I am not debating the definition of working class. I am simply stating that the left-coms will only give reasons why this or that can not be or never was or will be working class. If your problem is between moaist and left-coms take it up with that ilk.

No, my problem is with people who make sweeping and unsupported statements about Left Comms without having a clue what they're talking about. Left Comms don't think Cuba is socialist because the working class is the only revolutionary subject. The whole search for a new revolutionary subject (what you seem to think that Left Comms are engaged in) is a Maoist-Marcusian project that says anyone but the working class can be revoutionary. Cuba and China aren't socialist not because of the reconstitution of the working class or any such reason, but because the 'revolutions' in Cuba and China etc were not made by the working class.

So we need to do a quote-battle: you link to a thread or a quote or an article or anything, anywhere, ever where a Left Comm says that the working class is no longer the revolutionary subject, and I link to this article from the International Communist Current - http://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html - that completely contradicts what you said. In particular it includes the following: What actually lies behind all these theories about the ‘integration’ of the working class is a petty-bourgeois disdain for the class (hence the success of these theories in the milieu of the intellectual and student petty bourgeoisie)...

It's pretty obvious the Left Comm analysis is both that the working class is the revolutionary subject and that the idea that it isn't comes from the petite-bourgeoisie.

When you can't find any support for what you claimed, feel free to admit you're talking shit and don't understand anything about Left Communism.

[Deicide]

The person who proclaims themselves a ''jucheist'' is automatically disqualified from being taken seriously.

[Anarpest]

What is he trying to tell me? And how do I respond to this? I think that what he is trying to tell you is something along the lines of, "Neither me nor any of my friends are working class, and we're American, so there can't be an American working class."

[marksist-leninist]

There are a lot of necessary and unnecessary message. I suggest about this topic all of us at least have consistent understanding on economics . when we have this point, this will be understood : middle-class is created by monopoly capital's wastage.
when you think about financalization of capital, this isn't incomprehensible.
on this discussion key point is sales effort of monopoly capital. therefore, non-productive category of labor increased and will increase throughout "developed" capitalist western.