Class and Social Mobility

[commiecrusader]

I had this lecture today and I thought it would provoke an interesting debate. Quoted from the basic outline in my handbook:

'Do we still have 'classes' in Britaitn, such as working, middle, and upper classes? How have changes in the occupational structure and patterns of consumption complicated traditional class categories?'

Discuss. I might interject with counter-arguments throughout this debate, since it will fuel the flames hopefully. I will however make my opinion known that I believe class is still very much relevant, but the traditional marxist idea of class must be adapted for it to retain it's relevance. I will explain as necessary if necessary.

GO!!! :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by commiecrusader+--> (commiecrusader)Do we still have 'classes' in Britaitn, such as working, middle, and upper classes?[/b]

Yes.


commiecrusader
How have changes in the occupational structure and patterns of consumption complicated traditional class categories?

Not a lot, if at all.

We still have a class of people who have to sell their "labour power" to survive. Meaning therefore we still have a working class.

We also still have a class of people who employ people and profit off their labour. Meaning we still have a Capitalist class.

The middle class is an ideological thing, there is a petty-bourgeois (small Capitalists etc.) but a lot of people who say they are "middle class" are really working class.

[James]

define the class barriers AS.
what qualifies as "labour".
what is the person who has a role which involves them selling their labour, but also managing other labour.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+Feb 1 2006, 06:09 PM--> (James @ Feb 1 2006, 06:09 PM)define the class barriers AS.[/b]

Well I'm not a "Marxist Economist" by any stretch of the imagination, but generally the "class barrier" is decided by someones relationship to the "means of production".

Someone who owns the "means of production" is part of the bourgeois, and someone who doesn't own the "means of production" is part of the working class.

There are more technical definitions, but that is the basic way to define class.


Originally posted by [email protected]
what qualifies as "labour".

Labour can be both productive (steel worker) and un-productive (soldier). Generally speaking (again) labour must produce a "commodity".


James
what is the person who has a role which involves them selling their labour, but also managing other labour.

If I'm not mistaken, "Managers" are seen as part of the petty-bourgeois.

[JC1]

Oh, and by the way, a Service is counteted as a commodity.

[James]

Ok i respect the fact that you make it clear you are not a marxist economist expert. I'm not trying to trap you, just understand your position.



I asked what qualifies as labour, to which you said

Labour can be both productive (steel worker) and un-productive (soldier). Generally speaking (again) labour must produce a "commodity".

The second part is what i was refering to more.
Do you personally count interlectual labour as labour? Say for example a teacher. Or someone who works in management, but does not own the means of production (it is possible to be in management and be very low down).

This is what i was hinting at before, to which you replied:

If I'm not mistaken, "Managers" are seen as part of the petty-bourgeois.
But what if you sell your labour, and it is in management. What if you have no ownership of the means of production.


Slightly unrelated, what about companies in which the workers who sell their labour, also have shares: thus own the means of production, yet also sell their labour to it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)Do you personally count interlectual labour as labour?[/b]

Well Marx used to refer to himself as a "head worker" when in the company of working class militants, but that was him being "quirky".

Your example, teachers, are seen as part of the working class because they produce a commodity (education).

"Intellectuals" (say University lecturers) are (probably) a different matter.

Honestly, I'm not the person to ask with regards specific careers. The debates about these things are very specialised and no doubt produce a lot of conflict.


Originally posted by [email protected]
But what if you sell your labour, and it is in management. What if you have no ownership of the means of production.

Well I think in the case of management, that your "labour power" is to "protect" capital and therefore "un-productive". A Manager would be considered part of the petty-bourgeois.


James
Slightly unrelated, what about companies in which the workers who sell their labour, also have shares: thus own the means of production, yet also sell their labour to it.

Still workers.

[James]

Your example, teachers, are seen as part of the working class because they produce a commodity (education).

"Intellectuals" (say University lecturers) are (probably) a different matter.

Lecturers still produce education.



Honestly, I'm not the person to ask with regards specific careers. The debates about these things are very specialised and no doubt produce a lot of conflict.


I quite agree.



Well I think in the case of management, that your "labour power" is to "protect" capital and therefore "un-productive". A Manager would be considered part of the petty-bourgeois

Such low level management is not any form of ownership though. True, it "helps" the business operate. As does the most basic at the most "bottom" of the company/business though.


Still workers.

Aye, that they are. But they also own the means of production. Surely?

[commiecrusader]

I think that class is a much more difficult thing to describe nowadays. There are so many more factors to consider. Someone like a plumber can now be considered bourgeois, because he may own his own business, yet traditionally would be seen as a worker. I think some factors that have to be taken into account are:

wealth- both in terms of money and property

cultural capital- how well equipped you are to function in a capitalist society

whether you own the means of production

A combination of all these factors needs to be included. It is very difficult to have a robust system of class stratification only using one factor.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)Lecturers still produce education.[/b]

Yes they do and I suspect lecturers could be divided into two categories, but don't hold me to that.

Another important factor could be what you lecture in. A lecturer of law and a lecturer of biology would (likely) have completely different "world outlooks".


Originally posted by James+--> (James)Such low level management is not any form of ownership though. True, it "helps" the business operate. As does the most basic at the most "bottom" of the company/business though.[/b]

Well that is where the whole "productive vs. un-productive" labour comes in.

We know members of the police force will fight tooth and nail against the working class, even though they are technically workers themselves.

However, a policeman works in the service of capital, he also produce "un-productive" labour. So you just don't expect anything special from the police.

Class is a "primary factor", but what type of job you do is also an important factor.


[email protected]
Aye, that they are. But they also own the means of production. Surely?

Well they don't "own the means of production", rather they (supposedly) have a share of them. However this share is so minute that it really doesn't matter.

You think, a company could have 100,000 shareholding workers, but those shares would likely constitute under 5% of the company, where as one guy could have 51% of the companies shares. Who makes the decisions?

Plus, I'm pretty sure that only a tiny part of the working class owns shares in the first place.


commiecrusader
Someone like a plumber can now be considered bourgeois, because he may own his own business, yet traditionally would be seen as a worker.

Well actually it's the other way round.

In the past most Plumbers had "one man bands" (maybe with an apprentice). Where as these days, most Plumbers work for someone else.*

Jobs that used to be "traditionally" petty-bourgeois, are becoming "proletarianised" all the time.
_____

*There is an exception, up until 1960 (or thereabouts) you had to work for British Gas if you wanted to fit Gas appliances, however since then the law has been changed and all you need now is CORGI Registration.

So there has definitely been an increase in the amount of self-employed Gas fitters.

However, I suspect that over the coming years more and more Gas fitters will be working for larger companies. This may be already happening.