Specific Industries

[Amusing Scrotum]

I've been wondering about this for a while, basically: does doing a specific job make you more or less inclined to support a specific political tendency?

For instance, the Policemen/women seem to have a natural bias towards fascism, and one could probably list many possible reasons as to why - including elements of their job which make them think with a fascist "mindset".

Additionally, lawyers (solicitors) seem to have a natural bias, as it were, towards becoming bourgeois politicians. Robespierre was a famous (and well respected) lawyer before 1789, Lenin, was also a lawyer.

Indeed, a large majority of the British Cabinet were previously solicitors and barristers, including the Prime Minister - who's wife incidentally, is a well respected "human rights" barrister in her own right.

Micheal Howard, former leader of the Conservative Party, was also a barrister before he went into politics.

Personally, I suspect that the "skills" needed for being a lawyer - talking out of you arse - are well suited to a career in bourgeois politics.

These are just two examples of certain jobs and the political tendencies they lean towards. However, I am curious as to whether this could be broken down even further.

One of the fundamental premises of the historical materialist paradigm is that your "social being" affects your "social consciousness". And the hypothesis, which is widely accepted on this board and, in my opinion, is supported by the real world evidence, is that those who "social being" is that of a worker, will, in time, find their "social consciousness" become communist.

So what I am curious about, is whether this can be broken down further, into specific industries. So for instance we could say a Binman's "social being" makes him inclined towards say Anarcho-Syndicalism where as a Postman's "social being" makes him inclined towards Left-Communism and so on.

I would think that Leninism and its variants, would probably find many supporters in the Construction Industry. As, the Construction Industry is one of the more hierarchal industries around - everyone bar the "teaboy" and the labourer is "in command" of someone.

This kind of "social being", could, in my opinion, lead to people finding they liked the structure of the Leninist paradigm.

Additionally, many scientists - particularly "Evolutionists" - seemed inclined towards "Classical Marxism" and not necessarily its "additions".

So basically, I'm interested in why this happens.

Could it possibly be the case that we could brake down class into sections which additionally cover different types of work and then, by doing this, formulate a coherent theory as to why people who do X also seem to like paradigm Y.

Any thoughts?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Being determines conciousness.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 06:45 PM
Being determines conciousness.

And....?

[redstar2000]

In the U.S., people who work in some of the skilled trades (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, for example) are on the margins between the working class and the petty-bourgeoisie.

That is, they may work for wages one month and then "work for themselves" as independent contractors during another month...and "bounce" back and forth between those social roles through their whole working lives.

This would suggest a "rightest bias" to their general political outlook...some of them openly look forward to "having their own small business".

On the other hand, consider all the "cubicle drones" in the info-tech business. Their working conditions strongly resemble the conditions of assembly-line workers (except for the level of physical toil)...that is, they do really boring things over and over again while being subjected to the whims of their supervisors and having their "productivity" very closely monitored.

One would predict a "left-bias" to their political outlook.

It would be, of course, a lot of work to empirically verify relationships like this.

But, at least in principle, it ought to be possible to do it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 15 2006, 06:52 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 15 2006, 06:52 PM)
Compañ[email protected] 15 2006, 06:45 PM
Being determines conciousness.

And....? [/b]
If you don't know what that means and how it applies to this thread that you better hit the books comrade.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CDL+--> (CDL)If you don't know what that means and how it applies to this thread that you better hit the books comrade.[/b]

Did you read my post before posting?

Emphasis added....


Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)One of the fundamental premises of the historical materialist paradigm is that your "social being" affects your "social consciousness". And the hypothesis, which is widely accepted on this board and, in my opinion, is supported by the real world evidence, is that those who "social being" is that of a worker, will, in time, find their "social consciousness" become communist.[/b]

The point of my thread was whether it is possible, in principle at least, to narrow down even further the reasons why people find certain political tendencies attractive.

So that not only could we conclude that the "social being" of a worker makes them naturally inclined towards the Revolutionary Left, but that the specific type of work they do makes them more inclined towards a specific political tendency.

Is there, for example, something about being a binman that could give someone a bias towards Anarcho-Syndicalism and so on.

In effect, are certain industries natural allies of certain paradigms?


[email protected]
In the U.S., people who work in some of the skilled trades (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, for example) are on the margins between the working class and the petty-bourgeoisie.

Construction trades seem to me at least, to be one of the few areas where it is possible to start up your own business with relative ease. However, this is not even the case with all Construction trades.

An Engineer, or a surveyor, probably couldn't do it that easily, because the equipment needed to do these jobs today is incredibly expensive - for instance, a decent theodolite these days, costs upwards of £5,000 and I've heard of ones that cost £20,000 plus!


redstar2000
It would be, of course, a lot of work to empirically verify relationships like this.

I better start making the questionnaires! :lol:

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
One of the fundamental premises of the historical materialist paradigm is that your "social being" affects your "social consciousness". And the hypothesis, which is widely accepted on this board and, in my opinion, is supported by the real world evidence, is that those who "social being" is that of a worker, will, in time, find their "social consciousness" become communist.
If you mean by "social being" the nature of man in his material existence, then I doubt if people have consciously picked the kind of work they do because of this. Man is a product of his environment. How to get back to something that accords with our nature takes a lot of reflection and introspection. We don't know any other world now besides capitalism, and any legal, political, economic, and social institutions we have are the result of it. I think a lot of people take the jobs they have because they don't have any other choice. A lot of factors affect the choices of people on what to do for a living---some restrictions cannot be remedied.

I remember seeing an article about a survey on successful doctors: about 34% of them, if they could do it all over again, would not choose to become a doctor. (It was an old article, but I think the percentage is higher now).

Anyway, I think you make a good observation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Chrysalis
I think a lot of people take the jobs they have because they don't have any other choice.

Without a doubt.

However, my point was not why do people do job X, rather, is there something about job X that makes people more inclined towards paradigm Y?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Paradigm" no..

Your class is determined by your relation to the means of production; and your class determines your class outlook. That's basically as far as it goes.

Obviously a pig isn't a prole, so they're not going to have a proletarian outlook.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 16 2006, 02:45 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 16 2006, 02:45 AM)
Chrysalis
I think a lot of people take the jobs they have because they don't have any other choice.

Without a doubt.

However, my point was not why do people do job X, rather, is there something about job X that makes people more inclined towards paradigm Y?[/b]
Ah, okay, maybe we could look at it this way: what's the push and the pull of a particular job that they are inclined to believe a particular paradigm? Income? Perks? I think there is some connection, but whether it's because they are naturally inclined towards a particular paradigm, or they feel trapped in what they do for a living so they have come to believe paradigm Y, is rather unclear.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CDL+--> (CDL)Your class is determined by your relation to the means of production; and your class determines your class outlook. That's basically as far as it goes.[/b]

Is that "as far as it goes", I don't think so.

It is quite obvious that there are numerous different paradigms that can be considered part of the Revolutionary Left. Now some of these paradigms, are likely products of the "radical petty-bourgeois", but it is obvious that not all of them are.

So instead of just saying "your class determines your class outlook", I am curious as to whether on could say your class and the type of work you do determines your "consciousness".

Ideas, as you are no doubt aware, don't just fall from the sky, they reflect certain material roots.

So, why is it, for instance, that most Spanish workers during the 30's identified with Anarcho-Syndicalism? ....was it just "good" (or "bad") luck? ....or, was it because Anarcho-Syndicalism is a revolutionary paradigm that appeals to people with a certain "social being"?

I don't think it was luck that meant Anarcho-Syndicalism appealed to a large section of the Spanish working class. The reason it appealed to them was because of the level of development in Spain at the time and the subsequent political development of the Spanish proletariat.

In addition to this, I am also curious as to whether the Anarcho-Syndicalist workers in Spain (mostly) did job X or Y.

If for instance we found that a large majority of Steel Workers around the world were Anarcho-Syndicalists, could we not then say that there is something specific involved with being a Steel Worker which makes a Steel Worker, during revolutionary times, more inclined towards Anarcho-Syndicalism than Marxism?

The "social being" of a Steel Worker and say a Postal Worker, is similar, but it is also different. Are these differences enough to result in variations in the paradigms that are "chosen" as revolutionary by these workers? ....I think it's likely.

Whilst identifying the social class of a group of individuals if very important when trying to determine what they might or have done, I think it is possible, in principle at least, to further identify the "micro-causes" of events.

And whether one of those "micro-causes" is the type of work you do, is the point of this thread.


Chrysalis
....what's the push and the pull of a particular job that they are inclined to believe a particular paradigm? Income? Perks?

Although income and perks are no doubt important, I'm more interested in whether the type of labour actually affects your political outlook.

So for instance, is there a difference in the way two workers, one who does heavy physical labour and one who's a "cubicle drone" to borrow redstar's phrase, see the world?

There's obviously some difference, but is this difference significant?

I really don't know, but I think it's at least interesting enough to warrant a discussion.

[redstar2000]

One of the interesting illustrations of what Armchair Socialism is talking about here is, alas, soon to be no longer with us.

In the history of revolutionary movements, one of the trades that shows up surprisingly often is the printer's trade. One of the first working class communists I ever met was a printer from Finland...and he was, as kids say these days, very hard core. :)

The printing trade is "withering away" now due to digital technology and automated presses.

But printers were the first literate workers...and maybe that had a lot to do with a "bias" towards radical politics.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
I'm more interested in whether the type of labour actually affects your political outlook.
To some degree, I suppose. But, like I said, people have gotten the jobs they have due to varying circumstances. Two factory workers can have two different political/economic outlook. I suppose it's like this, do we choose the job we have because of our political outlook, or we have a particular political outlook so we choose the job we have? And I think the answer is, nowadays, the type of job we have is hardly an indicator of our political outlook. Of course, there are exceptions, like what Redstar has alluded to.