Working class?

[Choppy deroute]

Maybe this topic has been done to death, if so please excuse me.

Now it seems to me - coming from what passes for a working class family in Scandinavia - that the European working class has been transformed into, well, middle class by social democracy, and subsequently, by the welfare state (which is rather ironic).

Not just in terms of income - of course that varies a lot - but politically by expressing national-conservative sentiment. I mean the BNP for instance, are hardly catering to people of wealth or education, their followers are the "workers" or proletariat, people far more concerned with immigration than "class struggle".

So, that's exactly the opposite of what should've happened according to Marxist thought, on two accounts. Apparently not only do the "workers" choose to become small- "bourgeoisie" when given the opportunity (happy materialist ones two), but they also seem unwilling to look beyond the conceptual framework of the Western world and more important, their particular nation-state.

Now as someone ranging somewhere between national-conservatism and outright nationalism, i maybe painting a rosy picture here, but that's how i see it.

So what went wrong? And isn't it rather strange to wish to empower the exact same people who hate your guts? Shouldn't you be fighting the working class instead?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)Now it seems to me - coming from what passes for a working class family in Scandinavia - that the European working class has been transformed into, well, middle class by social democracy....[/b]

So the relationship of the working class to the means of production has changed? That is, basically, they no longer produce surplus value and nor do they sell their labour power to survive....obviously, meaning that these people, under a Marxist definition, would no longer be part of the working class.

Maybe things are "different" in Scandanvia....?


Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)....but politically by expressing national-conservative sentiment.[/b]

This is a common myth I feel; that somehow the working class is "socially conservative". All social-democratic parties, when compared to their main rivals, tend to be socially progressive. And social-democratic parties find most of their support in, you guessed it, working class communities.

Compared to myself, the average Joe is "socially conservative"....but the working class is certainly nowhere near as "socially conservative" as members of the petty-bourgeois.


Choppy [email protected]
I mean the BNP for instance, are hardly catering to people of wealth or education, their followers are the "workers" or proletariat, people far more concerned with immigration than "class struggle".

The BNP hardly has a large following now does it? And therefore, you can hardly say it's representative of the class as a whole....indeed the Liberal Democrats have a larger "working class base" than the BNP.


Choppy deroute
So what went wrong? And isn't it rather strange to wish to empower the exact same people who hate your guts? Shouldn't you be fighting the working class instead?

A "national-conservative" like yourself, must surely recall the Battle of Cable Street....kinda' puts your assertions in doubt doesn't it.

And nothings gone "wrong"; certainly nothing that the next economic crises won't put "right".

[Choppy deroute]

[quote]
So the relationship of the working class to the means of production has changed? That is, basically, they no longer produce surplus value and nor do they sell their labour power to survive....obviously, meaning that these people, under a Marxist definition, would no longer be part of the working class.

Yes and no.

First the relationship between the workers and the means of production, as you put it, has not changed, no, but the self-assertion or class belonging, that used to be there to some extent, has.

My point is that workers no longer picture themselves, somehow different from the rest of society, somehow belonging to a special part of a secluded majority in compitition with the rest of society, simply because of their occupation. Occupation is no longer some sort of demarcation line (if it ever was). Not only that, but as i said, in my view, they tend to become rather more national-oriented.

These days, you can make a nice living as, say a carpenter and slightly less as a common factory worker. So in all other definitions than the Marxist, the "working class" has become middle class.

Secondly, the working class has failed in many ways to reproduce itself. My father had 6 years of formal education, i've had 15 so far. The children of the working class has been pushed into other, more educated and specialised, occupational groups over the course of the century. I mean the percentage of the population in modern Western contrys who actually do manual labor of some kind, is not that big. It's certainly not increasing.

Correct me if i'm wrong.



Maybe things are "different" in Scandanvia....?

Yes, they are, but i believe i can make the same basic argument for much of the Western world.

And i can use it as an examble of what the working class tend to do, once they get the opportunity. Revolution isn't exactly cooking.



This is a common myth I feel; that somehow the working class is "socially conservative". All social-democratic parties, when compared to their main rivals, tend to be socially progressive. And social-democratic parties find most of their support in, you guessed it, working class communities.

True. Once. The same communitys who also traditionally contained the largest part of the silent majority, who voted social-democratic as long as their basic needs were met. Well no more.

My whole point is that these traditional voting patterns has been changing over the last fifty years.

Of course it depends on the particular nation, but many social-democratic parties in Scandinavia at least, now find the most support from public employes, not nessecarily from the working class. The reason as i've put it, is of course the changing occupational demografic and changing attitudes.



Compared to myself, the average Joe is "socially conservative"....but the working class is certainly nowhere near as "socially conservative" as members of the petty-bourgeois.

I like to believe socially conservative means common sense, instead of more expressed conservatism for example.

When it comes to stuff like law and order, immigration, the EU, globalization and so on, yes i believe they are a good sense more conservative than the middle class.



The BNP hardly has a large following now does it? And therefore, you can hardly say it's representative of the class as a whole....indeed the Liberal Democrats have a larger "working class base" than the BNP.

No, it doesn't, but the point was that national-oriented partys all over Europe, seems to find such fertile ground with the lower income groups. Far, far more than Marxist partys who's professed salvation of the working glass is the main goal. They should be flocking to you in droves, but no, instead they are far more tempted by nationalist partys.

Besides, if the BNP, who just doubled their mandates on the 4th, doesn't satisfy you, then there are plenty of other national-oriented partys all over Europe, who do have a very large working class representation.



A "national-conservative" like yourself, must surely recall the Battle of Cable Street....kinda' puts your assertions in doubt doesn't it.

Communists and fascists battling it out, in the interwar period? Not really, why should it?



And nothings gone "wrong"; certainly nothing that the next economic crises won't put "right".

Nothings gone wrong? Marxism and Marxist prophecy is over a hundred years old now, and yet nothing has happened. No revolution, even during the great depression. Well, a fascist one if that counts.

Not only has nothing happened, but the chances of the working class rising up are decreasing every day, as the working class, becomes ever smaller and frankly, less interested.

You must be waiting for one hell of an economic crises.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)First the relationship between the workers and the means of production, as you put it, has not changed, no....[/b]

So really, there's no validity in your original point that "working class has been transformed into, well, middle class"; there's certainly no validity from a Marxist, or even a general sociological standpoint.

If you wish to propose a new model by which we can define class, then we can discuss that....but until that happens, your point is fundamentally wrong. And this, of course, is assuming that you'll be able to produce a model of class analysis that surpasses the one provided by the Marxist paradigm; kinda' unlikely given that the Marxist paradigm has withstood over a century of criticism.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)My point is that workers no longer picture themselves....[/b]

Well before we delve into discussions on materialist philosophy and how what one pictures themselves as is really a subjective irrelevancy; I'm interested in seeing what evidence you have for the proposition that the working class "no longer pictures themselves" as the working class.

And, just so you know, John Prescott's contributions to the theory of class aren't valid here.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
So in all other definitions than the Marxist, the "working class" has become middle class.

Time to put your money where your mouth is; what are these "other definitions"?

Honestly, have a think before you reply, you've come to a predominantly Marxist influenced forum and proclaimed that Marxist class analysis is wrong....you're gonna' have to do a spectacular job of rubbishing it and presenting a new form of analysis to get people to listen.

Basically, you're going to have to deconstruct numerous Marxist theoretical structures in order to influence anyone. Personally, I've yet to see someone do that, but I'm willing to listen.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
Secondly, the working class has failed in many ways to reproduce itself.

Yes, birth rates are going down....that's the only way in which your point would be valid.

The "educated and specialised" groups you talk of, still have the same fundamental relationship to the means of production in order to fit under Marxist analysis. A McDonalds worker is working class; as is an IT technician.

From a Marxist perspective, the "educated and specialised" bit, on this point at least, is irrelevant.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
My whole point is that these traditional voting patterns has been changing over the last fifty years.

Less working class people have bothered to vote....but I'm not aware of any drastic change in the general correlation working class community votes social-democracy.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
When it comes to stuff like law and order, immigration, the EU, globalization and so on, yes i believe they are a good sense more conservative than the middle class.

Honestly, you don't even know what class is; try this Encyclopedia....

http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm

Look up the terms bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and working class/proletarian....and then after you've done that, we can begin to have a fruitful debate on sociological matters.

And aside from that, voting patterns, again, don't correspond with your analysis.


Choppy [email protected]
No revolution, even during the great depression. Well, a fascist one if that counts.

There was no "fascist revolution"; that is, there was no revolution where the ruling class changed in any of the countries that went fascist.

And in Spain, as it happens, there was a social revolution, but the fascists defeated it....in Germany and Italy of course, the bourgeois chose to install the fascist regimes.


Choppy deroute
You must be waiting for one hell of an economic crises.

Well yes; that, after all, was the basic hypothesis of Marx's economic work.

[Choppy deroute]

Originally posted by Choppy deroute
First the relationship between the workers and the means of production, as you put it, has not changed, no....



So really, there's no validity in your original point that "working class has been transformed into, well, middle class"; there's certainly no validity from a Marxist, or even a general sociological standpoint.

I'm baffled why you would equate a Maxist standpoint, with a "general sociological standpoint". They are not necesarilly the same. Not all find access and control over the means of production the most important thing in the world.

The Marxist term "class", can be understood differently by non-Marxists, as covering income groups primarily, social groups defined by status, educational groups, white collar/blue collar, laborers and skilled laborers, simply broad occupational groups and yes, according to group-perception.



Well before we delve into discussions on materialist philosophy and how what one pictures themselves as is really a subjective irrelevancy; I'm interested in seeing what evidence you have for the proposition that the working class "no longer pictures themselves" as the working class.


The rise of nationalism across Europe, seems to indicate such. The failure of radical leftism, seems to indicate that there is no working class consience, beyond a thin, failing social-democratic one, based on accumulation of income and privilege through democratic compromise, not revolution. The dwindling numbers in labour unions, and the dwindling working class numbers overall. The higher income of occupational "working" groups. Higher income, less revolution.



And, just so you know, John Prescott's contributions to the theory of class aren't valid here.

Well, i'm not British, so that's not funny.



Honestly, have a think before you reply, you've come to a predominantly Marxist influenced forum and proclaimed that Marxist class analysis is wrong....you're gonna' have to do a spectacular job of rubbishing it and presenting a new form of analysis to get people to listen.

Basically, you're going to have to deconstruct numerous Marxist theoretical structures in order to influence anyone. Personally, I've yet to see someone do that, but I'm willing to listen.

History proves it wrong or we'd be talking Russian today.

Besides i had two simple questions:

1. The workers of today, are not poor and no longer the majority. How does that fit the revolutionary pattern?

2. How does the rise and popular appeal among the traditional working "class", of namely national-oriented partys, fit the grad Marxist sceme? It doensn't bother you that they are far more popular than radical leftism?



Yes, birth rates are going down....that's the only way in which your point would be valid.

The "educated and specialised" groups you talk of, still have the same fundamental relationship to the means of production in order to fit under Marxist analysis. A McDonalds worker is working class; as is an IT technician.

From a Marxist perspective, the "educated and specialised" bit, on this point at least, is irrelevant.

Really?

First, a worker at McDonalds may fit the traditional pattern, but an IT technician, can just as easily own the means of production or at least have a share in it. Just like a doctor or a jurist can be self-employed. Which i believe was one of the characteristics of the petty-bougeoise.

The proletariat were the ones, who had no control or access to the means of production and were so poor they had to "sell their labor power to survive", as you put it.

An IT technician does not sell his labor to survive, he is simply not pressured to do so, that is a choice he makes. There can be many reasons why he or she, chooses not to be self-employed. If an IT technician is working class, well then so is a professor or a CEO for that matter.

And the same thing goes for your ordinary worker to a lesser degree. They can have a share of company stock or, common enough, an investment in their house or apartment.

Marxist thought, seems dependent on a monolithic class structure, that simply doesn't exist anymore, or more precisely has been dissolved to a large extent by upward social mobility over the past century.

To say it's all down to declining birth rates, is ridiculous. They may fit under Marxist analysis, but then i'd have to ask what's the point? If you're saying that very large, quite well off groups are being "exploited" by capitalist profit making. Well then so what? They are not becoming impoverished or even for that matter, poorer.

Poor factory workers is one thing, but the thought of exploited IT technicians, just isn't enough to make my blood boil.

It was always about the degree to which workers were being exploited relative to social injustice. That exploitation has lessened over the century, not become worse, so obviously the system works.



Less working class people have bothered to vote....but I'm not aware of any drastic change in the general correlation working class community votes social-democracy.

I gave you an example.



Honestly, you don't even know what class is; try this Encyclopedia....

http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm

Look up the terms bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and working class/proletarian....and then after you've done that, we can begin to have a fruitful debate on sociological matters.

I did. And it doesn't seem to fit your definition. And here once again you rather arrogantly seem to believe sociology and Marxism is one and the same.



And aside from that, voting patterns, again, don't correspond with your analysis.

It most certainly does, where i'm from.



There was no "fascist revolution"; that is, there was no revolution where the ruling class changed in any of the countries that went fascist.

And in Spain, as it happens, there was a social revolution, but the fascists defeated it....in Germany and Italy of course, the bourgeois chose to install the fascist regimes.

Hitler was democratically voted into office by popular appeal and he was not a member of the traditional "bourgeois".

And there was a civil war in Spain, not a "social" revolution.



Well yes; that, after all, was the basic hypothesis of Marx's economic work.

I see.

Care to explain why it hasn't happened in over a century now? I mean, the great depression had like 1 in three uemployed i believe, and yet.. nothing. So what kind of economic crisis are you waiting for? Stoneage economy?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)I'm baffled why you would equate a Maxist standpoint, with a "general sociological standpoint".[/b]

Well, because Marxism is, if you like, the philosophical father of modern sociological theory. Indeed one of the few things that actually stops sociological theory from becoming a complete farce, is the fact that it does use, at least some, Marxist concepts to back it up.

The Marxist paradigm, as in a paradigm that is used to analyse socio-economic situations, is clearly the most valid paradigm in this regard. Indeed if modern sociological theory incorporated more of the Marxist paradigm into it's thinking, then it would be a lot better.

Aside from that, all decent sociological analyses pay homage, in at least a roundabout way, to the structure of classes being based on relationship to the means of production.

More on this. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48739&view=findpost&p=1292056149)


Originally posted by Choppy deroute+--> (Choppy deroute)Not all find access and control over the means of production the most important thing in the world.[/b]

Most of the world believes in a "God(s)"....doesn't mean that atheism isn't the correct understanding of the world. Likewise, even if few people pay homage to basic Marxist analyses these days, it says more about those people than Marxist analysis itself.

After all, the further sociological theory moves away from the theories of one Karl Marx, the more it becomes utterly useless.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
The rise of nationalism across Europe, seems to indicate such.

The "rise of nationalism" which you assert, and which you back up with references to Scandinavia, can only be seen at the moment, if it's accurate, as a temporary phenomena.

A decade is hardly long enough to note a general human trend....you'd need at least 50 years of steady evidence to support the hypothesis that "nationalism" is on the "rise" and that is, more importantly, is a permanent phenomena.

The United fascists of Norway and their dog winning a few Parliamentary seats, is hardly evidence enough to support your conclusion. Certainly not when we have over a century of positive evidence linking the working class with the most progressive element of (bourgeois) politics....social-democracy.

Shit, in the 30's, Mosley's Union of Fascists looked like it might make progress; but by the 40's, it had returned to political irrelevancy.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
....and the dwindling working class numbers overall.

See, this is the problem when sociological theory abandons Marx....it becomes completely bizarre in its analyses. The working class is not "dwindling"; indeed in America "70 to 75 percent of the workforce belongs to the working class" (http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/464/464_06_Classless.shtml) which is hardly evidence of "dwindling".

Additionally, even if you are going to base your analysis on "income groups primarily", then the fact that "Median household income (adjusted for inflation) fell every year between 1999 and 2004, ending up almost 4 percent lower" and that the "The U.S. poverty rate is up from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent in 2004" (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/575/575_06_ClassWarUSA.shtml) means that that argument for the "dwindling" size of the working class becomes shaky.

Income has been falling steadily over the last 30 years; meaning that this line of argument, would be more suited to the 50's than the present day.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
History proves it wrong or we'd be talking Russian today.

The only thing this statement "proves", is your general ignorance of the theories of Marx and Engels.

Whether we are "talking Russian" or not, the fact that Marxist analysis is still the method used by all serious studies into the nature of human society and history, shows that, at the present time, it stands as a giant in a field of midgets!


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
The workers of today, are not poor and no longer the majority.

Define "poor"....and see above for a refutation of the "no longer the majority" nonsense.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
How does the rise and popular appeal among the traditional working "class", of namely national-oriented partys, fit the grad Marxist sceme?

The same way it fitted the "sceme" in the thirties....it's a temporary phenomena and, with regards the the fascist parties, a phenomena that needs to be confronted.

The thirties, remember, were far more "national-orientated" than now, but that still changed.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
....but an IT technician, can just as easily own the means of production or at least have a share in it.

Most IT technicians don't "own the means of production"....and the ones that do, obviously, are no longer working class.

As I said, basically, if you produce surplus value and sell your labour power to survive, you're working class....if that doesn't happen, you're no longer working class.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
An IT technician does not sell his labor to survive, he is simply not pressured to do so, that is a choice he makes.

Classical libertarian theory that could just as easily apply to a Steel worker. Regardless of that, under a Marxist definition (and a common sense one), an IT technician does sell his labour power to survive.

After all, s/he has no other source of capital which they can use to maintain themselves and therefore, in order to eat, they must work. Is that so difficult to understand?


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
They can have a share of company stock or, common enough, an investment in their house or apartment.

Problem in Marxist economics, with regards how you define a class (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48635&view=findpost&p=1292050591)....that's my take on workers who also "own"; though what I failed to add there is really, unless that capital can be reinvested, it's irrelevant.

That is, a workers property is not a source of income in the way a landlords property is.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
....that simply doesn't exist anymore....

Only in the minds of post-modernists! :lol:


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
To say it's all down to declining birth rates, is ridiculous.

I was rhetorically mocking your point that "the working class has failed in many ways to reproduce itself"....it was not meant to be "serious", because the original point itself wasn't "serious".


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
I did. And it doesn't seem to fit your definition. And here once again you rather arrogantly seem to believe sociology and Marxism is one and the same.

Well then, in order to respond to your point that: "When it comes to stuff like law and order, immigration, the EU, globalization and so on, yes i believe they are a good sense more conservative than the middle class."

You're going to have to provide me with your definition of working and middle class; that is, a definition that is able to classify people. So, for instance, you'll have to mention where the economic cutoff between working and middle class is and what social groups fit under these definitions....and so on and so forth.

I can't respond to your point before I know who you are referring too....and been as you've dismissed Marxist influenced class structure, you're going to need to propose an alternative.


Originally posted by Choppy deroute
Hitler was democratically voted into office by popular appeal and he was not a member of the traditional "bourgeois".

He was financially backed and supported by members of the German capitalist class; they backed him in order to avoid what they perceived to be an imminent threat from working class revolution.

Like all politicians, Hitler knew to whom he owed his loyalty....and these people weren't your average Joe and Hilda.


Choppy [email protected]
And there was a civil war in Spain, not a "social" revolution.

There was a social revolution; well, a failed one. Simply put, it was working class vs. the bourgeois (and the Clergy).


Choppy deroute
Care to explain why it hasn't happened in over a century now?

Because capitalism, at the moment, is not a "fetter".