Class

[blueeyedboy]

I've been reading a book from my local libary called Marx and other four letter words, where a group of lefty writers write about different subjects like the state, class etc. Some writers put forward that the marxist idea of their only been two classes is wrong. Some writers even go as far to say that class isn't the most important thing no more, and all this is from the left.

What I'm asking is if the idea of their been two classes is still relevant. Personally, I think class is split up between many different divisions, so the idea of two classes, the working class and the beourgeise, is outdated.

It goes on to discuss that a lot of working class are living better today than ever before, and that the working class don't realise that they're being oppressed, therefore they don't want to see a change in society. I hope this is not the case.

What are people's thoughts on this? P.S. forgive the spelling mistake.

[Gold Against The Soul]

It goes on to discuss that a lot of working class are living better today than ever before

What is their evidence for this?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285


The top 10 per cent of the earnings distribution earned more than £886 per week, while the bottom 10 per cent earned less than £244. Between April 2005 and 2006 the distribution of gross weekly pay widened, with a 3.7 per cent increase at the bottom decile, and a 4.2 per cent increase at the top decile

There are clearly millions on minimum wage and more will be joining them soon. So how are workers living better and better lives?. At £5.25 an hour for a 40 hour week you take home just over £200 a week. You just about survive on that, nothing else.


and that the working class don't realise that they're being oppressed, therefore they don't want to see a change in society

Well they're not wrong on that one.

[ComradeOm]

Do people still work for others? In other words – is there still a division of labour? If so then classes are still present.

[blueeyedboy]

Sorry, I took the book back today and I can't remember the evidence they provide to back up the claims of their being a reduction in the idea of classes.

I still believe in classes, don't get me wrong but I think the lines are blurred nowadays, and I think that more working class people are edging or are at middle class status. Why is it that some working class people are moving up towards middle class status? If they are, then capitalism will win because our power base, the working class, won't be working class no more.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 07:42 pm
I still believe in classes, don't get me wrong but I think the lines are blurred nowadays, and I think that more working class people are edging or are at middle class status. Why is it that some working class people are moving up towards middle class status? If they are, then capitalism will win because our power base, the working class, won't be working class no more.
The Marxist conception of classes is completely different from the Weber model. There is no "middle class" in Marxism.

[blueeyedboy]

Yes, but there is a middle class in real society right now, so how does marxist theory apply?

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 pm
Yes, but there is a middle class in real society right now, so how does marxist theory apply?
I would say that the middle class can be considered to be part of the higher layers of the proletariat and the petit bourgeoisie. Concrete examples might be self-employed laborers, farmers, high paid workers and so on.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 pm
Yes, but there is a middle class in real society right now, so how does marxist theory apply?
Here in America, the proletariat is often middle to lower class. Upper middle class is usually the petit bourgieous and sometime bourgieous but usually the bourgieous would be the upper class. I think that would be an oversimplified analysis.

[chimx]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+November 16, 2006 07:48 pm--> (ComradeOm @ November 16, 2006 07:48 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 07:42 pm
I still believe in classes, don't get me wrong but I think the lines are blurred nowadays, and I think that more working class people are edging or are at middle class status. Why is it that some working class people are moving up towards middle class status? If they are, then capitalism will win because our power base, the working class, won't be working class no more.
The Marxist conception of classes is completely different from the Weber model. There is no "middle class" in Marxism. [/b]
this, despite the fact that marx used the term "middle class"? see 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte for at least one example.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by blueeyedboy+November 16, 2006 08:01 pm--> (blueeyedboy @ November 16, 2006 08:01 pm) Yes, but there is a middle class in real society right now, so how does marxist theory apply? [/b]
You're missing the point. Marx and Weber devised different systems of categorising the classes in society. The term "middle class" only has any importance in the Weber classification and is not used in Marxist theory. We view society through a different prism.


chimx
this, despite the fact that marx used the term "middle class"? see 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte for at least one example.
"Middle class" has been used, by both Marx and others, as a catch-all term as opposed to the far more specific "petite-bourgeoisie".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

People who dont think marxist class theory is relevant simply dont understand it.

[Don't Change Your Name]

b_c_s is right. Don't expect people to even try to understand Marx.


Some writers put forward that the marxist idea of their only been two classes is wrong.

Marx didn't necessarilly suggest there were 2 classes: the so called "petit-bourgeoisie" is a different class because their relationship to the means of production is different. It's not the same to get the "full product of your labor" than having to accept a part of it because your boss keeps the rest or taking part of what others produced while producing nothing yourself, and it's not the same to hire people and working in your small business than not even owning a small business or leaving all your "activity" to a CEO or something. Your ideas are probably going to be different and you're income will be different, amongst other things.

[blueeyedboy]

To me, it doesn't matter who puts forward a class theory, whether it be Marx or Weber. There are workers moving up towards middle classes. Just because Marx didn't use the term 'middle class', it doesn't mean there isn't one. Basically, my point is that the working class are able to move up to middle class if they want to, and I reckon a lot of them will want to, realistically. Therefore, how can we have any framework to build our beliefs on if the working class are becoming middle class. It's capitalism which is forcing workers to become middle class to live properly in today's society. More working class are attending college and university's like me because it's just not possible to live a comfortable life on a workers wage. I'm just afraid that if I do enter middle class, I cease to be a leftist but I won't let that happen of course.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well define middle class then, and upper middle, lower middle and working class.

Remember be scientific and empirical, so we are able to accurately describe society.


More working class are attending college and university's

hows that a class characteristic?

Your basically talking about first world workers which are compensated by third world exploitation.

Doesn't change the class relations though.

I think your using liberal social class terminology which is meant to disguise class antagonisms.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 04:53 pm
To me, it doesn't matter who puts forward a class theory, whether it be Marx or Weber. There are workers moving up towards middle classes. Just because Marx didn't use the term 'middle class', it doesn't mean there isn't one.
You are still missing the point. Marxists do not define society in these terms.

Weber defined classes according to arbitrary chosen income levels. If you earn X much then you are Y and so forth. Marx came up with a far more robust classification - a person's class depends on their relation to the mode of production (whether they work for someone or have people work for them).

Now in this light saying that people are "moving up" is meaningless. There is more disposable income available (despite the stagnation of real wages) but workers are still workers... regardless of how much money they make.

[blueeyedboy]

ComradeOm, I agree with you on the point that workers are still workers, no matter how much they earn. It's me probably being a bit naive that's all. It's just that, in England, I don't see or hear anything about workers complaining all that much. It's like they don't care any more, which is obviously not the case, but they're must be a reason why they're not complaining, so what is that reason?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well Gramsci, like Lenin, thought that class antagonisms could be bought off by workers forming a consensus with the capitalist state through unions. The consensus is incrementally higher wages.

So in Britain the workers movement has been derailed.

At the moment its limited to working within trade Unions, which results in a domesticated workers movement, where the only goal now is higher wages.

Unions don't raise consciousness when they are dominated by Blairites, they merely serve to subvert and disguise class conflict.

Lenin saw socialist participation within trade unions as poor strategy, I think after 100 years of participation his opinion is all but confirmed.

[cenv]

blueeyedboy, I see your point. It's true that although they're still exploited, many workers are doing alright in countries such as the US and England. However, you have to take a more international perspective; even though conditions in "first-world" countries such as America, England, etc. do allow many workers to live relatively comfortable lifestyles, it's usually at the expense of workers in the "third-world" countries. Workers in Asia, Latin America, etc. couldn't be considered middle class by any means. Most of the workers in the world live in such poorer countries simply because there are so many more less advanced countries. In those countries, exploitation is more extreme and more obvious than in, say, England (although it's definitely still present in England and similar countries). That's why many people expect to see revolutions in less advanced countries first even though such an outlook actually contradicts Marx's predictions.

That's a somewhat simplified version of Lenin's theory of imperialism.

[BreadBros]

To me, it doesn't matter who puts forward a class theory, whether it be Marx or Weber. There are workers moving up towards middle classes. Just because Marx didn't use the term 'middle class', it doesn't mean there isn't one. Basically, my point is that the working class are able to move up to middle class if they want to, and I reckon a lot of them will want to, realistically. Therefore, how can we have any framework to build our beliefs on if the working class are becoming middle class. It's capitalism which is forcing workers to become middle class to live properly in today's society. More working class are attending college and university's like me because it's just not possible to live a comfortable life on a workers wage. I'm just afraid that if I do enter middle class, I cease to be a leftist but I won't let that happen of course.

Blueeyedboy, the problem is your comparing different views of class. In capitalist society, class is usually determined by how much you make or how many consumer goods you have. To Marx, class is determined by your relation to production, in other words, the role you play within society's production of goods and services. So to Marx, anyon who sells their labor to make a living is a "worker". When you say "middle class" I assume you are referring to people who might go to college, have an office job, and maybe make enough to have an alright car, a big TV, etc. Those people are still working class in Marx's view, despite them being less class-conscious in our society.

While it's true that worker's today may be better off than they were 100 years ago, they generally have more and more work imposed on them (as you point out, its difficult to even live on a blue-collar salary), they are incredibly powerless politically and the cool consumer goods they may be able to afford generally prove themselves to be a fairly vacuous escape when your life centers around capitalist work.

The reasons workers are less radical today (especially the middle class) are various. For one thing, the 1970s-1990s have been among the most powerful times for capitalists, who have had immense success disabling the power of unions spreading capitalist imperial domination over the world. Furthermore, the status quo has done a lot to distance the populace from leftist ideas, "socialist" (let alone "communist") is one of the worst slanders you can aim at a politician in bourgeois politics. The history of the left is rarely taught very much these days, even in universities, its usually viewed as a distant historical movement with no connection to today, or relegated to less-mainstream fields such as ethnic or queer studies. So of course, lack of knowledge + the view that success isn't possible at the moment means people don't even think about collective action and focus more on accumulating petty goods and trying to move up socially as much as they can (which is usually not much). If a situation becomes evident where success seems possible (i.e. the capitalist structure is weak), whether it be from an economic crises or the spread of ideas by a party or figure, and success seems more possible you'll likely see a lot more people mobilized to action.

[blueeyedboy]

Thanks for all the replies. I've never thought about the idea that accumulating consumer goods like TV's, computers and such like are just another tool for the capitalists to keep the workers down. Thinking about it, I can see how these products are used in that they are used just to take worker's minds off the daily crappy grind of work. I also see your point of class as related to production, rather than on how much you earn. My opinion on that is that not many people care about that any more, all they are bothered about is how much they earn and how to get more of that money. You are right about the middle class being workers as related to production, but the fact is that some working class people are middle class now, so they don't feel like their being crapped on from above as they might have done before when they were working class.

I just don't think that how people are related to production matters as much as it did in Karl Marx's time, as people are more concerned with how much money they have, rather than wanting to attain control of production and such. All I'm saying is that some of Karl Marx's ideas are outdated, and I'm sure someone will agree with me on here. I am a Marxist, I think, lol, but I don't believe in everything he came out with.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I just don't think that how people are related to production matters as much as it did in Karl Marx's time, as people are more concerned with how much money they have, rather than wanting to attain control of production and such.

Well workers in marx's day probably wanted to generate as much money as possible rather than take control of their workplaces or, on a national scale, the means of production of the nation.

Marx thought that, the workers would be forced to eventually as it will be to their own benifit.

He didnt think that workers were motivated because they just liked the idea.

The desire to make money has always been the convern of the workers, becuase under capitalism, the more you have the better and longer your life is.

so, your assumption is not what marx thought, but you are right in noting that workers want to accumulate money.


All I'm saying is that some of Karl Marx's ideas are outdated, and I'm sure someone will agree with me on here. I am a Marxist, I think, lol, but I don't believe in everything he came out with.

Well i'm certainly still sketchy on marxist theory, but i think before you can fully see whether marx's ideas are outdated, you need to read books on marxism, even introductory books like i read, to be able to form a coherent opinion.

good to have another marxist on board thought :D