"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[french frank]

The late Julien Sorel/John Skelton/arcadesproject recommended John Seed's Marx: A Guide for the Perplexed. "It's scholarly, elegant, & he is very good in the choice of texts he quotes & comments on. & it doesn't assume prior political commitment" (which counts out some here - but not me . It's for general seekers after knowledge; also Peter Osborne's How to read Marx).

Apologies to the heavyweights here who are into Das Kapital &c.

[Beef Oven!]

The late Julien Sorel/John Skelton/arcadesproject recommended John Seed's Marx: A Guide for the Perplexed. "It's scholarly, elegant, & he is very good in the choice of texts he quotes & comments on. & it doesn't assume prior political commitment" (which counts out some here - but not me . It's for general seekers after knowledge; also Peter Osborne's How to read Marx).

Apologies to the heavyweights here who are into Das Kapital &c.

"Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste"

[Joseph K]

... no, I find that this 'explanation' leaves me more confused than I was before. So person A, a labourer, is "working class", but also is in pension scheme that invests, so is a "capitalist", in the same way that he is "a car driver" but also sometimes "a pedestrian". I imagine the majority of those who identify as "working class" also have pensions or similar that will make them at the same time "capitalists"...

In what way is Harvey's 'explanation' helpful?

.

Because it 'explains' that class is a role rather than an absolute label that can be attached to someone. Clearly there are still class division amongst people - he is not trying to claim that the division of capitalist versus labour does not exist because everyone is both. I think it is more aimed at the fact that, especially in the neoliberal era, a worker whose primary role is as a worker, might also take on a role of capitalist in the example he gives.

[Joseph K]

The late Julien Sorel/John Skelton/arcadesproject recommended John Seed's Marx: A Guide for the Perplexed. "It's scholarly, elegant, & he is very good in the choice of texts he quotes & comments on. & it doesn't assume prior political commitment" (which counts out some here - but not me . It's for general seekers after knowledge; also Peter Osborne's How to read Marx).

Apologies to the heavyweights here who are into Das Kapital &c.

I've read neither of those, so can't compare, but I am very fond of Eagleton's introduction to Marx, which is available for 1p here:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Philosophers-Marx-Terry-Eagleton/dp/0753801876/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527258449&sr=1-3&keywords=eagleton+marx&dpID=41C%252BYSlk3-L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

[Serial_Apologist]

I've read neither of those, so can't compare, but I am very fond of Eagleton's introduction to Marx, which is available for 1p here:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Philo...40_&dpSrc=srch

An example of capitalist depreciation!!!

[vinteuil]

Because it 'explains' that class is a role rather than an absolute label that can be attached to someone. Clearly there are still class division amongst people - he is not trying to claim that the division of capitalist versus labour does not exist because everyone is both. I think it is more aimed at the fact that, especially in the neoliberal era, a worker whose primary role is as a worker, might also take on a role of capitalist in the example he gives.

... I get nostalgic for the days of Sherlock Holmes, who could determine, just by looking at their fingernails, whether someone was a Greek interpreter - a retired colourman - a doctor recently returned from Afghanistan - a stockbroker's clerk... But things are far more fluid these days, and we all wear various personas. It seems to me that Harvey at one level recognizes this; but his 'explanation' I think empties the meaning of the 19th century Marxist class descriptions.

.

[ahinton]

"I work as a labourer but have a pension fund that invests in the stock market and I own a house that I am improving with sweat equity and which I intend to sell for speculative gain. Does that make the concept of class incoherent? Class is a role, not a label that attaches to persons."

- David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism

I don't get this. Being a "labourer" (which is itself sufficiently unclear as to necessitate the assumption that he means someone who does paid hard physical work) and having such a pension fund and/or owning a home that the "labourer" intends to sell for speculative gain might denote that he/she is a capitalist or at least part of the capitalist system but it does not identify that he/she beloings to a particular "class" so, whilst his example doesn't of itself "make the concept of class incoherent" as such, it likewise does nothing to draw together "work" and "class" in the sense of those who do the former are thereby members of one of the latter. Moreover, if class is a "rôle", it would surely have either to be assumed by a person as a matter of choice or imposed upon said person without choice; a "rôle" is something that a person fulfils, whereas one cannot "fulfil" a "class".

[Joseph K]

I don't get this.

LOL

Being a "labourer" (which is itelf sufficiently unclear as to necessitate the assumption that he means someone who does paid hard physical work) and having such a pension fund and/or owning a home that the "labourer" intends to sell for speculative gain might denote that he/she is a capitalist or at least part of the capitalist system but it does not identify that he/she beloings to a particular "class"

Yes it does. One's class is defined to one's relation to the means of production.

so, whilst his example doesn't of itself "make the concept of class incoherent" as such, it likewise does nothing to draw together "work" and "class" in the sense of those who do the former are thereby members of one of the latter.

Obtuse twaddle. Bourgeoisie = owners of the means of production, proletariat = workers of the means of production. Yes, society is more complex than this. Go read some Marx. But given your replies on political debate here, I don't hold much hope for your comprehension skills.

Moreover, if class is a "rôle", it would surely have either to be assumed by a person as a matter of choice or imposed upon said person without choice; a "rôle" is something that a person fulfils, whereas one cannot "fulfil" a "class".

Yes one can - one fulfils one's class role.

[Joseph K]

But things are far more fluid these days, and we all wear various personas. It seems to me that Harvey at one level recognizes this; but his 'explanation' I think empties the meaning of the 19th century Marxist class descriptions.

.

Well, I guess you can't have it both ways. Harvey's book I got the passage from is about the 21st century. He is not talking about Marx and the 19th century, but rather using Marxian thought and method to illuminate 21st century capitalism. He is interested in the 'facts on the ground'.

[greenilex]

But the means of production for a woman in her breeding years are at once nearer and further beyond reach than they are for her partner...is that not right?

Proletariat has a relevant meaning here.

Who is creating value for whom in a society where domestic circumstances vary from Alexa to no bath for weeks because the old person can’t climb the stairs?

[Serial_Apologist]

Because it 'explains' that class is a role rather than an absolute label that can be attached to someone. Clearly there are still class division amongst people - he is not trying to claim that the division of capitalist versus labour does not exist because everyone is both. I think it is more aimed at the fact that, especially in the neoliberal era, a worker whose primary role is as a worker, might also take on a role of capitalist in the example he gives.

Indeed, in the scheme of things it's the primacy of the role in its fulfilment that is key to which class a person belongs to, because the occupation by which he or she acquires a persona income relates to that person's place of work, not to what is incidental to the creation of value. A person's membership of the working, middle or ruling class does not preclude their also being a sportswoman, father, hobbyist, religious fanatic, amateur dramatics participant, shareholder and so on, which seems to be ahinton's assumption in claiming the role is insufficiently defined, and vints' that any relationships to economy other than his interpretation of the classic definition, whatever that is, drains it of its meaning.

[Lat-Literal]

That's a great post Lat, though I have difficulties in connecting what you write in your final paragraph to the rest. I'll take just some of the comments, if you'll forgive me.

I think the politics of identity can indeed be crucial as a first step in defining oneself other than in socially disparaging terms. After all, we are both less than the conventional labels put upon us, we ought to get rid of them, and more, because just conceptions and conceptualisations are limited to words, and words can never encompass the complexity of everything we are (states of being which change from moment to moment), or the ontological fact that we are inseparable from our physical and organic matrix: like the foodies say, we ARE what we eat, we Are the ground we're standing on, the air we're breathing, etc etc. It goes without saying, to coin a pun, that that complexity is only defined in relation to the words and concepts, and even mathematical calculations, needed to put it across; by contrast the brain, breathing, nay all the spontaneous physiological functionings, do it themselves without needing a second self pre-deciding when to breathe, etc; this being the "miracle of life" we're more part of than the attributions and internalised self-definitions with limited groundings people use to place us. Nevertheless we have to start somewhere, and the self, even if provisionally defined negatively, ie in defiance of external definitions, is the only reliable place from which to.

The "returns for a mess of pottage" comprised the hard lesson of Daily Mail exposure learned by a certain well-known member of the shadow cabinet as a consequence of sending her son to a private school to compensate for the disadvantages of being a black child in the mainstream education system, though she does not acknowledge such as far as I am aware.



The TV series "The Rise and Sprawl of the Middle Classes" was most illuminating from the point of view of showing how the class emerged from the artisan class of pre-Industrial Revolution times, and from under the wing of the aristocracy, whose values and mannerisms, which it replaced, themselves set out with heroic intentions, only to become degraded as the middle class moved out of the city centre to seek secluded exclusivity just far enough out. If you didn't see it I think you would also find it most interesting.

I don't quite follow the points I've taken the liberty of numbering as [1] and [2], Lat? On destruction of community, I've just obtained two DVDs of a two-part documentary outlining the course of East End communities, respectively, from between 1900 and 1940, and 1940 and 1975. The narrator (stephen Bray) makes points with which I am in general agreement about the slum clearance that began in the 1920s, and was sped up by the bombing of WW2, to be continued in the postwar period with street level living replaced by tower blocs. Where I disagree is with the presented view that the establishment of the welfare state also contributed, in usurping the spirit of collective self-reliance that had served the community well up to that point. This was a weakness in the documentary: to me the reforms, introduced by caring Fabians, notwithstanding a paternalism that saw people as not capable of taking on some of the work to run themselves, were not deliberately intended to disempower. A stronger critique would have been directed towards the top-down paternalistic way in which welfare was imposed.

Thank you.....You make some interesting and important points which I can't address adequately. While I meant every word of it, I was in the mind for a style that permitted a little poetic licence. I don't think that football ever prevented world wars. However, there is a strong argument that it channelled the ever present potential for "war" as in localised territorial conflict into a shared interest. The territory in which greater conflict may have arisen almost anywhere without it included neighbourhood, politics, the workplace, religion, places of alcohol and, oh yes indeed, women. The Soccer Tribe - from memory that's Desmond Morris for better and for worse - became synonymous with hooliganism on its cusp between flat cap and mixed gender/mixed race. I would argue that in most cases the idea that football was to blame would be a severe misreading. The almost all male and all white football crowd was in essence an extension of the trade union, albeit in the sense that it could also include offspring. Much as boxing is disciplined aggression, the key to this game was to divert all of the seriousness that could have ignited in other domains into what was in all logic a trivial affair.

When it did ultimately spill out and over in the sixties and the seventies, it was largely because of mixed messages, perhaps as money in society became more important. I am not saying the football crowd is a worse thing now for being more diverse but it is more in the line of American sport with its popcorn and big money and the hockey mom cheering on her girls as well as boys. It's the fantasy of our team being apple pie just so long as we as well as they have had the responsibility to make profit. Elsewhere there could be more riots and, hey, ain't it just awful that so many places now burn. I do think actually that you can tell a lot about the soul of a place by its food. Just one look at a hot dog and a Dr Pepper and I know that we are in the land of Beyoncé. On the other hand, the possibility of getting a mug of Bovril before seeing a bloke in a white coat selling cockles and winkles on the touchline would very likely enable me to picture internally the entire contents of my folder on my genealogy.

Sometimes difficult and even unpopular things need to be said.

In the unaffordable taxi with my 88 year old mother and fearing the loss of my sight, two things struck me to the extent that they alleviated the big anxiety. One was the ongoing importance of the Thames. Not in terms of trade as it was when my grandfather had been in tea. In terms of it being water beyond the unimaginable traffic jams when only the sight of water below a bridge could enable anyone including the driver to feel able to breathe out. The other was the wonderful coincidence of the route including down back streets being through what was my mother's origins and a big part of my informed identity in my teenage years, with the posters for gigs of Marley and Armatrading beyond the windows of the bus. We saw Garden Row where my Mum sang a song during one of the coronations in the 1930s. We saw the East Lane market - East Street to everyone else - which "is" my Nan to me although my parents lived in the vicinity and got married nearby. We saw Rowland Hill House where Aunt Chay and Uncle George had lived, just south of Blackfriars Bridge where I was first introduced to the titillation of Reveille as well as hearing Drupi and Joey Scarbury on Capital.

We saw the off licence where we got the Guinnesses in for Nan and the M and S where we bought Cornish pasties. And it all seemed meant. That we should have been together there at this time. It also seemed almost entirely unchanged. Long gone were the squats on the old building sites with their slogans daubed at the frontage and there were more mosques in what appeared once to have been bakeries. But while multicultural, it was no less white than in the 1970s. We were absolutely amazed as well as fascinated. The changes in Croydon have been far, far greater. I believe the white people we were seeing were mainly yuppies on overdrive. Vegans who cycle and could afford the housing. Perhaps most notably, the skateboarders and the skaters in the cycle lanes as if it were the new Los Angeles. I draw no conclusions from these observations as they are not in me. I guess experience shows that life is continually for learning. Oh, the taxi music was mainly Mike and the Mechanics. Magic or Smooth - and I quite like that stuff to alleviate stress. The eighties. It was when the pounds were becoming important but they hadn't quite got to all promoting the throttled vocal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLzcdBEj9NQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1Z7u6c0mQ

[ahinton]

Yes it does. One's class is defined to one's relation to the means of production.

How? And why does "the means of production" (even assuing that everyone being described is actually producing something) define the "class" - whatever it might or might not be - of the producers, including those who are self-employed and not "producing" in accordance to salaries being paid by employers for such "production"? This all sounds very Marxist to me.

Obtuse twaddle. Bourgeoisie = owners of the means of production, proletariat = workers of the means of production. Yes, society is more complex than this. Go read some Marx. But given your replies on political debate here, I don't hold much hope for your comprehension skills.

If you say so. The small self-employed business owner is therefore a member of the "bourgeoisie" by that defin ition, yet some od them have paid jobs with employers as well; does that define them as tring to have someone else's cake and eat it? Yes, society is indeed far more complex than this. Reading some Marx will do no more than remind me of what Marx thought, but does that demonstrate that Marx is correct and fully commensurate with the current situation? Your views on my comprehension skills are noted but seem in the main to be saying "you don't agree with me or those who do and so you cannot possibly understand"; this is the trouble with some people with whom on occasion I debate - I can accept that they hold the views that they do but this seems not as a rule to happen in the opposite direction.

Yes one can - one fulfils one's class role.

But who defines what anyone's "class rôle" is or might be and why? - and, again, what of those who fulfil more than one such rôle by running their own businesses while also being employed by someone else? No, the world of work consists of many different kinds of people, from highly paid employed executives with their seven- or eight-figure salaries to the teamakers (blessèd are the teamakers, for they shall not be confined to the teamaking "class") - and, as I've asked previously, what of those who have suffered the misfortune of losing their paid employment and who can therefore hardly be described as "working class" at least until they've found other paid offices?

People are people, not members of "classes"; even Marx valued the individual!

[Joseph K]

How? And why does "the means of production" (even assuing that everyone being described is actually producing something) define the "class" - whatever it might or might not be - of the producers, including those who are self-employed and not "producing" in accordance to salaries being paid by employers for such "production"? This all sounds very Marxist to me.

It is all very Marxist.

If you say so. The small self-employed business owner is therefore a member of the "bourgeoisie" by that defin ition, yet some od them have paid jobs with employers as well; does that define them as tring to have someone else's cake and eat it? Yes, society is indeed far more complex than this. Reading some Marx will do no more than remind me of what Marx thought, but does that demonstrate that Marx is correct and fully commensurate with the current situation? Your views on my comprehension skills are noted but seem in the main to be saying "you don't agree with me or those who do and so you cannot possibly understand"; this is the trouble with some people with whom on occasion I debate - I can accept that they hold the views that they do but this seems not as a rule to happen in the opposite direction.

'Have someone else's cake and eat it' see the Harvey quote about class roles. You're right, reading Marx for you would be a waste of time, you're someone who quoted in all seriousness a member of the royal family on a topic of sociology. Both embarrassing and risible.

But who defines what anyone's "class rôle" is or might be and why?

You're asking irrelevant questions. All that matters is that there are class roles.

- and, again, what of those who fulfil more than one such rôle by running their own businesses while also being employed by someone else?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? See the Harvey quote above about different class roles.

People are people, not members of "classes"; even Marx valued the individual!

Yes, he valued the individual and disliked the brutal reality of class-society, that is, capitalism, with its grotesque inequalities. He valued the individual so much that he wanted to make a classless society, rather than claim class doesn't exist.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think one can get very hung up on categories and classes of any kind. Linguistic theory has hopefully taught us to be very wary of them. A Marxist apologist (such as me) would admit to the ease with which one can slip into over-reliance on them when it comes to trying to deal with those who defend the present political, economic and social status quo: one being the blatant obviousness to everyone but the most obtuse that there are huge gaps in terms of income and ownership between the top and bottom socioeconomic categories by any analysis, let alone just by comparing mansions and lavish lifestyles with the sleeping bags and cardboard boxes of the dispossessed, even here in this supposedly wealthy country.

The key matter is to recognise categories in the sense in which we are debating them as classes into which people are ineluctably placed by the system being as it is, rather than people themselves constituting the classes as individuals. We can overcome the objections of those who say so-and-so can be as much a capitalist by owning a house as a member of the labouring class by being an employee by seeing which of these roles in its existence has the greatest determining influence over the fate of the larger economy. It will immediately be clear that the operations of the UBER taxi driver, pizza delivery motorcyclist on zero hours contract, elderly careworker, and sex worker, have a contributory function within the totality that serves needs some of which may be deemed essential and some less so, while all maintaining operations at the basic ground level; but these fall into dust when confronted with the mega consequences of bank or superstore chain operations, either in "successfully" re-shaping the environment in the name of their own survival and all we have to do to keep up with them, or when they bankrupt themselves and destroy millions of livings in the process. All talk of whether Ms Smith from Wolverhampton with her private mortgage or Lord Fauntleroy of the Isle of Wherever with his vast vast lands devoted to fracking or nature-destroying agribusiness are working, middle or ruling class then evaporate into futile twaddle.

Nonetheless, even looking at the widening gap between the middle, or professional and managerial classes, as defined by occupation, and the tycoon ceo's of top multinationals, one can see class definitions re-appearing in the overt guise they undisguised themselves in Georgian and Victorian times, and a re-awakening to this fact whose dismal prospects have re-awakened a young generation to ideals about a shared out, scarcity-eliminating, rationally and sustainably planned way of running everything - one that frees decision-making about inclusiveness in all senses and what needs making and how much of it, first of all and most importantly to meet basic survival needs from the advertisement-driven pressures shaping how everyone is supposed to be and to aspire. Unlike those of my generation, may of whom were able to benefit from the melting of the boundaries once separating the classes that Marx was able to identify with such clarity but maybe less foresightedness, youngsters are now able to see from their own direct experience of having less and less chance of escaping the family home to make their own fulfilling pathways through life the illusoriness of meritocracy.

In the end who controls what happens in the world comes down to the issue of power; and only a fool or moral quisling would deny its relationship with money. If it comes to crunch time, and if everywhere is not to become like the favellas of Rio with the footsoldiers of capital overseeing their competing enclaves of poverty with guns and drugs, the contest will resolve onto that between those who align themselves for change with those at the bottom of society, or with those at the top, behind their guarded, CTV-patrolled walled enclaves. While it is as simple as that, how the outcomes will work themselves through any forthcoming political change will have to determine tactics and strategy, along with that cliché "learning the lessons of history". Marx, and the less categorically-bound Marxists succeeding him, at least understood that.