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

[Richard Barrett]

One of the things strongly emphasised by David Harvey and others is the unsustainability of capitalism, something that comes increasingly into focus as globalisation/neoliberalism drags on, is that it's physically impossible for there to be unending economic growth in a finite world, that this impossibility is fundamental to capitalism, that if it continues the result will be environmental destruction and war, that it will sooner or later be replaced either by planned economies on a global scale or by the breakdown of civilisation ("socialism or barbarism", as Rosa Luxemburg already made clear a hundred years ago). It's a process that might be slower or faster but with our current state of knowledge there is no avoiding it, and various cataclysmic social events in the 20th century show that things can sometimes change much more rapidly than any observation of long-term trends might imply. What's needed is the ideas to make the inevitable transition to a different kind of society involve the minimum amount of death and suffering. The fact that nothing has happened since Marx's time which invalidates his analysis of class society would seem to imply that his ideas on how it might be changed, along with the subsequent evolution of those ideas, which continues to this day, need to be taken most seriously as indicating a way forward. (This is just another way of stating the main points of S_A's previous post.)

[ahinton]

It is all very Marxist.

OK, so all right for some but not for all, then...

'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.

I have seen it. Reading Marx was not "a waste of time" for me. I don't recall the royal family quote, I'm afraid; could I trouble you to remind me?

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

Irrelevant to you and perhaps also to some others of like mind but not irrelevant per se (unless you care to illustrate why you consider that they are so). There are "class rôles" only for those who believe that there are. I fear that too much emphasis on perceptions of "class" are divisive by nature and, as such, unhelpful at best and potentially or actually damaging at worst.

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

Since you seem to need to ask (which is fine, of course) but not obtuse at all, either deliberately or accidentally. The fact that I've seen the Harvey quote and considered it does not have to mean that I must believe it.

Of course Marx wanted to get rid of "class" and advocated a "classless" society and, however hopelessly optimistic that might have been or still is, he was right to do so; that, however, doesn't resolve the difference between actual "class" and perceived or promoted "class". That said, there could never be a "classless" society while the "grotesque inequalities" that you mention are allowed to persist - and I could not agree with you more that there remain such inequalities and on a vaster scale than pertained in Marx's day. It is perfecgtly possible - and, I believe, not unreasonable - to seek to claim that "class" either doesn't exist or, more likely, is a fabrication without denying those inequalities which are not about "class" but a quite different social ill altogether.

[Joseph K]

I don't recall the royal family quote, I'm afraid; could I trouble you to remind me?

"I seem to recall Prince Philip describing his wife as "working class" because she works."

Comical indeed.

Anyway, as Richard Barrett advised on the other thread, I won't get dragged into your confused rubbish. You claim that you do not believe and do not get the David Harvey quote while simultaneously giving examples that support his idea that class is a role and that it is possible to play more than one role.

One last thing... apropos this comment -

It is perfecgtly possible - and, I believe, not uinreasonable - to seek to claim that "class" either doesn't exist or, more likely, is a fabrication without denying those inequalities which are not about "class" but a quite different social ill altogether.

And what, pray tell, is this quite different social ill altogether? Where have you got this alternative sociological theory from? Your problem ahinton is that you try to run-down the reality of class as put forth by me and others by burying it with a barrage of questions, many of which are irrelevant, without putting forth an alternative. The onus is on you to explain an alternative theory of social relations and inequality that avoids a class analysis.

You have trollish personality which, like Richard advised, I won't feed anymore.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well it's as easy to demolish another person's argument by nit-picking through it as it is more difficult to construct a neighbourhood than destroy it. I am prepared to try and take on ahinton's way of debating, on equally exhaustive, and exhausting, premises, aware how frustrating he and they can be, because I spent most of the last 30 years of my father's life arguing precisely the same issues with him, one of the most practical and intelligent people I ever knew, but one whose whole raison d'être seemed built on never conceding he might be wrong on anything, that is until just two days before his passing he agreed that I had been right on politics all along. Actually he said he'd always agreed with me! It may have been an act of self-redemption for him to have done so - it should be mentioned he always said he was a Christian - but I like to think that had he lived longer than his 92 years he might have seen his U-turn vindicated: anti-EU though he was - he had old-fashioned John Majorish illusions about "British honesty" that were only partially changed after seeing "Ghandi" - he would have been outraged by what had happened to "his" Tory party.

Forgive me, everyone, for just this twice, indulging in a bit of personal history that people might find uncomfortable.

[ahinton]

"I seem to recall Prince Philip describing his wife as "working class" because she works."

Comical indeed.

Ah, thank you for that reminder; much appreciated. I have to confess that I could not call to mind what it was until you provided this. Anyway, I did not, of course, eitgher support or deprecate this throw-away remark; I merely cited it. And anything "comical" about it was not mine, after all...

Anyway, as Richard Barrett advised on the other thread, I won't get dragged into your confused rubbish. You claim that you do not believe and do not get the David Harvey quote while simultaneously giving examples that support his idea that class is a role and that it is possible to play more than one role.

What is confused, rubbish and confused rubbish to one is not necessarily so to another. Indeed I do not "get" what prompts the Harvey quote but the examples that I hve given do nothing to "support his idea that "class" is a rôle", because a rôle is, as I mentioned, something that some people fulfil either through choice or enforcement but such fulfilment does not imply their designation as members of any particular "class". I have great respect for David Harvey but that does not mean that I have to believe what he writes; I do not for one moment deny his sincerity or that of you, Richard or others who take a similar viewpoint to his because I know that all hold those views genuinely. I respect that also, but it would seem that some people are wholly unwilling to accept that it is possible, let alone reasonable, that certain others happen to think differently (although, given that we all deplore the social inequalities that have been mentioned here, I'm not so sure of the extgent of such difference). Yes, it is of course possible to play more than one rôle simultaneously, although to what extent the fact of doing so might evidence a contradiction in terms and in outlook must remain open to question.

And what, pray tell, is this quite different social ill altogether? Where have you got this alternative sociological theory from? Your problem ahinton is that you try to run-down the reality of class as put forth by me and others by burying it with a barrage of questions, many of which are irrelevant, without putting forth an alternative. The onus is on you to explain an alternative theory of social relations and inequality that avoids a class analysis.

The social ill is in the enablement and indeed encouragement of those inequalities - principally social and economic - which are no respecters of "class", unless you want to write of "class" in specific terms of prosperity and otherwise, or opportunities and otherwise, in which case I would indeed agree with you but I would still say that "working class" as a term is misleading, meaningless or both and "ruling class", if it applies to anyone at all, covers so broad a church of power-wielders that it self-undermines as a term; the haves and have-nots would seem far more approate here than "working class", upper/riling class" and so on. None of this detracts from the fact that the social inequalities which all of us deplore are very real indeed and, if hiuman society is to progress - or even rescue itself - they will need to be effectively and positively addressed, somehow. Perhpas I have been insufficiently clear; to reiterate, if by "class" divisions you refer to the differences between the socially and economically advantaged and the socially and econoically disadvantaged, we are in agreement on all but the specific defining terminology.

You have trollish personality which, like Richard advised, I won't feed anymore.

Trollish in your opinion (and were it the majority opinion here I have little doubt that my membership here might be termined following some due warnings). Whether or not you respod to anything that I write is your prerogative and yours alone. That will not, however, stop me from replying to your posts if so I wish any more than it has discouraged me from doing so to Richard's; after all, when I do either I am not seeking to address my responses only to you or Richard. You and Richard each have many interesting things to write, otherwise I would not feel the same inclination to respond when I do so.

[ahinton]

Well it's as easy to demolish another person's argument by nit-picking through it as it is more difficult to construct a neighbourhood than destroy it. I am prepared to try and take on ahinton's way of debating, on equally exhaustive, and exhausting, premises, aware how frustrating he and they can be, because I spent most of the last 30 years of my father's life arguing precisely the same issues with him, one of the most practical and intelligent people I ever knew, but one whose whole raison d'être seemed built on never conceding he might be wrong on anything, that is until just two days before his passing he agreed that I had been right on politics all along. Actually he said he'd always agreed with me! It may have been an act of self-redemption for him to have done so - it should be mentioned he always said he was a Christian - but I like to think that had he lived longer than his 92 years he might have seen his U-turn vindicated: anti-EU though he was - he had old-fashioned John Majorish illusions about "British honesty" that were only partially changed after seeing "Ghandi" - he would have been outraged by what had happened to "his" Tory party.

Forgive me, everyone, for just this twice, indulging in a bit of personal history that people might find uncomfortable.

Thank you for this.

I really do not believe that anything that I have written on this or any other subject here has implied that I believe that I am right and those who take alternative views are wrong; such has certainly never been my intention. Indeed, people such as Richard Barrett and Joseph K. write things that are far too interesting, thought-provoking and commanding of respect to be capable even of inciting such a belief. I do also think, however, that there is a distinct impression that, in having read Marx himself and more authorities on socialism, anti-capitalism and the rest and gleaned from them and my thinking about them as I have, I have drawn conclusions that appear to be regarded by some as entirely "wrong" and equally unacceptable, as though the reading such texts is, or at least ought to be, identical to endorsing them in every detail without room for possible argument. There is therefore a sense of intolerance on one side but mere disagreement on the other and, indeed, I am not even persuaded in any case that the two "sides" (horrible concept) are as far apart from one another as one of them might purportedly assume.

For what it is worth, incidentally, I happen to believe that UK now has the worst Prime Minister in living memory.

To return to the topic as a whole, however, it does seem that "modernism" and "élitism" have been cast to the sidelines in order to propritise these question of "class", which suggests, to me, at least, a growing sense of disproportionality, for what that might or might not be worth...

[Stanfordian]

Thank you for this.

I really do not believe that anything that I have written on this or any other subject here has implied that I believe that I am right and those who take alternative views are wrong; such has certainly never been my intention. Indeed, people such as Richard Barrett and Joseph K. write things that are far too interesting, thought-provoking and commanding of respect to be capable even of inciting such a belief. I do also think, however, that there is a distinct impression that, in having read Marx himself and more authorities on socialism, anti-capitalism and the rest and gleaned from them and my thinking about them as I have, I have drawn conclusions that appear to be regarded by some as entirely "wrong" and equally unacceptable, as though the reading such texts is, or at least ought to be, identical to endorsing them in every detail without room for possible argument. There is therefore a sense of intolerance on one side but mere disagreement on the other and, indeed, I am not even persuaded in any case that the two "sides" (horrible concept) are as far apart from one another as one of them might purportedly assume.

For what it is worth, incidentally, I happen to believe that UK now has the worst Prime Minister in living memory.

To return to the topic as a whole, however, it does seem that "modernism" and "élitism" have been cast to the sidelines in order to propritise these question of "class", which suggests, to me, at least, a growing sense of disproportionality, for what that might or might not be worth...

Worse than Blair and Brown?

[ahinton]

Worse than Blair and Brown?

Yes, although they and Thatcher were, in my view, hard to beat for that accolade. The great statesman Viscount Stansgate, for example, once observed that one always knew where one was with Margaret Thatcher; one always wanted to be anywhere else, but... It was painfully clear that this was a brickbat hurled at Blair whom he regarded as a master dissembler whereas Thatcher was at least honest even though one might deprecate the nature and content of her honesty.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You have trollish personality which, like Richard advised, I won't feed anymore.

I think that this comment is unnecessary and inaccurate, Joseph - you had made your exasperation with ahinton's responses perfectly clear; there was no need to add such an offensive statement.

[Serial_Apologist]

I do not "get" what prompts the Harvey quote but the examples that I hve given do nothing to "support his idea that "class" is a rôle", because a rôle is, as I mentioned, something that some people fulfil either through choice or enforcement but such fulfilment does not imply their designation as members of any particular "class".

One could fulfil a role, any role, however, by inadvertance. When bitter people say "I didn't choose to be born" they are generalising from the specifics of their situation onto the rest of life, lacking as they do a perspective other than their own. We're talking perspective here rather than some superpowered capacity transcendent of choice or coercion. Are you not prepared to concede that? it seems to be the nub of where we disagree.

[Joseph K]

I have no problem engaging in debate with someone whose way of thinking is lucid, clear and transparent. Unfortunately for ahinton he's incoherent and prone to mystification and waffle.

[ahinton]

One could fulfil a role, any role, however, by inadvertance. When bitter people say "I didn't choose to be born" they are generalising from the specifics of their situation onto the rest of life, lacking as they do a perspective other than their own. We're talking perspective here rather than some superpowered capacity transcendent of choice or coercion. Are you not prepared to concede that? it seems to be the nub of where we disagree.

The issue here is, I think, one of "rôle" versus (or as distinct from) "category". I have, for instance, had cause to note in a quite different context with a UK industry regulator that seeks to claim that a company directorship is a "regulatory controlled function", the problem with which being that it is in reality a legal status (governed by the Companies' Act) wherease a "regulatory controlled function" is something carried out by an individual whether or not they are a director of a company; likewise, a "class" is a status conferred upon individuals who are purportedly members thereof whereas a "rôle" is something that an individual fulfils either by choice or coercion.

[ahinton]

I think that this comment is unnecessary and inaccurate, Joseph - you had made your exasperation with ahinton's responses perfectly clear; there was no need to add such an offensive statement.

For the record, I am not at all offended; perhaps by describing my personality as "trollish" he had in mind my Variations and Fugue on a theme of Grieg, for piano (Åse's Death, from Peer Gynt).

Or perhaps not...

[ahinton]

I have no problem engaging in debate with someone whose way of thinking is lucid, clear and transparent. Unfortunately for ahinton he's incoherent and prone to mystification and waffle.

In your personal opinion, to which you are of course entitled and which might be shared by a few others of persuasions similar to yours, but I am not aware that this is a generalised view; perhaps other members might care to confirm otherwise...

[Joseph K]

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war and we're winning"

- Warren Buffett, 'The Sage of Omaha'