Class

[Beef Oven]

shame on you both for ducking out ...you were all getting very interesting

I took your advice

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

[Richard Barrett]

in contradiction to many posts here i do not think that class as a concept actually is of much use ...whenever empirical studies take ownership of assets as a predictive variable there are few if any strong results; when social status is used as a predictive variable the results are much stronger [especially in studies examining life chances in health, education etc] .... not all the powerful are wealthy eh ... although all the wealthy are powerful ...

If class is defined as a function of ownership or social status contradictions and confusions will ensue. If on the other hand it's defined as a function of relationship to the means of production, as Serial_Apologist said at the beginning of the thread, they don't. I thought this discussion was proceeding on the basis of that definition, since nobody has proposed an alternative to it except in somewhat vague terms.

As for socialists needing to "catch up (...) and move away from the same old theoretical and academic conversations", I would say that you're possibly accusing others of being stuck in ways of thinking you remember from the 1970s, when it's actually you that's stuck in them. An example of someone who isn't is Richard Seymour, whose blog at http://www.leninology.com is always worth reading (although its current concentration on ongoing convulsions at the SWP probably isn't of urgent interest to the general reader!), as are his occasional Guardian pieces, but these days there's quite a lot of excellent contemporary socialist writing to be found on the internet, which I believe shows that the ideas are not only being kept alive but also continue to respond and evolve.

[Beef Oven]

If class is defined as a function of ownership or social status contradictions and confusions will ensue. If on the other hand it's defined as a function of relationship to the means of production, as Serial_Apologist said at the beginning of the thread, they don't. I thought this discussion was proceeding on the basis of that definition, since nobody has proposed an alternative to it except in somewhat vague terms.

As for socialists needing to "catch up (...) and move away from the same old theoretical and academic conversations", I would say that you're possibly accusing others of being stuck in ways of thinking you remember from the 1970s, when it's actually you that's stuck in them. An example of someone who isn't is Richard Seymour, whose blog at http://www.leninology.com is always worth reading (although its current concentration on ongoing convulsions at the SWP probably isn't of urgent interest to the general reader!), as are his occasional Guardian pieces, but these days there's quite a lot of excellent contemporary socialist writing to be found on the internet, which I believe shows that the ideas are not only being kept alive but also continue to respond and evolve.

I have already acknowledged that my analysis is stuck in the 70s. I was not going to waste the 80s & 90s on this rhetoric. I referred to JS's notion of a 'useful socialist'. If socialists want to be 'useful' (whatever that might mean), they need to catch up. Eurocommunism, Blair and a Poulantzas-type understanding of how the state works are good starting points. I have now officially retired from this thread.

[eighthobstruction]

Thank you Richard....I say let the contradictions and confusions begin....the means of production has changed (just by the like of the internet) there is a far wider range of relationships to the m of p, far more minor automonies, far more individual commerce....the relationship is also changed by the EU, the 17 Euro nations, Global commerce, Off Shore secret commerce, Franchising....in many cases the structure of modern companies is such that commerce and mechanisation stand between the shop floor worker or salesperson (where much of the material and mechinary are bought in without the need for a R&D dept of the past) and the Board who are basically money innovators.

....yes confused....the contradictions come later (if not already....)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well Richard i confess to a simple minded inability to distinguish between ownership and relationship to the means of production ... in either case the impact is pretty negligible and it may be a distinction without much of a difference ...

one factor in the history of my own thinking is just how distasteful the people on the left were in the 1970s; howling and judgemental. angry and implacably manipulative [at least in my Trades Union] and walking away from the Cold War and Communism - very real threats to democracy at the time ... i worked in Liverpool during the days of the Militant Tendency and every day the Town hall would empty in yet another protest .... nobody could watch the the left in the Labour Party when Michael Foot was leader and grant it the slightest intellectual recognition - it was a wolf pack of bully boys and dangerous adventurists spouting dogma ...

there is much to be admired in the work of David Harvey and his diligent application of dialectical materialism and he has single handedly produced the best description of the crisis we have been through that i have heard ...

i have become an unashamed advocate of bourgeois society, liberal democracy in full .... the works of David Lowndes, Barrington Moore, Acemoglu & McCloskey have convinced me far more than any 'true theory' .. solid undemonstrative reasoning, scrupulously marshalled evidence and scholarship ... they do it for me .... the attribution of marxist or socialist to an idea, a work etc calls to my mind the rogues and ne'er do wells of the seventies ... for me it is a society which is dominated by the middle classes that is most likely to display adherence to the rule of law, enjoy political and regulatory institutions that are both honest and effective, and provide the best life chances for all their citizens ...

it is a matter of great concern and regret to me that none of our present political parties can find the courage and understanding to take their ideas seriously; meanwhile we are in the grip of a cabal of gangsters and corrupt sociopaths many of whom employ their public school and Oxbridge PPE education to their own benefit at the expense of the people in general .......

[ahinton]

This has certainly developed into a most interesting thread and, although I think that quite a lot of what's interesting about it has rather tended - perhaps inevitably - to go beyond the original brief of a discussion of "class", there have been a number of contributors who have posted some fine detailed, well-considered and thought-provoking ideas.

If "class" as a phenomenon in the context of human activities, aspirations, persuasions et al is what we're addressing here, the one thing that is clear is that the term is generally used as a means to "classify" humans by putting them into various different categories to distinguish one group from another. OK, that's a statement of the b***d**g obvious insofar as it goes, of course, but as soon as one looks at what it means to people to do this, it becomes equally obvious that not everyone regards the term in anything like the same way; "classification" of humans in terms of their ownership (i.e. values of incomes and owned assets of all kinds) is one factor that might or might not be taken alongside considerations of relationships to means of production, but then there's also the nature and extent of education, whether state-funded or privately-funded, from which each individual may have benefited or had opportunities to benefit, the kinds of professional activities in which each individual participates (both for and not for financial gain), whether or not each individual follows particular religious and/or political persuasions and who knows what else.

I am inclined to agree broadly with much of what aka Calum da Jazbo has written here, but that's not to say that I'm any less interested in what certain others who clearly take all aspects of this subject seriously have written.

The term "the ruling class" tends far more often to be used by socialists than by others; whilst I do not criticise that per se, I do ask myself why this appears to be so (and I'm not only talking about the very wealthy whom some regard as members of "the ruling class" who would instinctively seek to rule themselves out of such a descriptor). It seems to me (although I'm open to argument here) that the term "the ruling class" is usually resorted to for the purpose of denoting those who have the most power and influence on account of their relative wealth. That bothers me to some extent. Some very wealthy people have no aspirations directly to control those less wealthy than themselves, whereas others quite clearly do abuse their wealth in order to do just that. "The ruling class" can denote monarchies and dictatorships of left or right as well as those who, whilst not being in either of those two categories, try to use their wealth to their own advantage regardless of the disadvantages that this brings about for others less wealthy than themselves. Whilst there's no denying the existence of this last group, what seems common to the use of the term "the ruling class" when used (as often it is) in a pejorative context is a desire to abuse wealth in order to secure and maintain positions of power; whilst that is of itself fundamentally undemocratic, there's all too much evidence of it within supposedly democratic societies.

"The working class" is another term whose usual use seems to be rather less obvious than at first it might appear. It has traditionally been used to categorise those who are employed at the lower ends of salary scales, more often than not (though by no means always) by private employers, the majority of which were once expected to want to vote for Labour rather than for the Liberal or Conservative parties, yet does and should "working class" - if it to retain contemporary credence - really have to mean only this? If someone works, be it for him/herself, for the state or local government or for a private employer, whether his/her annual salary / business profit is £15k or £1.5M, is that person not - at least in a literal sense - "working class"? (a question that reminds me of an off-the-cuff remark by the Duke of Edinburgh years ago that his wife is working class - she must be, because she works and sometimes quite long hours). It is surely possible to be sufficiently financially privileged not to have to work for a living but still work hard, full time? - yet there seems not to be a generally agreed distinction made that identifies "working class" people as those who work for a living because they have to as distinct from those who work out of personal choice, either for money or not for money.

"The middle class" - upper, lower and - er - middle are in the "middle" of what? one might ask.

Then there are those who are poor (and what an indictment to so many decades of active capitalism that there are still poor people even in Western capitalist societies!), of whom some are seeking but cannot find work for whatever reason; whilst they are not working, can they really be considered to be "working class" purely because they are financially disadvantaged? No one seems to speak specifically of "the poor class" as much as they do of "the working class".

What bothers me most about the term "class" as it is most commonly used is its all too often implied setting of one "class" against another - or at least a determination to try to draw distinctions between "classes" of people in an accusatory kind of "never the twain shall meet" manner. This being the case, I cannot help but harbour suspicions that this common use may be a somewhat less than helpful or positive long-term influence within social debate.

I might well have gotten the wrong end of the stick about this, but that's the best that I feel able to do right now.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not hopeful for the continuation of this thread.

However, for what it's worth, talent does not as far as I know figure as a determinant in Marxist theory, because the labour theory of value as expressed under capitalism is accounted for in social, rather than individual terms.

Talent may well confer ability additional to hard work and long hours to carry out a task, but how this determines wealth-creation, or value, is but in a small part determinant of the economic health of the whole, (for example a national economy), operating as that whole does through human beings in harness with technology.

Which is one reason Thatcher and others following in her wake have so stupidly allowed existing large-scale industries to be run down in favour of small-business start-ups as her imagined model for national recovery, instead of encourging recapitalisation of the former, and/or reoganising production lines for saleable products. Allowing uncompetitive businesses to go to the wall and their replacement by start-ups, many of which fail, instead of investing the abovementioned talent contained within them to fight for alternatives to failed management strategies, would possibly outdo all the wastefulness of bureaucratic inefficiency and maintaining armies of unemployed used as back-ups to a system prone by its very nature to periodic "overproduction". But her panacea was of course that "management should manage", unimpeded.

One issue, raised by Hodgson, relating to Beef Oven's reference to Poulantzas as being more relevant to post-1970s socialist thinking than Leninist views on the state, concerned the weighting of political decisionmaking under direct, workers' council type democracy, as against a parliament's or constituent assembly's - the point being made by Hodgson that the few examples of direct democracy one could draw on discriminated in favour of the mass organised sectors of labour, as against, eg the self-employed, and housewives/husbands, and that these would be more adequately represented in a parliament. I could dig out the relevant passage - still having the book - but am just raising this in respect of the fact that, recognised or not, a socialist society would be acting in its own defense, as well as to moral ends, in recognising and indeed hailing talent, within and without its main power bases.

This might, if I am not totally mistaken, be what Beef Oven was in part getting at.

[Beef Oven]

I'm not hopeful for the continuation of this thread.

However, for what it's worth, talent does not as far as I know figure as a determinant in Marxist theory, because the labour theory of value as expressed under capitalism is accounted for in social, rather than individual terms.

Talent may well confer ability additional to hard work and long hours to carry out a task, but how this determines wealth-creation, or value, is but in a small part determinant of the economic health of the whole, (for example a national economy), operating as that whole does through human beings in harness with technology.

Which is one reason Thatcher and others following in her wake have so stupidly allowed existing large-scale industries to be run down in favour of small-business start-ups as her imagined model for national recovery, instead of encourging recapitalisation of the former, and/or reoganising production lines for saleable products. Allowing uncompetitive businesses to go to the wall and their replacement by start-ups, many of which fail, instead of investing the abovementioned talent contained within them to fight for alternatives to failed management strategies, would possibly outdo all the wastefulness of bureaucratic inefficiency and maintaining armies of unemployed used as back-ups to a system prone by its very nature to periodic "overproduction". But her panacea was of course that "management should manage", unimpeded.

One issue, raised by Hodgson, relating to Beef Oven's reference to Poulantzas as being more relevant to post-1970s socialist thinking than Leninist views on the state, concerned the weighting of political decisionmaking under direct, workers' council type democracy, as against a parliament's or constituent assembly's - the point being made by Hodgson that the few examples of direct democracy one could draw on discriminated in favour of the mass organised sectors of labour, as against, eg the self-employed, and housewives/husbands, and that these would be more adequately represented in a parliament. I could dig out the relevant passage - still having the book - but am just raising this in respect of the fact that, recognised or not, a socialist society would be acting in its own defense, as well as to moral ends, in recognising and indeed hailing talent, within and without its main power bases.

This might, if I am not totally mistaken, be what Beef Oven was in part getting at.

Not sure why you aren't hopeful for the continuation of this thread, seems to be going ok now.

I agree, talent does not figure in Marxian theory, but that was my point. Marxian theory only goes so far. It's a good starting point, but alas, the world and its people are more complicated than Marx realises in his writing. That is why I am more interested in an examination of the superstructure, than going over the dialectic and the relationship with the means of production.

Your observation about talent/Poulantzas/Hodgson is certainly part of what I awas trying to get across.

Simon's OP did anything but limit this thread to a narrow discussion on Marx, his interpretors, misinterpretors et al.

[Richard Barrett]

If socialists want to be 'useful' (whatever that might mean), they need to catch up. Eurocommunism, Blair and a Poulantzas-type understanding of how the state works are good starting points.

It's a shame you've retired from this thread because (a) in my opinion there are numbers of socialists who have "caught up", with Seymour as one example, and (b) I don't see that Eurocommunism and Blair have anything to offer socialists except as negative examples, and it would be interesting to know how you can imagine otherwise.

nobody could watch the the left in the Labour Party when Michael Foot was leader and grant it the slightest intellectual recognition - it was a wolf pack of bully boys and dangerous adventurists spouting dogma ...

That was the only period in which I was active in the Labour Party!... (Although I should add I had nothing to do with the Militant people.) The problem with your idea that "it is a society which is dominated by the middle classes that is most likely to display adherence to the rule of law, enjoy political and regulatory institutions that are both honest and effective, and provide the best life chances for all their citizens" is surely that this is what we have now, and its logic is such that those institutions are being dismantled and many citizens are being provided with almost no life chances at all.

[Beef Oven]

It's a shame you've retired from this thread because (a) in my opinion there are numbers of socialists who have "caught up", with Seymour as one example, and (b) I don't see that Eurocommunism and Blair have anything to offer socialists except as negative examples, and it would be interesting to know how you can imagine otherwise.

That was the only period in which I was active in the Labour Party!... (Although I should add I had nothing to do with the Militant people.) The problem with your idea that "it is a society which is dominated by the middle classes that is most likely to display adherence to the rule of law, enjoy political and regulatory institutions that are both honest and effective, and provide the best life chances for all their citizens" is surely that this is what we have now, and its logic is such that those institutions are being dismantled and many citizens are being provided with almost no life chances at all.

I know I'll regret 'coming out' on this, but that was the time when I was active in the Labour Party too!!! And I had major battles with the militants, who did so much damage to the movement. Anyway, that was another time and another life

[MrGongGong]

I know I'll regret 'coming out' on this, but that was the time when I was active in the Labour Party too!!!

Blimey days
Simon is going to tell us that he was in the Scratch Orchestra next
and is married to Diamanda Galas

[Richard Barrett]

Simon is going to tell us that he was in the Scratch Orchestra next
and is married to Diamanda Galas

I think you might be confusing him with Mr Pee.

[Flosshilde]

just how distasteful the people on the left were in the 1970s; howling and judgemental. angry and implacably manipulative [at least in my Trades Union] .

Perhaps, but many people on the left were also fighting for the rights of women in the workplace, against racial discrimintaion, and against discrimination against lesbians & gay men - not just fighting employers, but often fellow trades unionists, many of whom felt it was a distraction from the 'class struggle'. However, there was also recognition that 'class', in terms of who had power & who didn't, wasn't just defined economically.

That might not contribute much to a discussion based on theoretical writings, but might suggest that a discussion based on theoretical writing from before the 1980s is missing a fairly major element.

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps, but many people on the left were also fighting for the rights of women in the workplace, against racial discrimintaion, and against discrimination against lesbians & gay men - not just fighting employers, but often fellow trades unionists, many of whom felt it was a distraction from the 'class struggle'. However, there was also recognition that 'class', in terms of who had power & who didn't, wasn't just defined economically.

I wouldn't put it in terms of "distraction" but in these terms: if you start from the (socialist) idea that class relationships are what drives historical social changes, calling any oppressed sector of the population a "class" atomises that idea into a series of disconnected "issues" like racism, sexism, homophobia etc. none of which in itself is or can be a factor in moving society as a whole in the direction of equality (which of course includes equality of gender, race, sexuality etc.).