While I abandoned strict materialism as a philosophy long ago and thus am not a Marxist, I still find many Marxian markers, measures, most useful, depending on context and the weather and so on (trying to convey a little presumption of contingency there). In many of the debates that get going on the News and Politics threads above, I know that I do a sort of automatic sizing up of class factors, probably more often than cultural ones, actually ... although I often sort of suppress that in what I write -- don't quite know why.

The fall of the Soviet Union, motherland of class analysis, also had an impact on the popularity of class doctrine. The obvious use of class analysis to forward state objectives there impoverished the vocabulary and opened it to contempt.

Finally, the academic doctrines of post-modernism
do not accept essences; the concepts of "working class" and "bourgeoisie" are amalgams, and it is far more interesting (if less revolutionary) to
subject these broad ideas to the fragmentation intrinsic to postmodernism. Thus, "working class" will be subdivided by level of income, by race and ethnicity, by gender, and by sexual preference.

I do think class is somewhat more fluid here in Canada than it is in many other countries and cultures, but only to a degree and it's considered very impolite to broach the subject directly.

Car payments. House payments. Et cetera. Last thing he/she wants to be reminded of by an industrial worker is how easy it would be to fall off that perch.

Also, a middle class person tends to be favored more by the tax cuts that drizzle down once every few years from our governments, so he/she has less incentive to follow a tax-the-rich philosophy.

Okay, that was rambling and confusing... Here's an expample.

Prairie cities are usually divided into North End/South End dichotomies -- had to do with the railway, north of the tracks being poorer than south of the tracks (warehouses and such generally being on the north side of the tracks).

Now, in the prairie city that I grew up in, there were and still are distinctions and comments made about which "end" you grew up in or live in. I actually had a co-worker make a derogatory comment about "North-enders" being uneducated, etc, "not like us" a couple of years ago. When I pointed out that I grew up in the north end, she said "I never would have guessed!" So I asked her what she thought about the class system, she told me she didn't believe there was one....

This has happened innumerable times in talking to local north and south dwellers, and I honestly think it's just a microcosm of the nation in general. It's an almost pathological denial within the middle class that we think they're better than the working class, even though it's obvious that many of us do.

It's not the belief that I find puzzling (I think that it's human nature), just the denial.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

A problem with defining class in Canada is related to the problem with defining the "Left" here. The boundaries are fuzzy. As the Left is concerned with the rights of women, gays, minorities, etc. the concerns of the working classes per se are left without a forum of their own. This is the principal reason why the Left is in such a poor state. Liberals can speak to the concerns of these groups just as well as the Left can.

quote:

---

Does anyone else, for instance, find the absence of such analysis most frustrating when, eg, people make loose condemnatory references to, eg, the admittedly tyrannical Saudi regime? Or does anyone have thoughts on why so many would either be unaware of or uncomfortable with class as an analytical marker?

---

In the vaguely left-wing circles I moved in in the 80s and early 90s, I was often struck by how relatively sudden class came up -- outside of the union milieu I was briefly involved in. It's true, of course, that most of us were middle-class in origin, which probably accounts for a good deal of it.

But otherwise, my admittedly crude idea about this was that it had something to do with the ascendency at the time of identity politics. With all the emphasis on "the voiceless getting a voice," all the standard formulas of condemnation including the deathless "racistsexisthomophobic," it struck me that despite some ritual bows in the direction of class, the unspoken feeling about class issues was that they had something to do with trade unionism, while trade unionism in turn had something to do with rough-necked middle-aged white guys protecting their privileges. And that was what we were all supposed to be against, right?

Obviously, this was only an (uncharitable and slightly resentful) oversimplification on my part, even a caricature. But the fit between identity politics and most union activism always seemed rather uneasy, at best.

Edited to add: ooops, should have read Arch Stanton's thoughts more closely before writing this. Pretty much his point. Sorry, Arch.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

We could assume, for a moment, that class distinctions in N.A. really are "fuzzy" and "fluid" (friendly little words, no?). In that case, class wouldn't be a very helpful marker, as long as we're discussing N.A. Class analysis would therefore have more relevance when discussing places in the world where class is relatively fixed and distinct. A lack of such analysis when discussing these places would then perhaps be due to projections of our own "fuzzy" and "fluid" circumstances on the rest of the world.

But I don't think issues of class have been entirely avoided, even when discussing N.A. There seems to be a tacit agreement in the News and Politics threads that a very distinct and unfluid barrier exists between elites and everyone else. You know, the "2% of the population owning just about everything except maybe the fillings in your teeth" statistic. Analysis in these threads is almost exclusively concerned with the effects elite agendas have on everyone else below that level. You might say then, that class analysis has seen a shift in emphasis, rather than a wholesale abandonment: left-leaning, middle-class commentators focus more on the few who are running the entire show, rather than on the other 98%, who are not. This shift in focus may not necessarily be caused by discomfort with, or unawareness of, class--that is, distinctions between the middle- and lower-classes. Instead, it may reflect a recognition that the Emperor's hostility has dramatically increased in relation to the dramatically increased exposure of his nakedness, ever since the sixties. As this hostility affects, in admittedly hugely varying degrees, every other class, living every place on earth, "fuzzy" and "fluid" or not, and since it reflects a real vulnerability on the part of elites, then perhaps middle-class lefties have decided the most effective way to combat it is to continue to focus on its exposure. After all, class analysis, in the limited sense of a focus on elite power, has obviously been extremely effective, otherwise the Emperor wouldn't be trying so desperately to blind the onlookers.

[Raises horns, realizes a chinashop is itself class-distinct, and, humbly leaving his vulgar conclusions to foul the floor, exeunts.]

[edited to spell emperor rite. twice.]

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]

Well, you can't say I never I warned you that I don't know much about Marx. You most sointinly can't , and I still don't. One more negative and I'll need an anti-depressant. Which is more than I can say for some people around here.

.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

quote:

---

left-leaning, middle-class commentators

---

These are the people who piss off the working class the most: the managers, lawyers, reporters, teachers - in effect, the middle class boot that does the dirty work for the élites, making sure the workers are kept in their proper station.

The working class is not taken with the left because the left has made itself irrelevant, hence the popularity of Reform/Alliance. The "middle class left" is more concerned with (as I have already said) minorities, gays, women etc. than with the concerns of the great majority of workers who aren't complaining, but instead are putting their back to the wheel and trying to get ahead. The left doesn't have any time for them, and they know it.

Income? It changes, sometimes drastically and suddenly. A well-heeled executive can become homeless in six months - but he can never be working-class, even if he finds a factory job. The child of solidly middle-class professionals may well be working-class, if he doesn't go to university, or takes a degree in some unmarketable discipline. A sharp North-ender might become rich, selling rebuilt cars or inventing a successful gizmo.

Education? Anyone determined enough can become educated. Of course it's easier if the parents have money, but you can't tell which is which. The same holds true of taste, speech, attire. So much of our appearance, language and preference comes from mass media that the residents of manor and trailer may be indistinguishable.

Family background? If the family isn't at least third generation Canadian and well established in a given place, you can't tell. With people coming from so many cultures (they may have a strong sense of class in their country of origin, which is not recognized here). It's too difficult to set a single standard with so many variables.

I think many, if not most, people are uncomfortable with the idea of class, because we have no common set of rules by which to define it. Many people would be hard put to classify themselves, let alone anyone else - and it's impossible to guess what criteria the other person uses.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

CLASS INCOMES DEFINED

Representative Frederick Heineman (R - N.C.) finally cleared up this class thing. He told us that middle class is, "Someone making from $300K to $750K a year." Old Fred takes a $50K a year police pension and his $133K income from Congress (not to forget the top notch free national health care and every benefit known to man or beast) and goes on to tell us "That does not make me rich. That does not make me middle class. In my opinion, that makes me lower middle class, when I see anyone above $750K that is upper middle class." Thanks for clearing that all up for us Fred. Gosh... Ya know, just that fast, I personally no longer know one single member of the middle class.

---

The middle class left likes to deal with the issues of minority rights, gays, women, etc. because no matter what happens, these people will remain minorities, gay, women, etc., whereas if the working classes are able to ascend, they become a threat.

quote:

---

if the working classes are able to ascend, they become a threat

---

Is there more than one working class? I've often wondered. I suppose working people are divided into skilled and unskilled; urban and rural; blue, grey, white and pink collars... These people don't necessarily consider their interests to be the same. Even without the above distinctions, there is a strong division between labour supporters and conservatives.

Any particualar member of a class may be assimilated into another class - higher or lower - and make no difference.
But, suppose the entire working class were to attain a higher standard of living and education, it would still be the working class (because, presumably, the factory workers and miners and tomato pickers would still be doing the same work, only for more pay) and the wherewithal would have to come from somewhere. Threat, if it means the middle class had to lower its standard of living, but fine and good if the middle class also had its standard of living raised.

Laclau and Mouffe followed closely the developments of Marxist and Social Democratic thought after Marx and Engels and specifically followed the development of several topoi of Marxist analysis, concepts like class, revolutionary action, history, the Party, general strike, proletariat as the universal class, and such. And what was it that was considered a necessity, and what a contingency in Marxist/SocDem political struggles and visions. It is interesting to see how early the issue of dislocated identification of class have been raised, the relation and representation between socialist/marxist analysts and the *actual* working class. Another disclocation was always of interest, the fact that the first successful revolution happened in Russia, the Tzarist country that was far from the state of mature modernity that Marx predicted would be ripe for revolutionary action. Also, another problem with important developments: is the proletariat the true universal class whose liberation would automatically bring the liberation of the entire society, or is there some work to be done on the universalization of proletariat's particularism, some ideological/discursive negotiation over what is a desirable political change?

It occurs to one that much of classical Marxist/SocDem thought had to do a lot of theoretical 'damage control': instances of mediation and representation would always find their way into leftist theoretical systems that yearned for all things 'direct', direct participation, direct articulation of interests, direct access to historical trends, full disalienation. The history of the concept of class contains a history of processes of class identification, both on the personal level of 'class-ised' actors, and on the level of a Marxist or Socialist theorist of class who looks into the category, identifies it.

Anyway, I can't possibly hope to summerize the work here, and it is much more complex than I am able to present. As the last remark, I find their concept of hegemony, esp. its neutral to positive usage for leftist purposes or purposes of a different universalism, very intriguing.

Amazon website has good readers' reviews here. There's a page intended for students and this summary is more or less OK if you manage to endure the 'it's' instead of 'its' errors that show up with odd consistency...

So I guess my point was that when we think of class, we are part of the processes that happen whenever we think of 'gender', 'queerness' or 'race'.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

Some of you, notably Trespasser, are strong on theory. I'm hopeless on theory; haven't even read most of the books.

I basically don't believe in classes, though i sometimes refer to them for convenience. I think the concept worked reasonably well (not infallibly) in social structures that remained stable for a century or longer; in the shifting, changing technological world, class is almost meaningless. An Microserf is middle class by income, but just as disposable and inconsequential as any labourer. A peasant may be a peniless migrant apple-picker or a wealthy businessman. The designations are nothing like what the same words meant in England, c. 1602.

My experience is that I usually cannot maintain friendship with someone way above my financial situation (or way above my class, to use the term that still makes sense to me). I usually do anything I can to save the friendship, but to no avail. On many levels, you fail to talk with each other. In some periods of my life, I had situations like these: she talks about her trouble with finding a good car mechanic, and I can't afford the monthly bus pass. He talks about his summer vacation plans and I am thinking of a summer McJob that I need to find. She insists that we meet at coffee shops and restaurants and I can' afford to go there as many times a month. And when the person that is way above my class happens to be way below me in education (NB: not formal ed.), now there's a recipe for hell.

But those friends of mine that had at their disposal and *used* middle-class status tools often came from a working class background. And it is true, people who have had comfortable upbringing tend to adopt more easily the 'frugal middle-class' life styles than those who have become middle-class later in their lives. There's a certain old-money restraint in spending that, for instance, goes well with some of the new eco-sensitive life styles today. (I think Pierre Bourdieu wrote about this very effectively.) Someone who grew up in a 2,5 bedroom apartment and as a third child got her own room when she was about to go to the university, will yearn to own her own house or at least an apartment. Someone who learns to drive on a 20-year old father's clunker in a country where women drivers and car owners are still fewer than men, will want her own car in some periods of her life. Someone who could not afford to eat high quality meat (let's say, from small farmers in New Zealand), French cheese, seafood, and kiwi as many times a week as they want will not likely become a vegan as soon as they can afford the foods. And for a significant number of those cases, I would not dare to suggest that what happened was the adoption of the hegemonic consumerist values from the lower strata. It's about eating fish or having a room of one's own, for chrissake.

(In many other cases, though, the sub-middle-class classes are indeed the great protectors of consumerism-and-waste values.)

But where was I?

1) Maybe it's my why-am-I-apologetic Marxism showing through, but class has less to do with income than with how you earn income. In general, if you work for a boss, you're proletarian. If you're your own boss, you're petit bourgeois. And if you're a boss, you're bourgeois. A proletarian might earn more money than a member of the petit bourgeoisie or even the bourgeoisie (think of hockey players), but his attitudes are shaped by his still being a tool of a boss.

2) I agree with some of the others on this thread that the Left's current malaise stems from its abandonment of class as its central organising principal. And that's why I distrust the Svend Robinson-style campaign to reorganise the NDP as an umbrella group for social movements. Class politics is inclusionary. Most people are proletarians. But the demands of the women's movement, environmentalists, gay rights and minority groups are at odds with each other, and with the working class as a whole.

3) That reminded me of one of my favourite lines from the Manifesto. Marx and Engels had nothing but derision for what they called "bourgeois socialism": "A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of hte condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind." I can't help but chuckle whenever I read that.

4) Another relevant quote from the Manifesto (and no, I don't usually quote Marx, only whem I'm a little grumpy): "The undeveloped state of the class struggle causes socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class."

5) That reminds me of an old song by British dub poet Linton Kwesi Johnson called "What About De Workin' Class." I must be getting old, though...can't remember the words. But I remember that it was inspiring. And relevant to this thread. Really.

There. I put away my copy of the Manifesto. Just one last thought. I can think of two examples of seemingly progressive policies that, stripped of class content, have regressive effects.

One is the campaign against school bullying. If there is one thing proletarians have in common, it's a sense of solidarity against authority. Working class kids learn quickly that you don't rat out your friends--or even your enemies. But anti-bullying campaigns make ratting a positive virtue. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I think it's not bullying that is the target of the campaign, but that instinctive us-against-them, class-consciousness-in-utero (kind of) that the kids develop.

Another is increased enforcement of child support orders. The targets are most often those working class men who can't afford good legal help. The ostensible beneficiaries are often women living on income assistance. But the kids don't get a cent--it's simply deducted from the custodial parent's IA cheque, saving the state money.

Sorry for the long post.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Terry Johnson ]

Trespasser - Yeah, it's difficult to keep up friendships when your daily experience is quite different. That doesn't just happen with different economic circumstances, though: it happens when one gets a job with megolobank and the other joins the army; when one has a baby and the other grows weary of applauding every gurgle; when one moves to the country and the other is still riding the streetcar downtown; when one is happily married and the other comes out of the closet...

quote:

---

But, Terry... Marx and Engels are DEAD.
And i'm not sure they hung out all that much with factory workers when alive.
Turns out, the middle-class socialists (bleeding-heart liberals) got a whole lot more laws and customs changed than the radical theorists did. As for the proletariat as dictators (grown-up bullies), they didn't do such a hot job in Russia. So, who knows?

---

Yep, Marx and Engels are dead. But while alive they actually did spend a lot of time with factory workers. They were both leaders of the First International, which brought together workers from throughout Europe. They spoke regularly at union meetings. And Engels (a class traitor--he was a factory owner) wrote an important book on the living conditions of English workers.