knock
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 15,462
The trifle annoyed thread has become a sort of breeding ground for new threads. Here's its latest offspring.
There are several definitions of class, which are based on different sorts of social analysis. Which analysis is most appropriate depends on what you want to achieve. I wouldn't say any one is right or wrong, they are all valid schemes of classification, but some have more utility than others. The one that seems to me to be most useful is the scheme outlined by Marx.
Marxist class analysis is largely based on the relationship people have to the means of production. Means of production is not a term that you hear every day but it's a concept that's central to our lives. The means of production are the things that we use to create the things we need: machinery, factories, offices, computers, tractors, farms, power stations, etc. You might include things like patents too. It's often appropriate to extend the concept to include the means of distribution, so lorries, trains, shops, warehouses, etc. These things are important to our existence in a very fundamental way. So too, therefore, is our relationship to them. Some people own the means of production, and some people do not.
Those who own the means of production have a lot of control over how we live. They may or may not do actual work, i.e. operate the means of production. When they don't join workers on the shop floor, Marx calls them the bourgeoisie*. So the likes of Richard Branson are clearly members of the bourgeoisie.
When they do get their hands dirty, he calls them the petite, or petty, bourgeoisie. That would include, for example, an independent taxi driver, who owns his taxi and also drives it. He may or may not own other taxis and employ other drivers.
Those who do not own the means of production are the working class, or the proletariat. Because they don't own the means of production, they must seek employment by those who do. Sometimes they are employed, and sometimes they are unemployed.
There are more nuances to Marxist class analysis. I can't describe it in full in a post, but he also identified landlords as a class, and he grouped farmers and peasants together. But he was describing things as they were at the time, during the industrial revolution, so society was in a transition from feudal system to a capitalist system. I think if he was writing now, he wouldn't mention peasants, and he would probably include farmers and landlords in the bourgeoisie. He probably wouldn't even use the word "bourgeoisie", but it was an appropriate word at the time he was writing.
Marx wanted to see an improvement in the lot of the workers, because he saw the terrible conditions in which they lived (in Manchester, mostly!) and he chose to analyse society in this way because it reveals tensions in society. There is a tension between the workers and the bourgeoisie because they have conflicting interests. It is, generally, in the worker's interest to get a higher wage, and to reduce the number of hours they work, and to work at a relaxed pace. Opposed to this, it is in the interests of business owners to pay workers less and have them work longer hours and faster. So his analysis reveals a class conflict in society, one that is ever present under capitalism. We are no longer in the middle of the industrial revolution, so some of the language and examples Marx uses can appear archaic, but the fundamental tension between workers and owners is intact, so his analysis is still very relevant, but it takes some imagination to apply his language to current times.
The other definitions of class do not have this revelatory power. The Marxist analysis is dangerous because to understand it is to understand that we are engaged in a battle for our lives. The establishment would far rather you judged people's class on their accent or their job or where they came from, because doing so avoids the recognition of the conflict which is intrinsic to the system we live in. If you don't know you're at war, you're unlikely to fight.
* bourgeois
There are several definitions of class, which are based on different sorts of social analysis. Which analysis is most appropriate depends on what you want to achieve. I wouldn't say any one is right or wrong, they are all valid schemes of classification, but some have more utility than others. The one that seems to me to be most useful is the scheme outlined by Marx.
Marxist class analysis is largely based on the relationship people have to the means of production. Means of production is not a term that you hear every day but it's a concept that's central to our lives. The means of production are the things that we use to create the things we need: machinery, factories, offices, computers, tractors, farms, power stations, etc. You might include things like patents too. It's often appropriate to extend the concept to include the means of distribution, so lorries, trains, shops, warehouses, etc. These things are important to our existence in a very fundamental way. So too, therefore, is our relationship to them. Some people own the means of production, and some people do not.
Those who own the means of production have a lot of control over how we live. They may or may not do actual work, i.e. operate the means of production. When they don't join workers on the shop floor, Marx calls them the bourgeoisie*. So the likes of Richard Branson are clearly members of the bourgeoisie.
When they do get their hands dirty, he calls them the petite, or petty, bourgeoisie. That would include, for example, an independent taxi driver, who owns his taxi and also drives it. He may or may not own other taxis and employ other drivers.
Those who do not own the means of production are the working class, or the proletariat. Because they don't own the means of production, they must seek employment by those who do. Sometimes they are employed, and sometimes they are unemployed.
There are more nuances to Marxist class analysis. I can't describe it in full in a post, but he also identified landlords as a class, and he grouped farmers and peasants together. But he was describing things as they were at the time, during the industrial revolution, so society was in a transition from feudal system to a capitalist system. I think if he was writing now, he wouldn't mention peasants, and he would probably include farmers and landlords in the bourgeoisie. He probably wouldn't even use the word "bourgeoisie", but it was an appropriate word at the time he was writing.
Marx wanted to see an improvement in the lot of the workers, because he saw the terrible conditions in which they lived (in Manchester, mostly!) and he chose to analyse society in this way because it reveals tensions in society. There is a tension between the workers and the bourgeoisie because they have conflicting interests. It is, generally, in the worker's interest to get a higher wage, and to reduce the number of hours they work, and to work at a relaxed pace. Opposed to this, it is in the interests of business owners to pay workers less and have them work longer hours and faster. So his analysis reveals a class conflict in society, one that is ever present under capitalism. We are no longer in the middle of the industrial revolution, so some of the language and examples Marx uses can appear archaic, but the fundamental tension between workers and owners is intact, so his analysis is still very relevant, but it takes some imagination to apply his language to current times.
The other definitions of class do not have this revelatory power. The Marxist analysis is dangerous because to understand it is to understand that we are engaged in a battle for our lives. The establishment would far rather you judged people's class on their accent or their job or where they came from, because doing so avoids the recognition of the conflict which is intrinsic to the system we live in. If you don't know you're at war, you're unlikely to fight.
* bourgeois
Last edited:
Good.
