Class isnt Simple

So the boozehound metallian returns to wage satanic warfare upon your minds ha ha ha...

Ive done some thinking and now my view is that the Socialist definition of class simplifies things when reality is much more complicated. This definition is accurate since most people ( proletarians as you call them ) do indeed labor for a small minority ( capitalists in your jargon) but it stops short. Why do I think that? Because there are huge differences between various groups of proletarians which makes putting them into the same class senseless. The socialist definition of class puts the roustabout who works for, say Shell Oil, in the same class as the engineer who works for Shell Oil. Simply because they are both selling their labor, which is true, but all similarities end there. I mean the engineer has at least a college degree while the roustabout can be a dropout for fucks sake. They perform totally different types of work and earn different pay rates. My point is making class a matter of ownership is untrue when there are huge differences in education , income, prestige, etc to factor in. Which brings me to write that its funny to think that any sort of class solidarity exists ( or can exist) between accountants all the way to street sweepers. People have been known to band together if their trade is the same or similar enough but thats about where it ends with class solidarity, without which you cant win any kind of class war obviously. Im not saying that it cant ever happen, but I doubt your going to see doctors and bricklayers marching arm in arm to overthrow Capitalism. Some say in revolutionary circumstances that would happen but the thing is you dont know what the fucks gonna happen during a revolution. So much chaos can be unleashed that it could be a everyman for himself game. Anyways my point is class is much more than whether you own a means of production or dont.

The major class divisions in society are those concerning the relationships to the means of production and access to information/empowering labor. Both determine social power and the organization of society into stratified hierarchies. If you can offer any other appreciable class distinctions, do so.

Engineers are a constituent of the coordinator class, along with doctors, lawyers, managers, etc. This class possesses a monopoly over information, knowledge, and the administration of social systems. It is also, relatively speaking, a recently identified class, as earlier socialists have focused overwhelmingly upon the two primary classes within capitalism: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As capitalism has matured, however, the polarization between skilled and unskilled labor has grown, resulting in a more pronounced bifurcation (as predicted by Marxist theory). All of this has been explained to you in the past, of course, but you remain oblivious. The introduction of balanced job complexes is advocated precisely to diminish the gap between skilled and unskilled workers, but you reject this approach.

Even so, I would contend that the majority of the coordinator class, which is nonetheless a component of the working class, shares an interest in the abolition of capitalism. With the exception of a specially privileged minority, most individuals within the coordinator class would fare better under socialism.

Now, I await your jumbled and incoherent reply. (You are a rather amusing troll, I must say.)

Rev Scare wrote:The major class divisions in society are those concerning the relationships to the means of production and access to information. Both determine social power and the organization of society into stratified hierarchies. If you can offer any other appreciable class distinctions, do so.

Engineers are a constituent of the coordinator class, along with doctors, lawyers, managers, etc. This class possesses a monopoly over information, knowledge, and the administration of social systems. It is also, relatively speaking, a recently identified class, as earlier socialists have focused overwhelmingly upon the two primary classes within capitalism: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As capitalism has matured, however, the polarization between skilled and unskilled labor has expanded, resulting in a more pronounced bifurcation (as predicted by Marxist theory). All of this has been explained to you in the past, of course, but you remain oblivious. The introduction of balanced job complexes is advocated precisely to diminish the gap between skilled and unskilled workers, but you reject this approach.

Even so, I would contend that the majority of the coordinator class, which is nonetheless a component of the working class, shares an interest in the abolition of capitalism. With the exception of a specially privileged minority, most individuals within the coordinator class would fare better under socialism.

Now, I await your jumbled and incoherent reply. (You are a rather amusing troll, I must say.)

Sure bourgeoisie and proletarians ( as you say) can be made out into two classes but I think doing so is useless. I mean okay you have people who own nothing and work for someone else and you have those who own something and have others work for them but the point is there are different groups in the " proletariat" itself that are large enough to be called different classes. I think class isnt and never will be a clear cut issue but its more realistic to divide people into more than just two classes. Blue Collar Workers, White Collar Workers, Money Men ( Capitalists as you say), Academics ( teachers, professors, etc), and Rulers ( politicians and other similar people) are the classes I think people should be put into. Of course there are subclasses within those classes ( skilled and unskilled blue collar workers or white collars who make more than others). Also it seems to me that Socialists forget that class is also a matter of mentality. Sure today it isnt as true as it was 100 years ago , but there are differences as to what a dockworker does for fun as opposed to a professor. There certainly are many exceptions to the rule but your more likely to see a carpenter get into a drunken brawl at a honky tonk then an office worker. So called respectable ( aka calm and controlled) behavior is a white collar ideal while loud rowdy fun is a blue collar one. The blue collar and white collar mentality are different and expecting these two classes to unite in the name of class struggle isnt as easy as it seems. Ill get more into this ( and also into why I think the socialist worldview clashes with blue collar ideals) on another thread but my point is these two groups of workers should be put into separate classes. Academics should be put into a separate class of their own as well along with the Capitalists. And as for balanced job complexes, Im against any sort of system ( because I think humans turn into fucking scum when it comes to wielding power) so thats why I dont support it.

I dont have much to say about coordinators at the moment so I await your reply.

I will preface this by stating that you have yet to offer a more instrumental definition of class. I truly do not possess Celtiberian's degree of patience; therefore, I am uncertain as to whether or not I shall bother to continue seriously replying to your rambling, infantile nonsense in the future.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Sure bourgeoisie and proletarians ( as you say) can be made out into two classes but I think doing so is useless. I mean okay you have people who own nothing and work for someone else and you have those who own something and have others work for them

Those are the two major class divisions characterizing the capitalist mode of production, and the implications of such social relations are tremendously significant. A small minority of people, the ownership or capitalist class, appropriates the surplus product created by another group, the working class. One group owns the means of production and controls the production, allocation, and distribution of wealth; the other has only its own labor to sell, but it produces all the wealth in society. One class, essentially, exploits another in a mindless pursuit of wealth accumulation, and in so doing, it produces poverty, political inequality, pollution, imperialism, etc.

To reiterate: one class decides how to direct surplus labor, whilst another must toil underneath it. This is the single greatest inequality in society, which infuses every other facet of our social formation. How is this a "useless" differentiation, then? All of the arbitrary "classes" you reference below are merely specifications of this fundamental social polarization: they are all different segments of the working class, all providing various forms of labor, but labor nonetheless. All are exploited and subjugated to capital.

but the point is there are different groups in the " proletariat" itself that are large enough to be called different classes.

The only meaningful discrimination between workers is the recognition of a coordinator class within the proletariat.

I think class isnt and never will be a clear cut issue but its more realistic to divide people into more than just two classes.

Class is not a monolithic construct, but your treatment of it is singularly vapid.

Blue Collar Workers, White Collar Workers,

Are still workers, bound to capital.

Money Men ( Capitalists as you say)

Capitalists are not simply "money men" or financiers. A capitalist is somebody who owns the means of production and hires wage labor. By virtue of mere ownership of the productive forces, the capitalist comes to appropriate the social product. The capitalist hires wage laborers and allows them to expend their labor power upon the capitalist's private means of production, thus producing a greater value in commodities than what the capitalist originally invested. This constant accumulation of capital, or wealth expanded through the circulation of commodity exchange, forms the basis of capitalist social relations, and it is the source of all value creation under capitalism, from which flow most other inequalities. Simply put, the capitalist is an unnecessary middle man who expropriates, along with the rest of his fellow capitalists, the discretionary income in society, with all that this ensues.

Academics ( teachers, professors, etc),

These are coordinators, but they are also members of the working class who simply happen to provide mental labor rather than physical.

and Rulers ( politicians and other similar people)

Politicians do not exist in a vacuum. As we live in representative democracies (representative of capital, that is), it is untenable to regard politicians as constituting a strict "class" unto themselves. Instead, politicians under capitalism are merely the political faction of the bourgeoisie, who serve the ruling class through the state, which is nothing more than the executive committee of the national capitalist class.

are the classes I think people should be put into.

I disagree. Your decomposition of the two major classes within capitalism into more distinct components is, for the purposes of theory, activism, and this discussion, completely irrelevant.

Of course there are subclasses within those classes ( skilled and unskilled blue collar workers or white collars who make more than others).

These are arbitrary, vague, and largely immaterial distinctions.

Also it seems to me that Socialists forget that class is also a matter of mentality.

No, scientific socialists fully recognize the subjective factors of class (i.e., class consciousness). This is far removed from your petty dissection of various occupations, however..

Sure today it isnt as true as it was 100 years ago , but there are differences as to what a dockworker does for fun as opposed to a professor. There certainly are many exceptions to the rule but your more likely to see a carpenter get into a drunken brawl at a honky tonk then an office worker. So called respectable ( aka calm and controlled) behavior is a white collar ideal while loud rowdy fun is a blue collar one.

Finally, we reach the bottom of your idealist twaddle. Yes, it is true that those relegated to a life of menial, rote, and degrading labor will, in general, express more vulgar behavior and possess a more uncultivated outlook than those whose work and compensation allows them to lead a more elevated existence. Why this should prevent them from uniting in their common interests is beyond my ability to comprehend.

The blue collar and white collar mentality are different and expecting these two classes to unite in the name of class struggle isnt as easy as it seems.

As I have explained previously, both "blue collar" and "white collar" workers share a mutual interest in the transcendence of capitalism. This is true for all but a narrow segment of the coordinator class, which benefits disproportionately from the existing status quo (e.g., overpaid doctors, upper managers, etc.).

Ill get more into this ( and also into why I think the socialist worldview clashes with blue collar ideals) on another thread

To be honest, I am both fascinated and repulsed by how you will attempt to rationalize this absurdity.

but my point is these two groups of workers should be put into separate classes.

Treating coordinators separately in certain contexts is justified, but short of this, there are no objective grounds for their independent classification.

Academics should be put into a separate class of their own as well along with the Capitalists.

I see no reason to ascribe any undue significance to academics (let alone impart them with "class" status) apart from their functional role as ideologists who perpetuate the dominant ideas of social legitimation.

And as for balanced job complexes, Im against any sort of system ( because I think humans turn into fucking scum when it comes to wielding power) so thats why I dont support it.

And by what inane standard of perfection do you judge humanity? Give me a break, eh? You are no longer an angst-ridden teenager.

I dont have much to say about coordinators at the moment so I await your reply.

As I've stated at the beginning of this post, I may not continue this "exchange" with you any longer. You produce very dense bullshit of the highest grade, and I am afraid that I have had more than my fill...

Rebel Warrior 59,

Still as pathetic and derisive as ever then? I had thought not to write on this forum again, but your dribble has driven me to reconsider. Please read the following, read a few basic Marxist writings and think (if capable) something useful. Although this article deals with Britain it applies to any nation throughout the globe.

Two Classes in Britain

WORKERS, FEB 2011 ISSUE

In Britain, there are only two classes – those who sell their labour power and those who exploit the labour of others, in other words workers and capitalists. Over the course of many centuries, capitalism has simplified class antagonisms. And in this respect, Britain has travelled furthest simply because of its long, thoroughgoing experience of capital – with its first appearance on the land, then in commercial activities, latterly in industry and finance.

As far back as late medieval times following the onset of the Black Death, Britain’s peasantry was abolished and transformed into agricultural wage-labourers. Then in subsequent centuries the march of industrial and financial capital greatly expanded the ranks of the working class. In 1848 Marx and Engels presciently observed in The Communist Manifesto that “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.” Now the vast majority of British people are workers who are selling their labour power, ranged against a tiny minority of capitalists who are exploiting the labour of others. We are many; they are few. And in the world beyond Britain, likewise there has been a massive, rapid growth of the proletariat during the last two hundred and fifty years. Essentially, the world is dividing into the two classes as well, with the peasantry dwindling.

Recognising which class you belong to helps you find your way through life’s problems. You understand your place in society, history and development. On the other hand, rejection of class encourages political confusion and fosters a headlong flight from reality.

Although there are only two classes in Britain, not everyone in the working class admits (or welcomes) their class position. Many cling to illusions and fantasies that they are middle class, or professionals or special individuals somehow outside the working class, though in truth there is scarcely a worker who is more than one wage-packet away from extreme destitution, a fact reinforced starkly by the recent economic depression and public service expenditure cuts. These illusions weaken people’s ability to collectively defend and organise. And why the reticence? Surely being a worker, either making or growing things, or providing services, is better than, say, being a banker (as distinct from a bank worker) producing nothing for the betterment of society.

In modern times, groups (colour, religion, gender etc) that are divisive and exclusive are elevated, whereas class, which is unifying and inclusive, is downgraded.

Class is fundamental to everything. Without clarity on it, we do not know who we are, nor can we easily fathom who are our friends or our enemies. In order to interpret and negotiate life confidently, you need to know who you are.
http://www.workers.org.uk/

Hmmm methinks I have nothing more to add since Ive already made my main point ( which is that people of widely different incomes, educational achievements, occupations, etc shouldnt be lumped into two big classes simply based on what they own, since they actually have nothing real in common) so thats all about this topic. Im pretty sure I will make a thread about why Socialism ( in its modern form at least) is totally against the blue collar outlook in the future though.

P.S. Isakenaz I read that article but I dont agree with it. Ive read the Manifesto and Ive tried reading some other Marxist books but I always ended up getting bored on the first page. To be perfectly honest ideology has always sat on the backseat with me. Call me selfish but thats how the way it is and I think Ill stay that way till I at least hit 40.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Hmmm methinks I have nothing more to add since Ive already made my main point ( which is that people of widely different incomes, educational achievements, occupations, etc shouldnt be lumped into two big classes simply based on what they own, since they actually have nothing real in common) so thats all about this topic.

Marxists have never denied that there are classes beyond the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; references to the petite bourgeoisie and peasantry, for instance, abound in virtually every major Marxist economic analysis published. What we argue is that societal progress rests solely in the dialectical dynamic between the bourgeoisie and proletariat—because, as Jack London wrote in War of the Classes (p. 17), "the quarrel over the division of the joint product is irreconcilable," and the petite bourgeoisie and peasantry are inevitably going to become proletarianized during that process. No one has suggested that workers possess a similar mentality or lifestyle either, far from it. We only contend that they share a common interest in overthrowing the class which is responsible for exploiting and oppressing them. To clarify the matter, it may be helpful to think of the proletariat as a military battalion; there are various ranks and occupations therein—which endow individuals with different degrees of wealth and authority—but their objective in battle is unified: defeat the enemy.

Rev Scare already addressed the most pressing division within the working class, that between the coordinator class and disempowered laborers. The only relevance this has in the class struggle is that the individuals belonging to the coordinator class will likely respond more favorably toward those models of socialism which further empower them, e.g., market socialism. The United States' economy, however, currently has the potential to provide every family of four with an annual income of roughly $200,000, provided resources were divided evenly. (A similar rate applies to many other OECD countries.) The overwhelming majority of the proletariat would obviously benefit immensely from an economic system which approached such a level of equality, but the minor segment of the working class which already earns above that rate (i.e., the aforementioned coordinator class) can be expected to resist the construction of a mode of production which would enable such an allocation to occur—they're too numerically insignificant to determine which form of socialism will ultimately be implemented following the revolution, though.

Im pretty sure I will make a thread about why Socialism ( in its modern form at least) is totally against the blue collar outlook in the future though.

Please do.

Ive tried reading some other Marxist books but I always ended up getting bored on the first page. . . . Call me selfish but thats how the way it is and I think Ill stay that way till I at least hit 40.

That's because you're a victim of capitalism's psychologically deleterious consumer culture. In other words, your attention span has been significantly diminished and your interest in anything beyond the narrow confines of possessive individualism has been carefully submerged by the advertising industry. I encourage you to emancipate yourself from false consciousness, preferably before you're 40.

Not to be nitpicky but consumer culture isnt what's holding me back from studying Marxism. Its my hobbies.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Not to be nitpicky but consumer culture isnt what's holding me back from studying Marxism. Its my hobbies.

Good luck with that then.

Nah I dont spend my free time farting on a lighter.