Skip to main content

Am I Working Class? Mon. 15 May, Morning Star

MAY
2017
Monday 15TH  posted by Morning Star 
In the third in a series of Marxist Q&As, the MARX MEMORIAL LIBRARY examines the difference between economic and social class

ECONOMIC class is a role that people occupy, not a tag that attaches to individuals. But if you want a label, the simple answer is yes, if you work for a living (you receive a wage) and you don’t own or control capital.
If your employer gets more “value” from the work you do than you receive in wages, you’re working-class.
Even if you think you’ve got it cushy in your own job, collectively with other workers you produce more value than you get paid — Marx called the difference “surplus value.”
If you didn’t you’d all very quickly be sacked or the firm would go bust.
And let’s assume you’ve got a stocks and shares ISA — this still doesn’t make you a capitalist.
You still have to work and although your ISA money is invested in different types of capital, you have no direct control over how it is invested or how the profits are used and you probably couldn’t live off the interest.
Don’t be fooled either by the fact that you and your partner own the home you live in.
Yours isn’t an investment property (the fact that you rent out a room to pay the mortgage is irrelevant) and you don’t make a profit on it so it isn’t “capital.”
Even if you sold it, you’d have to buy somewhere else to live in and if you downsized it’s unlikely you’d be able to live off the balance.
It is important to distinguish economic class (people’s relationship to capital and the “means of production” — how goods, services and profit are produced) from the sociologist’s “social class” — a hierarchical division of people (at its crudest, “upper,” “middle” and “lower” class) according to their income, lifestyle or tastes.
That sociological division is the one usually taught in schools and universities and assumed in the media, for whom the term “working class” is reserved mainly for those who work by manual labour — making and handling things in factories, shops, etc. Or who correspond to the stereotypes presented on television.
It’s an approach which is subjective and confused (for example the “creative industries” are usually excluded).
Social class distinctions are also relative. Say you live in Surrey, the golf club prides itself on its exclusiveness, on the “class” of its members who see it as a place to network and do business as well as to relax.
But in other places golf is a game for everyone, not a sign of social status.
And these social distinctions change with time. Doctors and teachers no longer have the relatively privileged status that they once did.
Social class and economic class are often confused.
Social class can be a source of prejudice and discrimination.
For example research for the government’s Social Mobility Commission found that people from “working-class” backgrounds who get professional jobs are paid an average of £6,800 (17 per cent) less each year than colleagues from more affluent backgrounds.
Even when they have the same educational attainment, role and experience as their more privileged colleagues, those from poorer backgrounds are still paid an average of £2,242 (7 per cent) less. Women and ethnic minorities face additional earnings disadvantage.
Removing these social inequalities is obviously important, however it does not in itself pose a challenge to capitalism; indeed, the support given (or lip-service paid) by neoliberal politicians to improving social mobility suggests that it is seen as potentially enhancing “efficiency” (and labour competition) in key market sectors.
The “sociological” approach to class — the way it is presented in the media and popularly used — is often divisive, implying that “middle class” teachers (for example) do not have a common interest with other workers in building a better world. They do.
In economic terms, the working class constitutes all those who have to sell their labour power by hand and brain (the two cannot be separated) in order to subsist and who don’t exploit the labour of others.
There are grey areas of course. The boards and remuneration committees of Britain’s top companies would no doubt claim (if they understood the term) that their CEOs (who each “earn” an average of £5.5 million per annum, some 130 times more than their employees) do generate “surplus value.”
But their work is focused on profit and directly exploitative of their workers.
So the fact that you’re not a manual worker, directly producing or selling goods, doesn’t mean that you’re not working class.
You might be a teacher, a doctor, a civil servant or local government employee.
You might be one of the escalating number of people employed on a zero-hours contract or through an agency.
You might be genuinely self-employed with your own small business. But you still have to “sell” your labour and you’re not willingly exploiting other people.
And you don’t have to be in employment to be working class.
You could be unemployed for various reasons, including disability, but the chances are you’d still be dependent on others in work — if not directly (your family or friends), then (if you receive benefits) through other workers’ taxes. But you’d not be making a profit from their labour and you’d still be working class.
Today the working class, understood on these terms, constitutes upwards of 85 per cent of the population. Yes, you are working class.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An overview of the 1934 Toledo Auto-Lite strike - Philip A. Korth & Margaret R. Beegle

LIBCOM.ORG A summary by Philip A. Korth and Margaret R. Beegle of the 1934 Toledo Auto-Lite strike. Originally appeared as the second chapter of I remember like today: the Auto-Lite strike of 1934, an oral history. The strikes at Auto-Lite in Toledo in the spring of 1934 secured a victory for the fledgling Automobile Workers Federal Union Local 18384 of the AFL and permanently altered the nature of worker-employer relationships in Toledo. This victory assured that working men and women in Toledo would have some power over their working lives and a voice in their community. Workers in Toledo today owe a debt of gratitude to the "unholy thirteen" who huddled over the fires burning in drums in front of Auto-Lite and who dreamed of freedom and dignity. And as today grows out of yesterday, so the workers in 1934 faced a set of conditions and attitudes shaped decades before by the industrial evolution of Toledo, the development of the automobile industry, and the historical strugg…

Ukrainian Labour Temple in Winnipeg a national historic site,10 Aug. 2009, NUGPE

http://www.nupge.ca/node/2478



Landmark site was a hub of activity during the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 and it has long been of great historic significance to the Canadian labour movement.

Winnipeg (10 Aug. 2009) - The Ukrainian Labour Temple in Winnipeg's North End – a focal point of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 – has been designated a national historic site by the federal government.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada says the designation recognizes the architectural significance of the building and "the important role it played in the social and cultural activities of Ukrainian Canadians."
The Ukranian Labour Temple was a centre of trade union activity during the historic Winnipeg General Strike of 1919

Built in 1918-19, the structure is the first and largest Ukrainian labour temple erected in Canada. It was built primarily by volunteer labour and financed by donations and served as a key hub for Ukrainian culture and political activism at the tim…

A US-Supported Coup in the Making in Nicaragua by Carlos Dada, 10 July, 2018

Jacinto Suarez, a legislator and the International Secretary of the Daniel Ortega’s FSLN, tells El Faro it’s all a conspiracy “to overturn the government”. Likewise, he justifies the use of paramilitary forces to aid the Police. Photo: Fred Ramos
By “the oligarchy, the drug dealers and the poor people on the right”
By Carlos Dada(El Faro / Confidencial) HAVANA TIMES – In Nicaragua the media that don’t belong to the government or the presidential family are overflowing with voices demanding the exit of President Daniel Ortega, but there are very few individual Sandinista voices there. The responsibility for such views falls mainly on the Sandinista Front Party and the public officials.  They won’t talk to reporters. There’s generally only an official version, delivered directly by the Vice President Rosario Murillo, using the government’s own communications media. That’s why an interview with Jacinto Suarez merits a higher profile.  Suarez is one of the most influential men in the FSLN. …