gentrification

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Mon Aug 23 17:58:35 PDT 1999


kelley wrote:


> while max and wojtek were defining a "real" working class, it was
hardly one defined as one in which the homeless weren't part of the working class. no one has said that, really.<

not max, but wojtek. a distinction between the homeless and the working class was strongly implied, enough to take issue with it on two occassions, directly. wojtek wrote: "(cf. defending the right of the homeless to squat in public parks) that marginalize and alienate the Left from the working class which has to deal with reality on every day basis."

moreover, unlike others who posted on the subject, wojtek emphatically did not construe that 'reality which had to be dealt with' as the specific reality of homelessness, but rather, his point of departure was the reality of those who endure shit on their doorsteps, panhandling, etc.

it's true wojtek didn't say specifically that the homeless were not part of the working class. but, confronted with both a disagreement and a direct question (now, three times), he continued to use the formulation, as in the above, that the left do not represent the working class when they defend the homeless' right to squat in parks.


> he pointed to defending the right of the
> homeless to squat in public parks as something that would alienate
> folks

no he didn't. he did not refer to some generalised 'folks', but rather to 'ordinary people', then working class, and the inflection of an authentic working class became stronger as the posts (the replies to my posts) proceeded.


> who might otherwise agree with leftist critiques of capitalism etc.
> you agreed yourself that this was hardly adequate and i don't think
> wojtek ever disagreed with you.

what did i agree was hardly adequate? on defending the right of the homeless to squat in parks, i wrote: "and, how exactly is defending the right of the homeless to socialise their homelessness by living in public spaces an absurd position? no one would suggest it's a solution, but it what are the other immediate options for someone looking to bed down for the night?" not exactly what you want to make of what i wrote, is it?


> furthermore, had you been paying attn to the context, then you'd
realize that above comments were made by way of contrasting an "authentic" working class against upper middle class folks who romanticize the working class<

it's you who haven't been paying attention, especially to the cadences of a (i suspect an exaltation of blue collar authenticism) that, in order to present itself as really a critique of 'middle class do-gooders' must of necessity define the homeless as outside the working class, as no longer part of the left's (or that part of it which priveliges the working class, however defined) constituency.


> wojtek's original point simply highlights the fact the the working
class in the US is not some homogeneous entity.<

this is your inflection, not wojtek's. if it had been ever a claim wojtek made, i would have responded as i do now to you below.


> and, right or wrong, people who earn a paycheck every week, however
tenuous that is, do, in fact, see themselves as having different interests than, say, the homeless or welfare recipients.<

perhaps they so see themselves as having different interests in the US. this would be a result of any kinds of differences in the mode of life and livelihood within the working class, as much relating to housing as the labour process, distinctions which are themselves not a matter of identity but identification and the history of class composition/decomposition. an important part of which is the ways in which these results are articulated in the kinds of things wojtek has been saying. but, in order to make a claim that the left's constituency is one or other sides of these divisions, either reasons have to be given along the lines of (as i mentioned in a post to max) 'this is the growing section of the working class/economy/etc', or (to add) 'the situation of this section of the working class means a defeat for the working class as a whole' (eg, labour laws relating to the use of public space, the zoning of poverty, etc). or some such along those lines.

wojtek, by contrast, takes the path of defining these sections as no longer working class, as if the decision to not defend the rights of the homeless (in the examples given, to beg and to squat in parks) somehow naturally flows from a committment to the working class.

perhaps after all this spirited defense, wojtek can clarify (or rather, change) his definition of the working class. though i doubt he's capable of thinking at all clearly right at this moment, given this monumental idiocy:


>> A case in point: a contributor to this list did not object to the
existence of homelessness - which is abominable in a society that experiences overproduction of almost anything. Instead, she was concerned about such amenities like shithouses for the homeless in public parks. It seems like a lifestyle being preserved at the expense of quality of life.<<

Angela _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list