[lbo-talk] Re: working class?

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Tue Oct 18 05:46:42 PDT 2005


At 11:12 PM -0700 17/10/05, joanna wrote:


>Well, yes, if you take "class" as an economic category, the above is
>formally true. But "class" is a political as well as an economic
>category, and the political profile is much murkier than the
>economic one.
>
>Politically, the working class is divided both from the middle class
>and the upper class in a variety of ways
>
>-- lack of education
>-- lack of economic cushion
>-- lack of political organization
>-- manual, not brain workers
>
>I'm painting with a broad stroke here, but most people would cite
>those elements in distinguishing the working class from the middle
>class. That is to say, both "working class" and "middle class" are
>"working class" economically, but not politically.
>
>It is that difference between the political and economic context
>that makes political organizing extremely difficult until there is
>an economic crises which dissolves the privileges of the "middle
>class."

Do you perhaps mean culturally in some sort of way, rather than politically? So far as I can see, your working class (that is to say manual workers) have much the same formal political rights as anyone else. There appear to be some other holes as well, not the least the distinction between "brain workers" and "manual workers".

It is important to understand that no such clear distinction can be drawn, nearly all workers in a modern industrial society require a fairly high level of education. Trades require extensive technical education these days, never mind an extensive basic education (in historical terms) without which it is virtually impossible to function in an industrial society.

As far as lack of political organisation, I just don't see you can make that a defining characteristic? In the USA this is merely a symptom of the capitalist class's economic power. The capitalist class has cleverly designed the electoral system system so that political parties are unable to be involved, so that members of working class political parties must register as such and leave themselves vulnerable to the full force of economic retaliation (black-listing) by the employers.

It makes no difference whether you are a manual or a "brain" worker incidentally, the structural obstacles present the same problem. In fact it might be said that most intellectual workers have even more to lose if their political involvement leads to black-listing than the labourer. But its all down to economics as I say. The capitalist has quite a lot less to fear from the threat of economic black-listing. A capitalist can't be sacked by his workers because they disagree with the political party he is publicly registered as being a supporter of, so the capitalist can be openly active in any political party he chooses. He can register for the party of his choice, thus giving him the right to have a say in the primaries without any fear.

That doesn't apply to your "middle class" anymore than it applies to your "manual working class". There is no political division between these, because both must cow before the economic power of the capitalist class. And we can see that economic power is thus the only real power in a capitalist system.

Thus, to dismiss "economic class" as only one of many important factors is to completely misunderstand the situation. Most power is based on economic power. Other power mostly flows from it and always depends on it. Sure, economic power is always somewhat tempered by public opinion, especially to the extent that the capitalist class depends on consent for its continued existence. But the mob has to eat.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list