At my co-op meeting today, we're discussing getting someone to fill a vacancy and this bloke (mate of mine actually) starts crapping on about how we want to avoid letting in any low-life. "Hang on," I say, "that's what we're here for isn't it? To house the low-life" "We're all low-life aren't we?" For Christ's sake, everyone in the co-op is on the pension or on the dole, but of course the people on the pension think they're better than the people on the dole and the people on the dole think they're better than someone who lives in a crap area and so it goes.
But don't lecture me, don't try to tell me that that's just the way it is, that I have to accept that and to work within its limitations. I don't accept that the this system is the way it always has to be, so it follows that I don't accept that the way people think about class is something that has to be incorporated into any organisation. (And vice versa in your case, I accuse).
Because, fellow worker, the way people view class is part of the problem, not part of the solution. To organise around a fictional class analysis is strategic poison. Class unity is the only viable strategic plan, organising around class disunity, as you advise, would be patently absurd. We all have to wake up to ourselves, or we'll stay right here, up shit without a paddle.
Incidentally, I didn't say I don't think those things matter to organisation. As you can see, I think they are of the very highest importance. If you are organising in support of the status quo, it might even be useful to accept the ideology of the status quo. But I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in challenging the system and plainly it is necessary to point out where its ideology is in conflict with reality
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas.
At 9:36 AM -0400 18/10/05, Dick Grippon wrote:
>Look. When I studied downsized managers and professionals, they
>simply didn't see themselves as low-life working class people. Some
>of them started to get a clue--even saying things like, "Gee, maybe
>this is what unions are for...." But, in the end, they couldn't bear
>to be thought of as working class and didn't see themselves as such.
>That is because it is a shameful thing to be thought of as working
>class in this country. You ,now that, if youre hands are dirty or
>your clothes are stained from work, people like Wojtek think you're
>a racist scumbag. So, you try to avoid appearing to be working
>class, as best as you can figure out. At the least, you don't say
>you are.
>
>similarly, on a list for tech writers, when the topic of moving to
>hourly pay rather than salaried comes up, there is an incredible
>resistance to the idea that writers should get paid by the hour.
>They think it makes them sound like clock watchers or, worse, union
>members. And, you can't be a good writer (professional, middle class
>person) if you watch the clock and belong to a union. A member of a
>union, as a clock watcher, is not on the side of management, not on
>the side of power. They don't want to be part of the successful
>team. They monkey wrench an otherwise good system and drag people
>down with them in the gutter.
>
>So, don't go hourly. Even if you work 60 hours a week on salary.
>You'll be down there, in the gutter!
>
>If you don't think those things matter to organization, to how
>people interact with one another, I don't know what to say. You can
>bluster all you want, tell those downsized managers they are really
>working stiffs all you want. They'll just laugh and tell you that
>you're another union-type who wants to drag everyone down in the
>gutter with them. IOW, you're a version of welfare pimp.
>
>kelley
>
>At 08:46 AM 10/18/2005, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>>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
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk