Even during the earliest stages of the development of industrial capitalism, the mode described by Marx, the working classes were far from being a homogeneous body. As Thompson The Making of the English Working Class 1963 writes, the English industrial working classes evolves out of a number of disparate groups and never actually ever develops the kind of homogeneity that is implied by an uncritical reading of the abstract theory of class relations of Capital. One of the more interesting observation of Thompson's history is that skilled labour (not all the working class is uneducated, politically disorganized, lacking economic security and engaged in brainless labour) provides the leadership and rank and file of early labour organization (the corresponding societies, the Luddite commandos and so on) as well as a considerable portion of the early capitalist-producer owners.
Another fact that plays a considerable role in the early development of the English working class is the ethnic and political distinction between the organizing, skilled and semi-skilled native English labourers and the unskilled and almost politically chaotic immigrant Irish labourers. While early labour organization and associated political activity was carried out by the skilled and semi-skilled sectors of the English working classes, unskilled labour was as a whole quite fickle as to its political affiliations and barely if ever truly organized into a disciplined political organization. The distinctions implied by these differences were not only related to occupation and income, but also to important intangibles such as religion, social deportment and so on. While the English working classes were not at all ashamed of their social and economic status, but the very same disdain for "the working classes" evidenced by US professional and skilled labour was quite characteristic of the relation between the skilled and semi-skilled Englishman and the unskilled Irish immigrant. Victor
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Grippon" <abe.initio at gmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 15:36 Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: working class?
> 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
>