Who is the working class? A thread on Marxism and class theory.
In the wake of the election, accusations are going back and forth about which party is focused on the working class and which party is ignoring the working class.
These debates are unfolding as though everyone has the same definition of the working class, when that is far from the case.
To define the working class requires a theory of class. Now, the word ‘class’ means nothing more than ‘category’, so a class analysis of society involves creating categories. But the question is, on what basis?
People thinking about society have used some form of class analysis for a long time, and one of the oldest of these is to create classes based on income or wealth. (For example, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, written in 350 BCE)
The simplest would be to divide society into the rich and the poor. A modern version of this kind of simplified class analysis is seen in the rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement that it sparked in the aftermath of the Great Recession (fall of 2011),
with its emphasis on the 99% vs. the 1%. The benefits of this class analysis are many: it’s clear, it’s easy to understand, and it brings attention to just how small the rich are as a group, and how unjust it is that the interests of this tiny elite should be running society.
However, if we use this kind of class analysis to understand the election, it quickly becomes unsatisfactory. The 1% represent only a small proportion of votes, after all. Elections, we are told, are decided by the 99%, and particularly, by the working class.
Then we have the issue that within this 99% there are many differences. Do those toward the top of the 99% really have the same interests as those in the middle or the bottom of this group?
A slightly more sophisticated class analysis would acknowledge that there are meaningful differences within these groups, perhaps forming five equal sized percentiles, each representing 20%: the poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and the rich.
This form of class analysis is common in the social sciences, and is even represented in the official statistics of the US government. Here is an example: bls.gov/cex/2017/combi….
I have taken a portion of this to highlight just how poor the lowest 20% of income really is. (Keep in mind that these are averages, which obscures just how rich the top 1% is) Image
A related, but conceptually distinct way of forming classes is to use wealth rather than income.
Another form of class analysis uses power rather than wealth or income, from which we get the phrase ‘the ruling class’.
Yet another form of class analysis focuses on education and professional training, from which we get terms such as ‘blue collar’ and ‘white collar’, or newer terms like ‘knowledge worker’ or ‘professional managerial class’.
(Let me admit here that many of these forms of class analysis overlap -- income correlates well, though not perfectly, with wealth, education, and power)
Marx adds something new to the long-established wealth of discourse on class. Marx’s contribution is to define class in terms of a relationship, a process rather than a static category. The relationship is to the surplus labor produced at a particular site of production.
Did you directly perform both the labor necessary to sustain the producer, and a surplus beyond that? Were you the appropriator of the output? Did you receive a portion of the surplus labor after it was appropriated?
What are the social, cultural, economic, and other processes that shape and constitute the production and appropriation of surplus value, that allow us to differentiate between different modes of production such as slavery, feudalism, capitalism,
independent commodity production, and communism? When we use this form of class analysis, we are forced to reckon with the sheer complexity of the class structure, and its many contradictions. We find that many people participate in multiple class processes.
The notion of class becomes de-centered and contradictory.
I have contributed to this literature, arguing that prison labor is a form of slavery, and showing in detail why it is not capitalism, and what the differences are between these two class processes. amazon.com/Prison-Labor-U…
(Comrades, if you are interested in reading the book, please let me know -- the publisher charges way too much for it -- DM me and I'll hook you up.) Otherwise, check out this summary on my channel:
There is a place for simple umbrella terms like ‘working class’ or ‘proletariat’, terms which are not unique to Marxism, but convey a far easier to understand situation: is your standard of living, made possible by you selling your labor power?
Do you have the option to not sell your labor power and still maintain a decent life?
There’s also a place for terms like ‘capitalist’ or ‘employer’, which Marxism clearly judges as immoral due to their position as appropriators of surplus they did not produce.
Marxism does not condemn inequality per se -- that's left-liberalism; the condemnation from Marxism is not that some have more, it is that they owe their fortunes to a form of socialized theft, the taking of another’s surplus.
There is a place for terms like ‘the bourgeoisie’, which includes not just the capitalists, but all those who work to defend and uphold the system, particularly the writers, journalists, tv personalities, etc., in the media. Though these are workers, they identify with capital.
While I am broadly supportive of class analysis, recognizing that Marxists may tailor their message (and the level of sophistication of the analysis) to their audience at that time, there’s a question I always ask of class analysis:
does it seem to be dividing the proletariat in a way that strikes me as unhelpful? Is the analysis lazy? Are the categories racialized in a way that seems to be white supremacist?
And this is what bothers me about many on the right who stumble across class analysis, ignoring the many nuances and complexities within the literature, and peddle a vision of the working class as a caricature, a white man, with a heavy local accent, who works with his hands.
The fact that this caricature is stunningly inaccurate as a description of the working class is secondary; in my view, this depiction is meant to divide, and hence it has no place within Marxist class analysis.
I also have a lecture on class analysis that provides more detail

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Asatar Bair

Dr. Asatar Bair Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @asatarbair

22 Nov
A communist’s guide to debating with ideological opponents: reactionary, liberal, and anti-communist leftists
1/x
Recognize that debate is a form of ideological conditioning. Never think that what happens on twitter doesn’t matter. Every experience we have in life shapes who we are.
The average person does not spend much time debating ideas with those outside their own ideology; these conversations and debates are important and affect our thinking. The audience is always far greater than just the other person
Read 25 tweets
7 Nov
How will the left do under a Biden administration? A thread.

The last election was, more than any other, a referendum, albeit incomplete, on socialism in the US. 1/x
The reason for this, of course, is Bernie Sanders. No one has managed to put forth such a serious challenge to the Democratic primary running as an openly socialist candidate in the last hundred years.
Bernie’s run in 2016 shocked the Dem establishment, and his nomination was barely avoided by the dirty tricks of the DNC (such as the throwing out of ballots in NY)
Read 19 tweets
4 Nov
It's not just 'material interests', but the perception of those interests. Trump also advances an oligarchic agenda which is harmful to the working class, but a large segment of them see Trump as their champion due to his projection of 'traditional values', i.e. racism,
patriarchy, toxic masculinity, pro-military / pro-imperialism, pro-fundamentalist Christianity, anti-gay, anti-trans -- these values have great emotional resonance in rural America, and in some segments of urban areas as well
Any threat to these values is seen as profoundly emasculating, a connection made explicit through propaganda such as this stump speech by Pence:
Read 6 tweets
4 Nov
Smart political campaigns run on values, not facts or logic. Values create an emotional connection. Trump expertly targets the values of much of rural America: full-throated patriotism, pro-military, pro-patriarchy, pro-Christianity, pro-good old boys... the 'traditional values'
In the absence of substantive policy that people find believable, Biden just plays as an out-of-touch DC insider who promises more of the same economic policies that have been pushing down wages and living standards for the working class for decades
(I guess in my sadness I'm putting on my official pundit voice. I had hoped for better)
Read 4 tweets
15 Oct
Do you need to read theory to be a communist? No, of course not. Being a communist is an honest, natural response to the brutality of capitalism and the feeling deep in your bones that there is a better way. What theory can do, is help you articulate things
You can learn that there's a long-established discourse for most of what you'd thought of as your deepest and most revolutionary ideas, which is useful
You can learn that people have tried to put these ideas in practice, and that the history of these efforts is complex and at the same time highly ideological
Read 4 tweets
13 Oct
A truly crappy article that fails to grapple with the actual history of any socialist country. Pure propaganda, but influential nonetheless. Point by point takedown to follow
fee.org/articles/why-s…
(1) Socialism ignores incentives -- does it, though? What we seem to see in actually existing socialism is more complex. People work for all sorts of reasons. After all, does working a min wage dead-end capitalist job provide you with an incentive?
(2) Not "Pure" socialism -- the author rightly dismisses this argument, but fails to mention that actually existing socialism has some might accomplishments, including massively increasing well-being by every indicator measured by social science, from life expectancy to GDP pc
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!