|
Lowbrow post: Is there any particular reason y'all insist on a clear division between two classes, instead of using something more modern like a status hierarchy, which may be a function of economics or other factors? It feels like the bipartite class discussion doesn't really fit the current reality at all, nor does it seem useful to understand (intuitively) the failure of socialist countries (insofar as you see some failing and don't insist it was all due to international "competition"). So for example, some system may order people according to economic status, some system may order differently. There may be some distribution with two peaks and therefore, broadly, two classes, but there may also be some other distribution. On a more micro level, people order themselves and their environment according to perception. If you think that economic class is what counts right now, even then there seem to be much more accurate descriptions of contemporary "classes" than what Marx used. Best of all, as far as I know, sociologists have worked out a poo poo ton of theory regarding all that. Also, a wide array of science suggest that the enjoyment or value of virtually all things is almost always colored or distorted by relative comparisons i.e. status. After all, a "classless" society with an undesirable status hierarchy is just as bad as any other system, since people seem to be very flexible in how they compare themselves and gain enjoyment or pain thereof. Neither opportunity, power, contribution, reward nor freedom would be distributed ideally until that problem is overcome. And that exists both in capitalist and socialist systems, or may contribute to explaining why the latter fail in reality. Self-propagation of status advantages, say, as driver of nepotism and elitism in the later years of Eastern-bloc countries. Focus on ownership of means of production is historically relevant, sure, but it seems rather arbitrary. Like the millionaire heir who doesn't own any means of production or assets at all, or the low-class owner who owns those with no current perceived value. If you think of factual resources and advantages afforded by relative status, as example, the description of this situation is much less convoluted. imo. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Dec 26, 2019 |
#
¿
Dec 26, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
What I mean is that a class hierarchy brought on by materialistic conditions (which is already broader than a two-class view of the world) is but a special case of a hierarchical ordering that leads to a grouping into classes. Hence, that grouping may be subject to change even if the materialistic conditions - in principle - are still important. The contention being that holding on to terminology and class definitions for ideological reason ("Marx said so") seems to weaken the argument of the left, c.f. the discussion about what proletariat vs. burgs actually are in today's world. Insofar that the left has been routed all over the world, wouldn't it also be the case that the traditional narrative has been routed? As far as I am aware, traditional left-wing and Marxist parties are essentially dead or shrunk to irrelevance all over Europe - in an environment that should have led to a large resurgence. In my country, the election posters with the traditional Marxists slogans seemed to capture no attention by anyone. I mean, the impoverished proles are often not laborers, or involved in any labor movement, or have any intellectual and emotional connection to the leftist discussion in the tradition of the labor movement. Labor vs. ownership is simply not a reflection of societal struggle they face. Similarly, the middle class and the somewhat well-off people do not own means of production, and insofar as their well-being relies on strengthening labor, the leftist discourse does not seem to target or concern them. More often, they seem to fall into the category of "them", even though they would and should be the beneficiaries of the leftist agenda (as they are wage laborers and not owners, by and large). So in effect, you reach no one with that categorization. Is this a good strategy? Yes, a convoluted narrative has been less than successful, but so has the dogmatic discourse presented for example itt. People live in today's society. Someone living off welfare or Harz or whatever cares very little that he doesn't own means of production, if in reality the hierarchically comparable people also do not. If the beggar meets the dev-ops engineer in the supermarket parking lot, THEN a hierarchical class division becomes obvious. But both of those people do not own means of production. Its a status difference that simply does not exist in traditional Marxist ideology. Explaining society in terms of the "core struggle" - even if it IS the underlying reason - is itself convoluted. In contrast, the far right also has catchy narratives based on "us" and "them", and the proletariat - in my country at least - seems to find them extremely appealing. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
I dunno I still feel that needing a translation key to talk to any cohesive part of society demands a reformulation of the leftist discourse. Ownership is so god drat opaque nowadays. I am still not clear who precisely is the bad guy here. Because if it is being beholden to financial markets, it's certainly every god drat laborer in this country. And then the actual proletariat still doesn't believe you, because their day-to-day class enemies don't own poo poo, they just make more money by being actual wage laborers, some perhaps own a stock or two. Maybe if the middle-class is gone entirely there's something there. But what if it ain't? Meanwhile, all the fash has to do is to blame it on brown people coming with boats. Hell, the right was even more successful in attacking super rich people than the left. Ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Then the issue is that the status hierarchy within the actual proletariat is so pervasive and defining, that the proletariat in its entirety is divided enough such that the core narrative of socialism has no effect anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:again though what is 'the actual proletariat' and what the devil are you proposing rather than a basically class-based discourse which isn't exactly what brought us into this mess in the first place I was quoting you here, the actual proletariat being wage laborers? Like say, I am Elon McScrooge, super rich capitalist. I have all politicans in my pocket, and as avid Marx reader, I know I only need to fear a proletarian revolution. Because I agree that otherwise, material advantages of the capital I own will propagate. But I also read on psychological and sociological research, so I know that people care about, in fact define themselves, via relative status hierarchies. And I also know that this proceeds mainly along the dimension of material wealth, and some other status cues such as skin color, heritage etc. But let's say what ultimately counts is wealth. So then, the only thing I really need to do is to ensure the status hierarchy is sufficiently differentiated. I can not have inequality bisect society entirely, but I am completely fine if every social class finds some other, smaller and relatively superior counterpart. Bonus points for some other differentiating dimensions, like nationality and race. As a consequence, any rethoric targeting the "proletariat" as entirety of wage labor will probably fail outright, because no one will identify with it. I'll be an upstanding social democrat, not a super capitalist, because that keeps me rich and the keeps the revolution from happening.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
I guess in consequence it's the same ol' problems that have been discussed many times. It would be nevertheless interesting what the left strategy is to unite wage laborers, seeing as the category seems so ill fitting in its current form.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Even without capitalists, people as we know them would manifest status hierarchies among themselves and we know these can be as binding and propagate unequal power as capital. But to be fair that's not what this thread is about at all so I'll let it go. @thechosenone: Like I said above, the people who are and will be in the near future wage laborers do not see themselves as proles. They see themselves as almost capitalist, just one good idea way from "making it". And the large group of poor and marginalized folks have, as far as I can tell, no real connection to the labor movement and its traditional narrative about capital. Case in point, over here, the young voters of this group voted very little for the left party, and Marxist votes among them are essentially a rounding error. The right, however, has no trouble whatsoever sweeping them up in droves. The question of whether y'all would want to change the narrative to appeal to those groups has been answered above (it being seen as a bad idea of giving up socialism). So my question is answered. I just don't think it'll work. Another issue is that the framing may come across as patronizing, even if well meant - you'd need to teach essentially all groups of proles that they are proles, and why that matters. Because nobody today considers themselves part of the labor proletariat. The fash, on the other hand, can pretend to take the current concerns seriously and offer immediate solutions based on primal instincts (if one is cynical). Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Who gives a gently caress if my neighbor has more clout than me if I have my needs met and can pursue my desires freely. So you may disagree because capitalism, but everything we know indicates that people care a whole lot. Sociologists would also chuckle at the notion that social hierarchies are voluntary. That is, even if you don't care, you are beholden to it. One of the most pervasive features of social status is that it allows for continuous access to resources and information and therefore, power (the Matthew Effect). The synopsis is that even these social systems that do not have anything to do with material conditions, may feature a hierarchy that is not only individually binding, but also decoupled from any underlying quality. Here's a paper that I reviewed a while back, and which I liked because it has some clever experiments. I am not a sociologist tho, so don't ask me how it fits in the wider research agenda etc. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/its-conventional-thought-counts-how-third-order-inference-produces Edit: non paywall here https://www.eui.eu/Documents/MWP/ProgramActivities/2017-2018/master-classes/RidgewayStatusAdvantage-2017ASR.pdf Again, I stress that this has nothing to do with the above discussion, but it's certainly something that isn't "solved" by socialism, not that y'all claimed that. edit: in sociology, status stands for any social hierarchy Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Edit: I honestly think I am derailing this thread, which is about a book. Let me just say that the right wing's grand narrative is simple and compelling to people in today's social hierarhies. Please don't be so dogmatic when crafting a program for the left, as to ignore the current social relations as they are perceived via status cues by most of society. Because it'll be necessary that the future left is less of a failure than in the past thirty years. That is all. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Jan 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 11:30
|
|