Betraying the Middle class

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
indigo 007 indigo 007's picture
Betraying the Middle class

Open Letters…

 

Betraying the middle class

Are the Liberals really saviors of the middle class or just selling them out one more time?

During the recent election NDP leader Tom Mulcair stated if he was elected prime minister he would tear up the TPP. This comment got only passing notice from the media and the issue never got the attention it deserved. It should have been a major issue but when elections are held in a neoliberal vassal state issues have to be diligently censored and circumscribed. Truths must be avoided, expediencies and deceptions reign supreme.

Esteemed pundits claimed the Liberals outflanked Mulcair on the left but this is a dubious notion when Mulcair was the one who was so bold as to advocate even modest increases in corporate taxes and to attack the TPP. Mulcair was actually so bold as to challenge the neoliberal dominance of our economy, its privatization of government and its claimed immunity from taxation!

The Liberals have indicated they are going to pass the TPP, just like the Conservatives.  These two parties are chumps for every free trade deal that comes along that in fact have little to do with free trade and everything to do with captive trade and selling out the public interest.

PM Trudeau has already made positive moves indicating he wants to the break with the degeneracy of the last government. The moves he has made are to be commended.  They are though ancillary to the changes, the structural changes that really matter and the ones that constitute  “ Real Change.”  This, of course, was the theme of his winning campaign. To deal with the TPP is a major policy decision. It is in the realm of economics. Its proponents are powerful, already have an ominous control over our economy and our governments; federal, provincial and municipal.  The TPP is just one more chapter in consolidating their monopoly control over our economy and the further denigration of government and its sovereign right to govern.

Michael Hudson prominent US economist and consultant to governments around the world says of the TPP:

What is at stake is something that has been under international law for over 350 years. And that’s the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 established the principle that nations are in charge of their own policy. The fast-track legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the European partnership, is so radical that it takes economic policy out of the hands of government and puts it in the hands of unelected lobbyists for the corporate interests.

Hudson also states:

So the attempt–there’s a belief among most Americans{and Canadians} who read the paper that somehow if you sign this agreement it’s just about freer trade, and all of our existing laws would remain on the books, both for us and for Malaysia and Japan and other countries. But that’s not the case. They don’t realize that the agreement is to essentially pass, nullify any law on the book that doesn’t benefit corporations or protects labor.

 

From the outset of his leadership PM Trudeau has expressed concern for the plight of the beleaguered middle class. His election campaign was designed to appeal to the middle class but his offerings were paltry and he won votes with bargain basement offerings that to do not really help the  middle class nor address its ongoing decline.

A few decades ago government worked in concert with business and bankers as a triad, planning and coordinating the country’s priorities. This was a proven model of success for many modern industrial states.  Now, with the emergence of neoliberalism, and the so-called free market economy all that is gone. Business and bankers have merged, usurped the role of government and done a very thorough job of denigrating and vilifying government.  Government, for its part, has been all too willing to make a massive retreat from governance and hand over its powers. The hand over comes in the form of agreements like the NAFTA and the pending TPP and CETA .  What we are seeing is the incremental abdication of governments at home and abroad.  In so many countries this change over is not so incremental but by edicts from the money lenders or open warfare.  

What the middle class is really suffering is the deep wounds of betray.  Under the triad government was the guardian of the middle class .  It maintained programs and priorities to insure the right to make a decent living, reasonable access to Medicare and education, the right to unionize , fair labor practices, reasonable social welfare, freedom from debt bondage, usury and much more. All of these to one degree or another are in decline, being suppressed or no longer existent.  Where government was the mediator of the public interest it continues to abandon that role as it panders to the neoliberal agenda of deregulation and privatization.

As Hudson suggests, the average person reading the newspaper will get a favorable view of the TPP, but this is because the Mainstream Media is corporate owned and is there to advance corporate interests.

In this regard it is interesting to note that  since 1993  ownership of the media in the US has gone from fifty down to just five very powerful media conglomerates, and needless to say, all singing from the same song book; where profits come before people.

Where government retreats neoliberalism takes over. Its only concern is its bottom line.  For neoliberals, the middle class is nothing more than one more resource to be exploited and commodified. It is no coincidence that the middle class has a hard time paying its bills- it is by design.

Robert Billyard

Mission BC

 

One of the quickest ways to communicate with sitting members is to go to :

http://www.parl.gc.ca//en/members

Their emails, phone, and fax numbers are listed here. Mail to MPs is postage free and should be sent to: Parliament of Canada
                                         Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9

Share this with a friend.

 

 

 

 

NDPP

As a wise wag once observed, the problem with the middle class is that it doesn't seem to realize just what it's in the middle of..

quizzical

an interesting and to the real point read.

Sean in Ottawa

I really kinda laugh about the idea of Canadian politics "betraying the middle class" and I do for a couple reasons.

First, the middle class betrays itself by consistently electing corporatist governments who do pretty much what you would expect them to do: look out for the interests of the rich and business.

Second, parties all seem to chase the upper middle class voter and they seem to have a lot to offer anyone who can still hang on to the label of middle class. The people who are betrayed are the people who are no longer in the middle class or who never could reach that far. There is a lot for you if you manage still being in the middle class but if you lose that membership -- nobody wants to help you. And that was the clear message from the last election where the NDP turned its back on anyone who was not in the middle class. Mulcair kept telling people he was in it for the middle class -- but not so much for those who cannot aspire to that status. The Liberals and Conservatives have long catered to their ideas of what the middle class is and wants.

Let's be clear -- lower income people are getting the shaft. They do not vote enough and the more they don't vote the more the politicians ignore them. The NDP can't get many votes from them and cannot get much in donations from them either so that party does not seem to care very much anymore to the point that it started using exclusive classist language in many communicaitons this year. This is worse that the "ordinary Canadians" from Broadbent's time or Jack Layton's "kitchen table rather than boardroom table."

The NDP, of course is lost. They do not seem to understand that many of their "middle class" voters support the NDP not so much for perks for the middle class but due to their values of greater social justice for all. I suspect that the NDP lost a lot of middle class voters this time, due to their appeal directly to middle class interests. On that count the Liberals did better and offered a tax cut.

The Liberals bought those who wanted buying but the NDP betrayed its middle class supporters by appealing to their pocket book instead of appealing to their vision of what kind of country they wanted.

This is part of the same old problem where the NDP copies what works for other parties rather than what can work for itself. The middle class potential NDP voter does not have the same motivation as the potential middle class Conservative or Liberal voter and they won't be moved on the same issues.

As a voter I have never voted on a personal pocket book issue. When I vote I vote for what I think makes a better country. There are many other voters like me and they often vote NDP. A good many in the last election actually voted Liberal becuase the Liberals appealed to this in them. The NDP had better understand this if they want to get out of the basement again.

The NDP seems to not have much of a vision for the kind of Canada they want us to come out and vote for and so they resort to buying us like the old line parties. But the old-line parties do the votebuying better than the NDP ever did (tot he NDP's credit) and so the NDP must return to being a party that represents the idea that Canada can be greater than the sum of its individuals' interests.

Unionist

"The middle class".

Really.

The people that feel so superior to the next class down, and that dream of nothing but climbing to the next class up.

Fuck the middle class. You heard it hear first.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I must also point out that while I am middle income at the moment I have no illusion that my claim to this status is an illusion. The moment I stop work I will be in poverty like millions of other Canadians without a pension.

Appealing to my middle class status only reminds me how fraudulent the idea that I am middle class actually is and just how fragile my position is.

That said if I were suddenly provided enough money to leave me comfortable all my life, I would still vote for the kind of Canada I want to see.

Some of us want to come back from the polling booth with hope and our heads held high with some satisfaction that we voted for what we believe is right.

Then we turn on the election night returns and see what kind of mess people actually voted for.

Trudeau should be appreciated for having run and been elected on a rhetoric that was not right wing. This should give some in the NDP pause as they may have done well if they had discovered a spinal column prior to the last election. People would have elected a hopeful vision but the NDP was profoundly pessimistic about the idea that Canadians could be moved to do something great.

Candians voted for the most optimistic and hopeful sounding party. The NDP leadership should feel shame that this was not NDP. Rarely does the sufferage rate go up with people wanting to make a real positive change and you could feel the emotion in the air.

But that opportunity is now gone and th NDP has to figure how to catch the next one.

Sunny ways was Trudeau's mantra. It was also Layton's. It was not Mulcair's and in many respects this was the story. Anyone re-reading Layton's letter would have to wonder if Mulcair had lost his copy before reading it. And yes, the so called "middle class" cares about this and they noticed with dismay.

Unionist

Great post and insight, Sean, thank you.

 

Northern PoV

Mulcair's last-minute TPP stance had as about as much credibilty as his last-minute cannabis flip/flop.

In Greece, the Syriza's folks at least believed they would stand up to the thugs.  Ya think this gutless-thatcher-loving toadie would've done better? 

quizzical

ya know i never read middle class as an actual "middle class" i read it as everyone other than the mega rich.

kropotkin1951

quizzical wrote:

ya know i never read middle class as an actual "middle class" i read it as everyone other than the mega rich.

Which is the way our MSM erases the underclass in this country that are living below the poverty line. A class that is growing daily and is disproportionately FN's and female headed single parent families. The right mix of fucking tax breaks is a joke to the poor in our country.

The new progressive motto in Canada is, "what the middle class desires for itself we want for it also." The corollary of the new motto is an old Xian motto, "the Devil take the hindmost."

kropotkin1951

Northern PoV wrote:

Mulcair's last-minute TPP stance had as about as much credibilty as his last-minute cannabis flip/flop.

In Greece, the Syriza's folks at least believed they would stand up to the thugs.  Ya think this gutless-thatcher-loving toadie would've done better? 

Because he is a honest person his distaste for pot and his love for the Wicked Witch shone though. To bad he didn't have the same passion for left wing issues because then that is what would have come across.

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
ya know i never read middle class as an actual "middle class" i read it as everyone other than the mega rich.

Which is the way our MSM erases the underclass in this country that are living below the poverty line. A class that is growing daily and is disproportionately FN's and female headed single parent families. The right mix of fucking tax breaks is a joke to the poor in our country.

The new progressive motto in Canada is, "what the middle class desires for itself we want for it also." The corollary of the new motto is an old Xian motto, "the Devil take the hindmost."

i get it ya know i've family and friends living on rez's across Canada.

those  thinking they're the middle class are only living on borrowed time. they too will find there's no one there for them

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
ya know i never read middle class as an actual "middle class" i read it as everyone other than the mega rich.

Which is the way our MSM erases the underclass in this country that are living below the poverty line. A class that is growing daily and is disproportionately FN's and female headed single parent families. The right mix of fucking tax breaks is a joke to the poor in our country.

The new progressive motto in Canada is, "what the middle class desires for itself we want for it also." The corollary of the new motto is an old Xian motto, "the Devil take the hindmost."

i get it ya know i've family and friends living on rez's across Canada.

those  thinking they're the middle class are only living on borrowed time. they too will find there's no one there for them

Middle class at minimum means people working full time with a living wage in a stable job that gives something at least average income. So for an individual it would be expected to start around $35k and for a family around $60k. It can also inlcude retired people with a good pension or the child dependents of middle class people.

Those making less than this amount, unemployed and living on their own or with little retirement income are not middle class.

For reference $35k is over $19 per hour 35 hours per week year long. Millions of Canadains of employable age are not making this much.

There are other definitions. Here is an article from MacLean's

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/who-belongs-to-canadas-middle-class/

There was a lot of talk when during the elction politicians (particularly Trudeau) spoke of but could not define middle class.

There is clearly a lot of people under this and ignoring them should have political consequence although given voting patterns seems not to. However, I suspect that not all middle income people are just in it for themselves so I think there is a voting consequence -- particularly for the NDP -- even if the parties do not measure it properly.

thorin_bane

There was a CBC article stating that 52% of canadians earn less than 30,000. Now there is a lot of live at home kids(not just teens) and retirees in those numbers, but what do we define as middle class then? How much you earn as a 30 something to 50 something? Because that is a small parameter to figure out where the money is within the economy. Regardless we know their is income inequality, we don't need reports though it is good for people to be reminded. This was not even mentioned from Brad Anne and Tom. To be honest we gave Tom his shot to show he wasn't just another bob rae, but during the election it appeared he was even more to the right than Rae. Hell I would take Llloyd Axworthy leading this party over Tom given what the braincramp, I mean trust, figured were the talking points needed during the election. Its a good thing I voted in september, because I would likely have voted more left, like I did in 2011.

lagatta

Yes, the whole idea of "middle class" here is an ideological construct. It used to refer to people who weren't working class or of what one would now call the 1%; in countries with an aristocracy sometimes even bourgeois were called "upper-middle-class".

The victories of the organized labour movement as well as other geopolitical realities (East-West race, surplus value from exploitation of colonized countries) meant that a significant sector of the working class in parts of North America, Western Europe and a few other places could attain standards of living typical of the "middle class" of small traders, minor professionals etc - though this economic status always remained precarious for workers. And the elites deliberately encouraged a kind of spatial development that reified this social ideology - the ideology of the car, the sprawling suburb and all the other means of isolating people in an antisocial bubble. We also remember the phenomenon of "white flight" in the US which dismantled many longstanding working-class urban communities.

Now much key manufacturing has moved to lower-wage countries and the bourgeoisie no longer has to hand a bit of its wealth to workers in the fight against the "Red Menace". There are many other factors everyone here is aware of.

Thus "middle income" becomes conflated with "middle class", forgetting many of the other elements that compose "class" in all earlier definitions. And middle income, as Sean says, is by definition precarious.

There are also a lot of highly-educated people nowadays in precarious work. Are they "lower class"?

My only quibble with what kropotkin wrote is it is not only the "underclass" (or lumpenproletariat) who have a low and irregular income. There are many working people who don't reach the levels described earlier in this thread despite holding more than one job. There are a hell of a lot of such people in Papineau riding... and even more than one would think in Outremont riding (which is not only the former city of Outremont).

kropotkin1951

lagatta wrote:

My only quibble with what kropotkin wrote is it is not only the "underclass" (or lumpenproletariat) who have a low and irregular income. There are many working people who don't reach the levels described earlier in this thread despite holding more than one job. There are a hell of a lot of such people in Papineau riding... and even more than one would think in Outremont riding (which is not only the former city of Outremont).

I definitely meant underclass to include people who work mulitiple jobs and barely keep the wolf from the door. I despair that it is now the norm for many of our citizens.

pir pir's picture

Just another datapoint:

I think there is more to make somebody "middle class" than just income, which the Macleans' article just sort of scratches obliquely; for the most part it only concerns itself with income.  And as Sean pointed out, income can be precarious.  I used to have an income that was somewhat above middle income, now it's smack in the centre, and soon it will be below.  None of that ever made me middle class in my own mind, but to a working class person I might well have looked that way, because I had the discretionary income and didn't have to work my fingers to the bone to keep the wolves from the door.  But I never bought into the class trappings, into the base materialism, into being a work-and-spend little cog in the capitalist machine.  And like Sean, I've never voted for my pocket book, or even just for my own backyard.  I am much more interested in a just society than in my own luxuries; I'd be more than willing to tighten my own belt if that meant everyone else had enough to eat.  The reason I will soon be below middle income is that I've not spent much on building up assets; I donated my discretionary income to causes that needed it at the time.  So yeah, I am middle income, but not middle class in any other regard than that I value education and some high-brow entertainment.

I look primarily at who owns the means of production now, and that is, for the most part, not the middle class anymore, not here at least.  I'm therefore more inclined to lump us all together into the 99%, because regardless of other class differences, we ARE all in this together when it comes to who runs things and for whose actual benefit -- and that's not us.  Canadian middle class folks might still be busy keeping up with the Joneses by buying more shiny cars and home improvements every year, but now they're in debt for it up to their eyeballs; their discretionary income is to a large degree borrowed.  That is an untenable situation; economic downturns can wipe out anyone like that in no time flat; we've seen it in the US when the subprime mortgage crisis (I prefer the word "con") hit.

Political parties chase the middle class because they vote.  Corporations appeal to the middle class because they spend.  If the middle class betrays itself by voting for corporatist governments, then the working class betrays itself by not voting. I know where my sympathies lie, but if we can't get people to even just vote every once in a while, we can't do anything about corporatism taking over our world (I'm not ready for armed revolt, but I sure can see why some people see that as the only way).  I am seriously frustrated at the path the NDP has been taking, because I think it is the wrong approach -- try instead harder to figure out what will get your natural constituents to vote for you, and do the right thing, even if you don't get the votes.

Quote:
Some of us want to come back from the polling booth with hope and our heads held high with some satisfaction that we voted for what we believe is right.

Damn straight.

Sean in Ottawa

pir wrote:

Just another datapoint:

I think there is more to make somebody "middle class" than just income, which the Macleans' article just sort of scratches obliquely; for the most part it only concerns itself with income.  And as Sean pointed out, income can be precarious.  I used to have an income that was somewhat above middle income, now it's smack in the centre, and soon it will be below.  None of that ever made me middle class in my own mind, but to a working class person I might well have looked that way, because I had the discretionary income and didn't have to work my fingers to the bone to keep the wolves from the door.  But I never bought into the class trappings, into the base materialism, into being a work-and-spend little cog in the capitalist machine.  And like Sean, I've never voted for my pocket book, or even just for my own backyard.  I am much more interested in a just society than in my own luxuries; I'd be more than willing to tighten my own belt if that meant everyone else had enough to eat.  The reason I will soon be below middle income is that I've not spent much on building up assets; I donated my discretionary income to causes that needed it at the time.  So yeah, I am middle income, but not middle class in any other regard than that I value education and some high-brow entertainment.

I look primarily at who owns the means of production now, and that is, for the most part, not the middle class anymore, not here at least.  I'm therefore more inclined to lump us all together into the 99%, because regardless of other class differences, we ARE all in this together when it comes to who runs things and for whose actual benefit -- and that's not us.  Canadian middle class folks might still be busy keeping up with the Joneses by buying more shiny cars and home improvements every year, but now they're in debt for it up to their eyeballs; their discretionary income is to a large degree borrowed.  That is an untenable situation; economic downturns can wipe out anyone like that in no time flat; we've seen it in the US when the subprime mortgage crisis (I prefer the word "con") hit.

Political parties chase the middle class because they vote.  Corporations appeal to the middle class because they spend.  If the middle class betrays itself by voting for corporatist governments, then the working class betrays itself by not voting. I know where my sympathies lie, but if we can't get people to even just vote every once in a while, we can't do anything about corporatism taking over our world (I'm not ready for armed revolt, but I sure can see why some people see that as the only way).  I am seriously frustrated at the path the NDP has been taking, because I think it is the wrong approach -- try instead harder to figure out what will get your natural constituents to vote for you, and do the right thing, even if you don't get the votes.

Quote:
Some of us want to come back from the polling booth with hope and our heads held high with some satisfaction that we voted for what we believe is right.

Damn straight.

I agree with much of this.

While I say that people betray themselves by voting against their interests we have to be careful how much we indulge in this precisely becuase of what we agree on: people may vote more based on their vision of a society than their personal circumstance or position in society.

The tendency to be happy when a middle income person votes more for justice than pocket book has to recognize that this is a political philosophy and we might also recognize that some who are lower income may have a philosophy that is more to the right. We assume our philosophy is correct but no doubt they do as well.

The problems as I see them are:

1) The entire notion that people vote for personal selfish reasons when this not only is not completely accurate, it should not be encouraged. Conservative propaganda has pushed this idea the most.

2) The use of exclusionary/devisive terms in order to address a group of voters is damaging to our society and leaves people out. any politician that says their priority is xyz class or income level, where people who have even greater need fall below that level, is unqualified to lead the country. To that end I have no respect left for Tom Mulcair. After the NDP website had him quoted saying he was here for the middle class in huge letters that you had to click past to go on to the site, I decided I would vote NDP this time but never again with him as leader. I would push for his removal if he did not resign.

3) The notion of class which is not about income level is negative and this is why I personally try to avoid the term middle class as much as I can and instead refer to the more objective "middle income" which means something different. I have mixed feelings about strict notions of working class as well and so I usually say working people. It is unclear where low earnign self-employed people fit, artists and others (I don't want to enter a debate on this here and now).

I think that income and wealth are access to an an economy and society in many respects. I think a person who owns their own business but manages only a low income has more in common with other low wage workers than with wealthier higher income owners. A perosn who works for salary without owning anything but who has a high salary has more in common with other higher income people. When it comes to how you fit in society I think your income and means sort you more than "class." And class is a loaded series of definitions.

After that, I feel that we are defined in large part by education.

Finally, we have to consider the impact of racism and gender on opportunity and connection in society and how this relates to access to social goods, equity and relationship with society. Racism and sexism are at the centre of injustice in a way that class does not recognize.

I do recognize the values of traditional working class people who associate culturally to the ideal but there is a side of this that is also exclusive -- less willing at times to let in those who are in similar circumstances but do not fit the culture -- and can at times run to the exclusive when it comes to race and gender in a way that happens at every other so-called class definition. Sexism and racism are not exclusive to the "upper class."

These are highly emotional concepts given the association of human struggle with them. we have to be careful when political leaders weigh in and associate their campaigns with them.

 

lagatta

In general I agree with Unionist here, though obviously we have to look at the changes withing the working class, in particular the loss of many well-paying industrial jobs in the old "developed countries" (First World) and the growing precarisation of work. The other change is an increasing number of jobs that require a high level of training and even university education but that remain done by executors (salaried or freelance workers).

And above all, while these changes require contemporary class analysis, in no way do they mean an end to class struggles.

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
A perosn who works for salary without owning anything but who has a high salary has more in common with other higher income people. When it comes to how you fit in society I think your income and means sort you more than "class."

I totally disagree with that. Income is only a very indirect and unreliable index of social community and division.

A locomotive engineer can earn well over $100,000 per year even without much overtime. But she doesn't live in the same neighbourhood as professionals or business executives. She doesn't belong to the same clubs. Her kids don't go to the same private schools as their kids, let alone date and marry them. She's working class (generally speaking).

These aren't hard and fast social lines, obviously. But the income line is the wrong one. What you do in life is far more determinative of "class".

The thesis that class divisions and interests are largely determined by income is constantly used to sow division within the labour movement, as well as between organized and unorganized workers.

Sean in Ottawa

I must say that well paid "working class" people seem to have a hard time understanding the reality that people face who are in very low incomes.

The isolation of poverty sets those people well apart from any working class person making $100k a year. The preoccupation that comes form not having basic needs covered is life changing in absolutely every way.

I acknowledged the existence of class among other factors but income decides so much of what you can do and what contacts you can have. Denial of this is very common but sad. "Working class" people often know very, very little about those who struggle on subsistance incomes yet think they can speak for them.

It is another world you have to experience for yourself to understand. The common cause of the masses is not relevant when you are wondering if your phone will be on tomorrow, and whether you should pay rent or buy food.

I am not putting down working class affiliation or backgrounds but -- holy crap -- some people need to realize that beyond political cultural affiliation there is real desperation and relative comfort and the two have just about nothing in common that struggling people can recognize. Many more than ever do not see themselves in these class identities anyway. Often the spokespeople for these are so out of touch anyway.

Maybe you have to live this to understand it -- and many who have lived it seem to forget it quickly.

For the NDP -- they need to be able to talk to people with greater understanding. Telling a person who is desperate that they have more in common with a person making $100k than another who is equally desperate due to lack of money is more likely to result in a stream of swear words than agreement.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I must say that well paid "working class" people seem to have a hard time understanding the reality that people face who are in very low incomes.

Agreed. It's very hard to understand across such divides. It's also hard for people to understand the reality faced by people of other national origins, language, gender (yeah - women and men), settler and indigenous, different political opinions... It's challenging, sometimes impossible. Often understanding is born in uniting in solidarity and sympathy and support of common struggle, or of each other's struggles.

But what, exactly, does that have to do with the class divisions within society?

Quote:
The isolation of poverty sets those people well apart from any working class person making $100k a year.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant when income differences (or unionized vs. nonunionized) are used, every single minute, by conservative anti-worker forces, to create and perpetuate divisions within the working class. The reason these diabolical strategies are so dangerous is that they actually feed upon real differences (not class differences, but real objective ones anyway).

The workers' movement, at least when it's at its best, has always striven to overcome those attempts to sow subjective division among people who are allied objectively. That's why we organize the unorganized, that's why we support and work with anti-poverty organizations and feminists and anti-imperialists and so forth - because that's who we are and what unites us.

And yes - overcoming individual ignorance and prejudice within ourselves, and our fellow workers, based on our own life experience, is one of the biggest challenges that needs to be addressed every single day.

Quote:
"Working class" people often know very, very little about those who struggle on subsistance incomes yet think they can speak for them.

Not sure what you mean. We don't speak for anyone. We support their struggles, we offer our assistance, we trumpet the need for unity and organization - and in the case of low-income workers, we held them to get organized. That allows them, usually for the first time, to speak [b]for themselves[/b], and on behalf of their interests.

Of course, the struggle for rank-and-file democracy is a constant one as well. But you'll have to provide me with solid evidence of high-paid workers trying to appropriate the voice of low-paid workers as a serious phenomenon in our society. Because that's what I understood you to say.

Quote:
The common cause of the masses is not relevant when you are wondering if your phone will be on tomorrow, and whether you should pay rent or buy food.

Correct. That's why organization is essential. Without it, each individual is doomed to fail. With it, a voice and power are possible.

Quote:
I am not putting down working class affiliation or backgrounds but -- holy crap -- some people need to realize that beyond political cultural affiliation there is real desperation and relative comfort and the two have just about nothing in common that struggling people can recognize. Many more than ever do not see themselves in these class identities anyway. Often the spokespeople for these are so out of touch anyway.

I agree with all that. But class division in society isn't about how people "see themselves". Nor is it about the "spokespeople". The vast majority of people in our society "see themselves" as politically impotent, and having nothing more significant to do politically than casting a vote for some variant of neoliberalism once every few years. And they seem content to have "spokespeople" (politically speaking) like Trudeau, Mulcair, and Harper.

But do you really believe that that subjective reality (and it is, indeed, our reality) is somehow determinative of how our society is divided into real social classes? I don't.

 

Caissa

Working class consciousness is so 19c. In the 21c, the dominant hegemony has told all to aspire to  being "middle class". Please tred lightly as you step on others while you climb the ladder. Wink

Pondering

I think the notions of working class and middle class have lost their usefulness outside of academic discussion. From a post here I found out about Jack Layton's use of the terms "board table versus kitchen table".  The 99% versus the 1% is an even better means of defining the most signficant divison of modern times.

The 99% rejects the divisions of sex and race (and to a lessor extent nationality) creating a group that is indisputably the majority.

If the 99% ever successfully overthrows the 1% (or .001 or whatever) there will be much more wealth to go around which will make it much easier to achieve social justice for everyone.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

 

But do you really believe that that subjective reality (and it is, indeed, our reality) is somehow determinative of how our society is divided into real social classes? I don't.

 

Not sure I understand your question? Which subjective reality are you talking about?

You can draw lines all over when it comes to wealth and income but while the location of the lines may change -- this is actually the objective rather than subjective reality.

Affinity for class is otherwise much more subjective with multiple definitions when it comes to around the edges.

When it comes to the creation of public policy we use objective levels of income and wealth. When it comes to class -- this should be left out of the public policy and left up to people to self identify as they wish. When it comes to political parties, as I say, an appeal to the middle class as the raison d'être for a leader's political purpose should disqualify that leader unless the party has defined itself as of that class exclusively.

I have no problem with a labour party saying we are here for the "working class." Although the NDP is not a "labour party." It is a party of the left with historic close ties to labour (I would like to see them closer). But it is also a party that seeks to represent social justice that includes people who are retired, unable to work dues to illness. It is a party that seeks equity across gender and other lines. And so it should never define itself by class. Obviously, if it is to choose an association with class it would logically be working people not so-called middle class -- but the NDP, as I say is more than just working people.

"Middle class, however we define it, is exclusive leaving out many working people and people of lesser means that the NDP is supposed to represent. It also leaves out those in the middle class who do not define their political, ideological and social objectives by class or income. As well most people compeltely confuse middle income and middle class -- in part becuase unlike concepts like "business class," "Capital class," "Working class," aristocracy etc. "middle class has little other meaning to most people other than income level. It might mean to some -the none-of-the-above class.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps I need to say where I am coming from as an example:

Personally I find it hard to associate with any of these so-called classes. I recognize that I am white, male, privileged. I come from a background and culture of wealth although I never saw or experienced it -- it was gone from my family on both sides many decades before I was born. But we had the culture. My parents were educated and spoke like it. My father was an artist and my mother a social worker until she became chronically ill and eventually died young. Our family fell into poverty and by the time I became an adult my prospects were poor. Due to a variety of circumstances, most economic, my education was cut short despite my desire to continue, but I always read at a high level even as a child. I lived much of my life poor but worked to create a career as a publisher and eventually a communications professional. I have accomplished a career that would not be available except mostly to very highly educated people but it was a long time coming with decades of poverty on the way. My health is affected by those years. I have no savings and no retirement income. I am skilled in communications and much of that comes from what many would call cultural capital.

I have a decent income now but this is recent (after age 40) and I support others without income so I am economically limited such that I do not have vacations or luxuries. I am not a consumer as most would see themselves. I don't go to malls I buy what I need in second hand stores or discount stores for what I can't buy used.

In my early life I did not grow up with the contacts and social net most take for granted and never in my life could I participate in much social interaction where any cost would be involved. But I am way better off than many. Still I am a fish out of water. I work at a level where I have contact with people of higher wealth and status that me -- I find it difficult in some social interactions even on issues like finding appropriate clothing.I am aware that certain items I can get used but somethings you cannot fake -- like cheap dress pants if you cannot find somethign the right length and size.

I generally fake my social status when it comes to work. I am not comfortable with upper classes as I know I have nothing in common with them. I cannot participate in discussions of vacations, what they buy, their going out experiences, their hobbies, or the wine they drink. But I speak well enough that they do not know this if they do not look too closely at the clothes I wear.

But I do not have working class roots either. I don't fit in with them either and some have made that clear. I have lived most of my life poor while well paid working class people have lectured me on the working class struggle that they never experienced as after their parents paid for their education they went on to one good job after another. But I ran a publishing company for 14 years. I was an owner of the means of production. I never made very much money and struggled personally throughout but I hired people at times and was recognized as a business person even though my take-home income never left the poverty level.

We are all different. We all have our own sotries. I provide some details of mine to show that I do not fit in any class. I have enourmous benefits of privilege. People will pay attention to me as a white male even though they do not know I really am a poser while they may ignore a female person of colour who actually has more in common with them. I know this.

I am motivated to speak for social justice and am passionate about anything that is false, unfair. I hate bullshit. But as soon as I consider class, I feel the structure of class is tribal, it IS bullshit. It is also, at many levels, fundamentally racist and sexist and in many respects snobbish.

So what class am I and how does that affect me? NOW, I know I will not be homeless next month (and will not be so long as I can remain working). But I scramble for every penny in order to keep my head (mostly) above water. But the tools I have are not formal ones. They are mostly that cultural capital based on the language of my parents, the books I read etc. At age 49 I took on a big mortage because I know that as bad as that is it is better than what I saw my father do in his old age -- face rising rents on a fixed income. The hope was that even a few years of equity (obviously not going to happen in this market) and at least a stable payment and I might be able to keep going so long as I keep working.

So what class am I? I ran a business. I am an employee. I do not have a univeristy education although I sound like I do and am well read. I like culture and art and have knowledge of it. I am a creator -- designer. I work among people who are well off but I know when I stop working I will face poverty. But I can fake it -- in large part due to advantages of being white and male, and sounding educated and cultured.

So at least with this information about me, you might be able to understand how little use I ahve for most classist commentary.

And I have been pooped on by people of every class affiliation as not being good enough for them. So I can identify to income level. I can identify by my political ideology and my affiliation is to being human as I know I fit with that -- at least I think that.

Sorry for the length but perhaps this is relevant to the questions so many bat around about class.

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

But do you really believe that that subjective reality (and it is, indeed, our reality) is somehow determinative of how our society is divided into real social classes? I don't.

Not sure I understand your question? Which subjective reality are you talking about?

The one that you raised: That it's hard for higher-paid workers to understand the reality of someone living on subsistence. I agreed with you. I still agree with you. That's "subjective" - it's about people's thinking and understanding.

Quote:
You can draw lines all over when it comes to wealth and income but while the location of the lines may change -- this is actually the objective rather than subjective reality.

Yeah, thanks, I got that. If you re-read my original comments, you will see that I am not dealing with subjective factors at all. I'm talking about what people do, where they live, where they go to school, whom they cohabit with... Not how they view or understand things. You're the one who introduced that very important dimension, and I continue to agree with you about the difficulty of people understanding things. But class isn't about people's minds.

Quote:
When it comes to the creation of public policy we use objective levels of income and wealth.

I don't think you mean that. Labour law deals with the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employer. It doesn't matter whether they're earning minimum wage or $500,000 per year. Are you talking about [i]fiscal[/i] policy? Even then, it's not true. Salaries are taxed differently than capital gains or stock options or offshore holdings. And we know well that your social class has a lot to do with whether you live off earnings or off buying and selling shares or hiding money. It's not just "objective levels" of income and wealth.

Quote:
When it comes to class -- this should be left out of the public policy and left up to people to self identify as they wish.

That's the oddest comment I've heard in a long time. How much you earn is "objective"... but the fact that your earnings are based on working for Tim Horton's (and that therefore you're a member of what I call the working class) is a matter of self-identification? I think we're on different planets here.

Quote:
When it comes to political parties, as I say, an appeal to the middle class as the raison d'être for a leader's political purpose should disqualify that leader unless the party has defined itself as of that class exclusively.

I agree with that, in part. I'd go one step further: [i]There's no such thing as the middle class.[/i] Because (to repeat myself) people's social relations are not entirely, nor even primarily, driven by their annual income. I won't repeat my argument and examples in that regard. See above.

Quote:
I have no problem with a labour party saying we are here for the "working class." Although the NDP is not a "labour party." It is a party of the left with historic close ties to labour (I would like to see them closer). But it is also a party that seeks to represent social justice that includes people who are retired, unable to work dues to illness. It is a party that seeks equity across gender and other lines. And so it should never define itself by class. Obviously, if it is to choose an association with class it would logically be working people not so-called middle class -- but the NDP, as I say is more than just working people.

I don't believe a political party should identify with the "working class" or any other class. It should identify with democracy and social progress, and seek to embody those principles in a rank-and-file democratic fashion. Workers are generally the beneficiaries of those principles, but so are others who aren't workers. And even occasional members of the "1%" may have consciences that might influence them to support a progressive party.

Quote:
"Middle class, however we define it, is exclusive leaving out many working people and people of lesser means that the NDP is supposed to represent. It also leaves out those in the middle class who do not define their political, ideological and social objectives by class or income. As well most people compeltely confuse middle income and middle class -- in part becuase unlike concepts like "business class," "Capital class," "Working class," aristocracy etc. "middle class has little other meaning to most people other than income level. It might mean to some -the none-of-the-above class.

It's just plain meaningless as a term. I repeat what I said before - it's designed to appeal to those who need to feel simultaneously superior to someone lower down, and feel cheated because they're not allowed to join the princelings higher up. It's a term which should be consigned to the landfill. It's not even recyclable or compostable.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Working class consciousness is so 19c. In the 21c, the dominant hegemony has told all to aspire to  being "middle class". Please tred lightly as you step on others while you climb the ladder. Wink

Agreed, Caissa - I believe I made the same point upthread in a different way:

Quote:

"The middle class".

Really.

The people that feel so superior to the next class down, and that dream of nothing but climbing to the next class up.

Fuck the middle class. You heard it here first.

Sean in Ottawa

So Unionist -- what class am I?

I am being honest in asking. I seem to fit into none of them.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So Unionist -- what class am I?

I am being honest in asking. I seem to fit into none of them.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not a true believer in any dogma. All I have is my experiences and my opinions.

In my opinion - based on your testimony - you are part of the working class.

And let me add: I'm proud to know you, brother! We need more like you.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So Unionist -- what class am I?

I am being honest in asking. I seem to fit into none of them.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not a true believer in any dogma. All I have is my experiences and my opinions.

In my opinion - based on your testimony - you are part of the working class.

And let me add: I'm proud to know you, brother! We need more like you.

 

Good to know!

I have been fortunate enough to have worked in a unionized workplace for a few years although not now.

Glad to know my little bit of business does not disqualify me!