RELATIVE AUTONOMY: MEDIA, FILM & POLITICS
  • blog
  • about
  • Writing

What is class?

16/3/2011

 
Picture
Since I have been talking to some groups of media students recently about the vexed subject of class, I thought it might be worth posting here my attempt to answer two questions. How can we understand social class from a Marxist perspective? And how can this understanding help to illuminate the role of the media in capitalist society?

As Bell Hooks notes at the start of her book Where We Stand, ‘nowadays it is fashionable to talk about race or gender; the uncool subject is class. It’s the subject that makes us all tense, nervous, uncertain about where we stand’. The contemporary queasiness about ‘class’ is reflected by the virtual eradication of the word from mainstream media discourse. News reports typically refer to ‘ordinary’ rather than working class people. Governments, too, increasingly forswear the language of class exploitation, preferring the more emollient rhetoric of ‘marginalisation’ and ‘social exclusion’ – keywords in what Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, in their article on ‘neoliberal newspeak’, have called the ‘new planetary vulgate’ of liberal capitalism, ‘from which the terms “capitalism”, “class”, “exploitation”, “domination”, and “inequality” are conspicuous by their absence’. In academia, meanwhile, class has become what Ulrich Beck calls a ‘zombie category’ that continues to haunt critical discourse although its substantive content has largely been hollowed out. If we are to understand capitalism or its media from a communist perspective, however, class must be our starting point.

The theory and practice of communism are premised on the analysis of capitalism. In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx and Engels proposed that capitalism was spreading across the globe and that the structure of industrialised societies was increasingly bifurcating into two mutually antagonistic classes. The bourgeoisie or ruling class owns the means of production (such as factories, supermarkets, schools or call centres) and derives profit from the ‘surplus value’ produced by workers. The proletariat or working class creates society’s wealth, producing commodities in return for a wage. The terms of this basic analysis remain relevant today. It is certainly true that many contemporary workers hold wrongheaded or confused opinions about the nature of their class interests. At the same time, deindustrialisation, gentrification, the breakdown of the extended family and many other factors have wrought massive changes in the nature of working class culture in Western countries in recent decades. It must also be acknowledged that some individuals occupy conflicted class positions that are resistant to classification; as Martin Glaberman notes in his pamphlet The Working Class and Social Change, the communist view of class, unlike its sociological counterpart, does not attempt to account for everybody and is no less valid for that. Yet as capitalism’s crisis deepens, the fundamental fact of working class existence – exploitation – is more palpable than ever, as is the social antagonism between the exploited and their rulers. In fact, The Communist Manifesto’s description of class polarisation now seems grimly prescient: since Marx’s era, when the global working class was massively outnumbered by the peasantry, capitalism has conquered the entire globe, subjecting ever greater swathes of humanity to its rule.

For communists, class – rather than gender, sexuality, race or nationality – is the central category of political and social analysis. In his 2008 New Left Review article ‘Against diversity’, Walter Benn Michaels bluntly proposes that American liberals tend to ‘carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism’. Michaels observes that decades of anti-racist and anti-sexist legislation and campaigning in the US, far from reducing inequality, have been perfectly compatible with its deepening:

"In 1947 – seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, sixteen years before the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique – the top fifth of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of the money earned in the US. Today that same quintile gets 50.5 per cent. In 1947, the bottom fifth of wage-earners got 5 per cent of total income; today it gets 3.4 per cent. After half a century of anti-racism and feminism, the US today is a less equal society than was the racist, sexist society of Jim Crow. Furthermore, virtually all the growth in inequality has taken place since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 – which means not only that the successes of the struggle against discrimination have failed to alleviate inequality, but that they have been compatible with a radical expansion of it. Indeed, they have helped to enable the increasing gulf between rich and poor."

When there is exploitation to be done, capitalism is essentially blind to differences of gender, race and sexuality. Although the cultivation of racism, sexism and homophobia often proves politically useful to capitalists, it is perfectly possible, in theory at least, for capitalism to offer formal equality to black people, women, and homosexuals. It follows that feminism, civil rights and gay rights movements do not in themselves threaten capitalism as class struggles do. The attempts of New Left theoreticians and contemporary hegemony theorists to posit the replacement of the working class as a revolutionary subject with a coalition of identity groups are therefore highly problematic. Unlike other categories of social difference, class constitutes an absolute division in capitalist society, since the antagonism between the exploited and exploiting classes is the system’s essential structural feature. In the brutally simple words of Joe Kenehan in John Sayles's film Matewan:

"Now, they got you fightin' white against coloured, native against foreign, hollow against hollow, when you know there ain't but two sides in this world - them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know about the enemy."

Politicians naturally attempt to deny or mystify this antagonism through a variety of strategies. In so-called ‘rich’ states such as Britain and the US, they have periodically propagated the myth of a universal middle class. When Labour came to power in the UK in 1997, for example, the party’s John Prescott (the pie-muncher pictured above) declared the class struggle to be over, asserting that Britons were ‘all middle class’. Just a few years later, Tony Blair argued that the working class was disappearing and giving way to ‘an expanded middle class, with ladders of opportunity for those of all backgrounds’. Yet if anything, the ‘middle class’ of relatively well-off workers has been shrinking since the 1970s, as capitalism’s economic crisis forces workers to work longer for less pay and previously privileged groups of workers are proletarianised.

When they are not denying the existence of the working class, politicians seeking to boost their public credibility like to claim membership of it. On the BBC’s political discussion programme The Andrew Marr Show (23 May 2010), for example, Labour’s Andy Burnham – a self-described socialist – professed his frustration that too few people can access professions such as politics, law and the media, frequently alluding to his own working class ‘background’. Similarly, in a BBC documentary entitled John Prescott: The Class System and Me (2008), John Prescott embarked on a quest to understand the meaning of class, identifying himself as a worker, despite his erstwhile denial of class hierarchies. Tucking into a portion of fish and chips, Prescott averred that his unpretentious meal signalled his proletarian status and claimed that he drew strength from the support he received from ‘ordinary working people’. ‘They give you that succour’, said Prescott, ‘that comfort that comes from solidarity, even though they know I’m in a different kind of world than they are’. Like Josiah Bounderby in Dickens' Hard Times, Prescott presents himself as a humble man of the people, distancing himself from the accusations of luxurious living that once earned him the mocking soubriquet ‘Two Jags’. Yet Prescott does inhabit ‘a different kind of world’ to the working class people whom he claims support him. This is not just a question of his lifestyle choices. Communists understand class as a relation to the means of production, which one class owns and controls and another uses in production. No matter how many chips or pints of beer he consumes, Prescott – who in 2010 accepted a peerage after many years of gamely professing his distaste for such honours – is a part of the apparatus of capitalist political control. We should judge capitalist politicians not by what they say - most of which is, in any case, merely deception and rhetoric - but by what they do. For example, we should judge Prescott not by the regrets he now expresses over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but by the fact that he voted in support of the attack.

Class is not primarily a matter of one’s accent, consumption habits, place of birth, or whether one performs manual or mental labour. Put simply, the working class is the source of profit for capitalists. It is the dispossessed class: its members have no capital, no control over the overall conditions of their lives and nothing to live upon but their ability to work for a wage. Workers may possess a house and a car and may even have some ‘disposable income’; but they must nevertheless sell their labour power to an employer in return for a wage. Workers’ material interests are to obtain better living and working conditions from capitalists, and ultimately – as the only revolutionary class – to destroy capitalism. The objective of the capitalist, however, is to increase exploitation and profits while reducing costs. Since the conflict between these interests is irreconcilable, the principal propaganda role of the capitalist media is, as Marx and Engels succinctly put it in The German Ideology, to ‘present a particular interest as general or the “general interest” as ruling’. The capitalist media must convince workers that their true interests lie in supporting capitalism (presented as ‘the national interest’) and that the interests of workers and capitalists are congruous, such that – whether in war, industrial action, economic or environmental crisis – we are ‘all in it together’. We are not.

Comments are closed.

    Archives

    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010

    Categories

    All
    5G
    9/11
    Adam Curtis
    Advertising
    Afghanistan
    Alastair Campbell
    Angelina Jolie
    Anti-fascism
    Ashley Madison (hack)
    Aung San Suu Kyi
    Barack Obama
    Bbc
    Black Lives Matter
    Bnp
    Bosnia
    Brexit
    Burma
    Cancel Culture
    Censorship
    Channel 4
    Charlie Hebdo
    China
    Christopher Hitchens
    Christopher Nolan
    Class
    CNN
    Conspiracies
    Cornelius Cardew
    Covid-19
    Czech Republic
    Daily Mail
    Dalai Lama
    David Berman
    Donald Trump
    Economics
    Egypt
    Environment
    European Union
    Extinction Rebellion
    Facebook
    Falklands
    Fascism
    Feminism
    Film
    Free Speech
    Gaza
    Google
    Greece
    Greta Thunberg
    Guy Hibbert
    Hillary Clinton
    Hong Kong
    Immigration
    Internet
    Iran
    Iraq
    Isis
    Israel
    Itn
    Japan
    Jeremy Clarkson
    Jeremy Corbyn
    Jia Zhangke
    Johann Hari
    John Molyneux
    Jordan Peterson
    Katie Hopkins
    Ken Loach
    Kony 2012
    Labour Party
    Lawrence Hayward
    Libya
    Malala Yousafzai
    Marcuse
    Margaret Thatcher
    Marxism
    Mental Illness
    Music
    Myanmar
    Neoliberalism
    News International
    New Statesman
    New Zealand
    Niall Ferguson
    Noam Chomsky
    Norway
    Ofcom
    Osama Bin Laden
    Owen Jones
    Pakistan
    Palestine
    Paul Mattick Jnr
    Peter Bowker
    Peter Kosminsky
    Populism
    Press Tv
    Quentin Tarantino
    Racism
    Reality Tv
    Red Poppy
    Reith Lectures
    Rihanna
    Riots
    Robin Williams
    Russell Brand
    Russell T. Davies
    Scotland
    Silver Jews
    Single Mothers
    Sky Tv
    Slavoj Zizek
    Stephen Fry
    Stephen Poliakoff
    Stereotypes
    Strikes
    Suicide
    Syria
    Television
    Terrorism
    Terry Eagleton
    The Express
    The Guardian
    The Mirror
    The Sun
    Thomas Piketty
    Tony Grounds
    Tunisia
    Vaclav Havel
    War
    Washington Post
    Winston Churchill
    Wire
    Yugoslavia

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.