NationStates Jolt Archive

The reason I ask is because generally all sides of the political spectrum will take about social 'class,' the reasons tend to be different though. But this is neigther here nor there.

But, what is Class?

Is it related to qualifications, income, job description?

Does Class even exist?

I go for the Zinn description. Class is made up of three things. Wages got for job, social status of job and social function of job. (I'm including full time parents and the unemployed in my defination of job).

so would you consider some porno web site owner who makes 20k a month high middle class?

In the UK we have a class system called the Registra General. This takes account of your income, your job, what land you own, etc... and places you within a certain bracket. This is a goverment classification rather than a sociological perspective.

Personally, I think there are only two classes, the upper and lower class (i.e. Proletariat and Bourgeosie) and there are factions within those two classes (e.g. the emergence of the middle class).

so would you consider some porno web site owner who makes 20k a month high middle class?Yep. Wages and social function. (It's a balance of the three rather then an equal mix of all. Those kind of wages would make someone middle class whatever their job IMNSHO).

I would suggesting reading some Karl Marx for a decent description of 'class' Much of what he said is still very relevant today, although some of his predictions haven't been realised, many have, including global capitalism.

Here's an excerpt regarding class:
"An individuals class position is determined by his or her relationship to the Forces (means) of production. It is ownership or non-ownership of the Forces (means) of Production, which determines class position."

Very basically then, according to Marx, your designation when it comes to 'class' is whether you own a business which 'produces' or if you work to produce in that business, or create the produce itself. (Ruling and working classes).

This is a Marxist interpretation but after all Marx and Engel’s were really the first to spend time looking at the relationships of the different classes in society.

so would you consider some porno web site owner who makes 20k a month high middle class?

I'd say it depends. I consider class to be a mindset, not related to economics at all. Of course the government uses quantifiable methods to place people in a class, but I don't htink this is accurate.

For example, many footballers have huge pay packets, but htat doesn't make them "classy". If classy means of or related to the upper class, then by not being classy they are by inference lower class (I couldn't call a footballer working class)

I think level of education, social upbringing, manners, apperance, and habits have much more to do with it than money.

Money plays a part though.

Working class: Football match
Upper class: Polo match

Working class: Cinema
Upper class: Opera

Working class: Rap
Upper class: Classical (come on, even the name gives it away)

Working class: Tabloid
Upper class: Broadsheet

So, if your porn site owner went to uni, his/her father is an accountant and his/her mother a school teacher. (S)He is well educated, well read, polite and well dressed, (s)he just happens to own a porn business, then I'd say they are upper/middle class.

While useful Marxes definations are archaic. You can't just pluck them out of the air without adjusting them to modern society.

Classes make no sense. People act as individuals for reasons that are their own. Nobody says, "what can I do today to benefit my class?" That's absurd. What sociological theorems can be deduced, and empirically verified, from a class perspective which aren't true from an individualist perspective? None that I'm aware of. It's confusing and misleading.

Classes make no sense. People act as individuals for reasons that are their own. Nobody says, "what can I do today to benefit my class?" That's absurd. What sociological theorems can be deduced, and empirically verified, from a class perspective which aren't true from an individualist perspective? None that I'm aware of. It's confusing and misleading.Obviously classes are general groupings of individuals. But you can't argue that people exist solely as single entitys, unaffected by their social experiences.

Obviously classes are general groupings of individuals. But you can't argue that people exist solely as single entitys, unaffected by their social experiences.
But "classes" are worse than useless as a tool of sociological analysis. Marxist class analysis in particular is counter productive. The individualist perspective is not "atomic" in any sense, a better analogy would be "molecular". People act as individuals for reasons that are their own. These actions and motivations are for sure influenced by other individuals. But people don't act as homogeneous groups called "classes".

In the UK we have a class system called the Registra General. This takes account of your income, your job, what land you own, etc... and places you within a certain bracket. This is a goverment classification rather than a sociological perspective.

I know that, but the categories keep on confusing me. But I am always wary of a bureaucrats definitions.

Personally, I think there are only two classes, the upper and lower class (i.e. Proletariat and Bourgeosie) and there are factions within those two classes (e.g. the emergence of the middle class).
What makes a person either Proletariat and Bourgeosie.

I would suggesting reading some Karl Marx for a decent description of 'class.'

I have. In fact, I have even had to write a few essays on his work, or in which I referenced his work.

Here's an excerpt regarding class:
"An individuals class position is determined by his or her relationship to the Forces (means) of production. It is ownership or non-ownership of the Forces (means) of Production, which determines class position."

That hardly explains where an intellectual or writer or doctor fits in. Unless you think that they are part of the Proletariat. Something I cannot quite get my head around.

Very basically then, according to Marx, your designation when it comes to 'class' is whether you own a business which 'produces' or if you work to produce in that business, or create the produce itself. (Ruling and working classes).

This seems to make the assumption that we all create products (either by building them or by supplying the resourses need to build them)

This is a Marxist interpretation but after all Marx and Engel’s were really the first to spend time looking at the relationships of the different classes in society.

Really. IIRC Daniel Defoe compiled a class structure with seven categories (although I don't have them to hand at the moment).

And through history there have been many to do this. Marx just had an -ism by which people remember him.

But people don't act as homogeneous groups called "classes".
Analysing the votes cast by the 'working class' over the coarse of the past half a century shows that.

It's a 1983 Orion Pictures release staring Andrew McCarthy as an Illinois prep school student who has an affair with the mother (Jaqueline Bisset) of a fellow student (Rob Lowe).

Analysing the votes cast by the 'working class' over the coarse of the past half a century shows that.It shows that, as Libby says, classes certainly aren't homegenous groups. There are however certain trends that show up more in one class then another.

It shows that, as Libby says, classes certainly aren't homegenous groups. There are however certain trends that show up more in one class then another.
But class analysis is superfluous here. One can say that "individuals on lower income are statistically more likely to commit crime or vote labour." Why bother talking about classes at all? After all, it is individuals who commit crimes and cast votes, the interesting question here is "what is the INDIVIDUAL's motive for criminal activity or voting labour?" Surely not some sort of "class conciousness"! You don't need class analysis to make the good points and it is often misleading.

Edit: Also, this helps to focus on the particular cause of the relevant behaviour instead of listing certain empirical properties of "classes". Does someone commit murder because of "his relationship to the means of production"?

[QUOTE= Why bother talking about classes at all? After all, it is individuals who commit crimes and cast votes, the interesting question here is "what is the INDIVIDUAL's motive for criminal activity or voting labour?"]

talking about class has nothing to do with, murder or an individuals crime. when creating laws or working on the economy the larger group has to be broken down into classes to make things fair in general. if one was to study the trends of lower, middle and upper class they would be more qualified to help make decisions cencerning these groups. when you talk about classes or try to define them generalizations HAVE to be made because thats exactly what a "class" is. in the case of crime the individual reasons are usually taken into account. it is absurd to think we should get rid of a class system and study every person in a larger group indidvidually. generalizations can and have been hurtfull in the past, but they have to be made in order to study people. its most important to point out that if one person felt wronged by a generalization of their class, they should have every opportunity to set themselves apart and prove that they are different.

talking about class has nothing to do with, murder or an individuals crime. when creating laws or working on the economy the larger group has to be broken down into classes to make things fair in general.
Huh?

if one was to study the trends of lower, middle and upper class they would be more qualified to help make decisions cencerning these groups.
These groups don't exist. You can talk about people with different incomes if that is relevant but in that case you are asking why an INDIVIDUAL with lower income acts a certain way. The rest of the "class" has nothing to do with it. As I said, all the good theories can be taken account of from the individualist perspective where class analysis is superfluous, otherwise class analysis introduces false theories and confusing mumbo jumbo.

when you talk about classes or try to define them generalizations HAVE to be made because thats exactly what a "class" is. in the case of crime the individual reasons are usually taken into account. it is absurd to think we should get rid of a class system and study every person in a larger group indidvidually.
No but you can study the incentives acting upon an individual with a given income, talent or product to sell without invoking a mysterious "class".

generalizations can and have been hurtfull in the past, but they have to be made in order to study people. its most important to point out that if one person felt wronged by a generalization of their class, they should have every opportunity to set themselves apart and prove that they are different.
I'm not saying it's bad to generalise, just that we study human action should be studied from the point of view of the human actors. You'll get nowhere asking "what should my class do"? As I said before.
People act as individuals for reasons that are their own. Nobody says, "what can I do today to benefit my class?" That's absurd. What sociological theorems can be deduced, and empirically verified, from a class perspective which aren't true from an individualist perspective? None that I'm aware of. It's confusing and misleading.

I'm not saying it's bad to generalise, just that we study human action should be studied from the point of view of the human actors. You'll get nowhere asking "what should my class do"? As I said before.Surely if, as you stated on another thread, it is interest of bosses to pay as little as possible and workers to get as much as they can, that points to at least some common class interests?

Surely if, as you stated on another thread, it is interest of bosses to pay as little as possible and workers to get as much as they can, that points to at least some common class interests?
It is in the interest of each individual boss to pay his workers as little as possible and so, I suppose, by extension it is in the "class interest". But why talk of classes at all? It is superfluous to the analysis. Further, it is misleading since it could lead one to infer that employers all sat round a table and decided it was in their interest to lower wages. They do it from individual interests not class interests. In fact, often employers raise wages to compete with each other for labour. How does class analysis account for this behaviour?

That hardly explains where an intellectual or writer or doctor fits in. Unless you think that they are part of the Proletariat. Something I cannot quite get my head around.



Tricky in Marxism, you've got several versions of where the intellectual fits in.
If you want to, you can think about intellectual labour and fir intellectuals into the proletariat that way, for example, I sell my intellectual labour to the university, in essence thinking for them for a period each day (this obviously all depends on the particular definitions of labour and how you are considering capitalist exploitation, but its a rough sketch)

In certain version (Lukacs perhaps and you might just be able to consider Mannheim a marxist of sorts) intellectuals are those who are able to see outside their class position (generally considered to be bougeoise) and see the wider picture (possibly though some 'scientific' study of ideology like say....well, Marxism) penetrating the fog of false consciousness.

The interesting version is in the work of Gramsci, who has two types of intellectuals, traditional and organic. Traditional intellectuals are those who defend the status quo (in the modern era they would often be economists) whilst organic intellectuals are those who emerge from the proletariat (in a broad) sense and lead it towards its revolutionary goals

(this is a shockingly brief overview, so I've probably missed a lot of the details)