Huh! Call that class war?
Posted on Friday 11 December, 2009
Filed Under Economics
IT’S ASTONISHING how many commentators are unable to discern between a touch of tokenistic populist grandstanding and what they disarmingly insist on labelling ‘class war’. It must surely be apparent to even the densest national newspaper leader writer that Alastair Darling’s decision to tax bankers’ bonuses is an expedient driven by crass electoral calculation, without even a scintilla of underlying ideological conviction.
But I’m not saying that like it is entirely a bad thing. The chancellor’s opportunistic posturing puts the social democratic case for wealth redistribution symbolically back on the agenda, and offers the left the case to argue for its reinstatement in a systematic fashion.
Look at page five the Financial Times this morning, where a subhead above a graphic reads: ‘Financial wealth is skewed towards the rich’. Now there’s a shock finding for you. Presumably the follow-up in Weekend FT tomorrow will detail why people in poverty tend to be poorer than average.
But what is interesting is just how far financial wealth really is ‘skewed towards the rich’. The bar chart illustrates a story based on an Office of National Statistics breakdown on the distribution of wealth – as opposed to income – in this country.
So we learn that the wealthiest 10% own 44% of all wealth, and ‘more than half’ of financial assets and pension contributions. That makes them five times wealthier than the poorest 50% put together, who together own just 9% of UK wealth.
Actually, the FT is being a bit coy here. The Independent also looks at the stats, and reveals that the top 20% owns 84% of financial assets; the aggregate wealth of lowest five deciles – that’s half the population, in plain English – is just 1%.
The article states that figures represent the first occasion on which the wealth gap has been officially quantified, a statement I find mildly surprising, but have no evidence to contradict. It seems we are without a time series, and thus have only a snapshot of the distribution of wealth after 12 years of New Labour in office.
But as snapshots go, it is reminiscent of those ‘before’ photographs routinely produced by Weightwatchers dieters of the year to explain how they were shamed into losing three stone. The disparity between the two Britains runs at 99:1.
What can possibly justify that? Various explanations for such dramatic inequality are routinely advanced; the rich work hard, are cleverer, are more abstemious than the rest of us, we are told. Some of those contentions are empirically contestable. But even if every assertion was true, not even the most extreme free marketeer could argue that this points to any rational relationship between effort and reward.
And such disparities are indeed a matter of life and death. The poor, as we all know, die younger. The utilitarian case for wealth redistribution – a line of reasoning based on liberalism rather than socialism or Marxism – becomes unanswerable.
An increase in taxation for the wealthiest, and a rise in income for the poorest, will represent a net gain for society as a whole. That’s not class war; it’s bog standard social democracy.
<<Go back
Comments
107 Responses to “Huh! Call that class war?”
Surely, this discussion illustrates the problem with the “We’ll make it up as we go along” school of politics.
Most obviously it’s not very consistent nor is it intellectually tenable, but leaving that aside for the moment, if Marxists are having a problem with the basics, defining the proletariat (or members thereof), then how on earth will they grapple with more complex problems?
It’s simply not going to happen.
Of course if you are going to define a member of the proletariat as basically:
Surely, this discussion illustrates the problem with the “We’ll make it up as we go along” school of politics.
Most obviously it’s not very consistent nor is it intellectually tenable, but leaving that aside for the moment, if Marxists are having a problem with the basics, defining the proletariat (or members thereof), then how on earth will they grapple with more complex problems?
It’s simply not going to happen.
Of course if you are going to define a member of the proletariat as basically:
<“anyone, under capitalism, who doesn’t own the means of production, irrespective of their income, background or education” (or something broadly similar to that)
then it is a bit of a problem.
The problem is the definition become so wide it encompasses every one from those exceedingly poor class conscious factory workers somewhere in the Midlands to the snotty offspring of Eton’s headmaster, and beyond.
That type of definition being so broad becomes essentially meaningless.
If you were one day to recruit an industrial worker to a Marxist grouping I can’t imagine that he or she would like being told that they are in political and social terms essentially the same as the privileged offspring of some City banker (who doesn’t own the means of production themselves or live off interest).
In fact, as members of the Royals don’t own the means of production, would they too count as “proletarian”, I think one of them might even work for a living?
It all becomes very messy, intellectually speaking, but then again if you don’t mind tying itself in knots and talking to the same three men and a dog in a pub, then that probably won’t trouble you too much.
JohnG,
Do not confuse my words with those of Bill Corr.
Please.
Ops, try again:
Of course if you are going to define a member of the proletariat as basically:
then it is a bit of a problem.
Modernity,
there’s no problem, the working class make up the overwhelming majority of the population who run capitalism from top to bottom in the interest of the people who own the means of production.
Living off interest is living off investments in the means of production, so a trustafarian is a capitalist, as will, most likely, anyone who goes to Eton – after a certain point, unless you’re mad, you invest high income, and start to be able to live off property.
However, I prefer to try and unite the working class around their common interest, the right not to be used as wage slaves, rather than divide them on spurious grounds like accent, education or whether they’re a house or field wage slave.
Note, I’m not making this up as I go along, this has been the Marxist definition of a worker for a hundred years or more…
“there’s no problem, the working class make up the overwhelming majority of the population who run capitalism from top to bottom in the interest of the people who own the means of production.”
But that was NOT the question, which was who is a member of the proletariat.
See my comment of 18:03, 16 December 2009
Working class = Proletariat.
The problem is the definition become so wide it encompasses every one from those exceedingly poor class conscious factory workers somewhere in the Midlands to the snotty offspring of Eton’s headmaster, and beyond.
Well it depends, as others have pointed out, on whether that offspring (snotty or otherwise) lives by selling his/her labour, or off daddy’s money. Obviously the latter is more likely, in which case s/he is not of the same class as those factory workers. But if for some reason s/he does end up selling his/her labour then yes, s/he is a member of our class – albeit probably a more privileged member of it.
If you were one day to recruit an industrial worker to a Marxist grouping I can’t imagine that he or she would like being told that they are in political and social terms essentially the same as the privileged offspring of some City banker (who doesn’t own the means of production themselves or live off interest).
I have no idea about what any of their parents do or did for a living, but as a shop steward I represent people from all manner of upbringings and backgrounds. So far I haven’t heard anyone object during any mention of class in our Branch meetings discussing various topics. In fact, I’d say it’s quite self-evident in that situation that we have a collective interest vs. the employers.
In fact, as members of the Royals don’t own the means of production, would they too count as “proletarian”, I think one of them might even work for a living?
OK, find one who sells his/her labour for a living please.
It all becomes very messy, intellectually speaking, but then again if you don’t mind tying itself in knots and talking to the same three men and a dog in a pub, then that probably won’t trouble you too much.
It’s quite clear to me. Maybe it’s just you who is struggling with fairly basic concepts? Then again if you don’t mind tying itself in knots and talking to the same three men and a dog on the internet, then that probably won’t trouble you too much.