Self Help tips for the Struggling Classes
11 commentsWritten in response to Reid Kane's piece, 'Class, Struggle' which starts like this:
'Class struggle is not, first and foremost, the struggle between classes, social classes, already constituted as such. Struggle is the ground of such social classes, be they working and owning classes or any other. It is this struggle which, situated within the organization of human activity as a whole (and the problematicity of this formulation does not for a moment escape me), comes before and allows for the genesis of social relations in which distinct classes take shape.'
But does this mean (and I refer by extension to the whole of Reid's piece, which can be read via the above link), or could it mean, that if the working class stopped struggling, they would stop being working class? Or, rather, without struggle, there would be no class? And how would that happen?
For if death is capital, as Reid argues, would a 'dead' life characterised by its assimilation to capital best evade that death by simply not playing along - i.e. not 'working', or not 'struggling'? Here I don't refer to the 'playing dead' of Adorno's mimesis, but simply a withdrawal from 'struggle'. A refusal to get upset. A radical 'calm'.
It almost gets a bit 'self help book-ish'. But if you bear with me, I don't think that need be a bad thing. i.e. Just as when someone says, 'I am happy, I am happy, I am happy', they may feel happier as a result, if the working class subject were to say, 'I am free' (from struggle), would they not then be more 'free' on some level?
Of course, this is a gross over simplification... the process would have to be applied from the bottom up if it were to change society... but, then, that process can't happen until the subject is 'freed' first, because there would be little point changing the infratructure of society, just for it to whir on mechanistically as some kind of 'death robot' for the fact that its principal component (the 'subject' or mass of subjects) is still struggling, as a basis for its existence.
The first step towards a wider societal freedom has to be subjective freedom, and if class is 'struggle', as Reid argues, then class stratification (which keeps the subject in place) has to be broken by the subject which struggles, refusing to struggle. They must simply cease to struggle. Or not struggle in the first place. This does not mean that the subject should capitulate to whatever it is struggling against, but simply that the only way to stop struggling is to stop struggling.
I find Reid's talk of struggle a bit disconcerting. It comes across as some kind of masochism. And he may be right that there is an element of the working class that is perpetuated by 'struggle', but the seeming identification of this as 'positive' seems a little over romantic:
'Everything existing struggles in doing so, and often, in order to do so as well; although, it is not unheard of that, in the struggle to cease existing, one only persists all the longer. This latter struggle is that of the Proletariat.'
Yet, one might 'struggle' to unlock a door for what seems like hours, then stop for a minute, exasperated, hands shaking with pain after fitfully forcing the key dozens of times, before trying just once more, ever so gently. The door finally opens. The stubborn will say that the time spent forcing the door softened up the lock for its final assault. Only the wise will admit their foolishness; all the key ever needed was a gentle turn. Maybe this will be the history of the 'struggle of the proletariat', and how many lives would have been wasted (not necessarily 'killed', but often just 'wasted' struggling) before we try applying a little less 'struggle'?
That is not to say that the worst excesses of Captialism will give way with a gentle nudge, but, rather, to say that, if, as Reid says, class is sustained by struggle, then perhaps we might better see a way to a healing of class rifts (so far as they exist; I actually think that class terminology is distinctly shakey, speaking as a PhD student who grew up on a council estate) if we just stopped the self perpetuating struggle, and opened our eyes. I say this partly as so many people do so clearly struggle as a means of sustaining their persona, regardless of what income bracket they are in. Perhaps social stratification is cemented by different groups of individuals struggling to define themselves as separate from each other. From the grimace of the Prime Minister, to the grimace of the diassaffected youth, social constipation perpetuates itself.
In respect of my aversion to Reid's 'struggle' I'd like to introduce a notion that came out of an e-mail exchange with artist Andrew Cooper. In the said exchange, Andrew helpfully explained to me the logic in the Left holding on to Leftist terminology, which is something I have challenged recently, not least as the Left, and terms associated with it, are so unpopular with the public which it aims to appeal to. Andrew explained that Badiou argues that the working class need to own something... they are entitled to own a part of history, and this part is/should be, for Badiou, a revolutionary Leftist history. He has a point (Andrew/Badiou), but I queried whether it was sensible to follow the history of Lenin, the Jacobins, Che Guevara, 1968, etc? Would Gandhi not make a better model? Or the Left plus Gandhi?*
I say this knowing the complexity of Gandhi's story, and I'd like to study it a lot more before committing myself even to elements. But there are certainly parts of his strategy which would be useful to the fair minded socially concerned person today... i.e. 'be the change you want to see' - I am not struggling.
Of course, the pacifism and humble dedication espoused by Gandhi are other aspects which could be taken up by those wishing to see a positive change in society today. One feels the quick fix hedomisn of the extreme Left - 'Warehouse Raves and Revolutions' - which tallies with our crass times, could benefit from looking outside its usual nexus of explosive influences.
* people might now point out that Gandhi was opposed to Imperialism, a Capitalist product, and is therefore a Leftist figure, but I feel he differed from the usually cited Leftist figures significantly, and in any case, Gandhi's anti-Imperialism did not spawn an empire (although that is not to belittle the justifiable woes suffered by many people on the Indian sub-continent as a result of the territorial carve-up following independence), whereas the revolutionary Leftist call has always intended upon expansion, naturally.
6 February 2010 18:56
To stop struggling the working class would have to stop working, i.e. most of them would have to starve to death. "Class struggle" is not some subjective stance with regard to capital but is intrinsic to the capital-labor relation.
7 February 2010 05:02
I think you're absolutely right, but that is not my point. I am arguing against the cementing of class boundaries through struggle. I am saying nothing about financial inequality, which needs be addressed, but has never neen adequately addressed by the said 'struggle'.
If class boundaries are cemented by struggle, stop struggling - i.e. fiercely and actively maintaining the age old postures of leftist critique and praxis.
Though I think what I tale exception to is the employment of very old terms I.e. class, proletariat, etc, admixed with this heroic notion of 'struggle', which is self defeating, and which is, in fact, also an anachronistic leftist term.
To say the working class (or 'proletariat'... oh look, another coal miner passes my window) IS struggle, is to perpetuate the struggle.
I can see 'class struggle', as you term it, is not societal, but I don't think anything will be solved withot appealing to the 'subject'... i.e. the individual person. If that person is told that their social status is defined by struggle, I think they're not likely to escape it, bar via effecting an implosion of that social class, which could be damaging for individuals placed in it.
It's the the macho, and masochistic talk of revolutions that won't happen, because the self same struggle is, by Reid's own definiton, constitutive of the class boundaries that the revolution, via that 'struggle' aims to overturn. To break this cycle (should anyone believe one exists) I argue that one need appeal to the subject to use their common sense and throw off the shackles of a tired history (to paraphrase Marx)... hence, I think we could appeal to figures other than the usual ones in trying to effect change, if we even need to look back, in garnering the inspiration to move forward. Or do people just not want change, preferring an endless and concretizing 'struggle', which simply serves to keep the 'proletariat' in place?
10 February 2010 13:18
Class is such an important issue despite the complications. I think to obscure the issue by focusing on social class traits can be counter productive, although I have to say such social class prejudice is in no way a thing of the past and there is a real phenomena of internalized inadequacy and lack of confidence to aspire in the broadest sense in many working class youths. Social prejudices about class are certainly alive and kicking in the art world but enough of this. Social manifestations of class are a symptom of economic structure.
Class struggle/antagonism is real whether we want it or not, public services will be cut and the poor will pay for the economic crisis. The economic forces are real and they do not respect what class you might consider yourself to be. It is not a personal thing any more than bankers (well most!) who 'believe in' capitalism are inherently evil. It is also not just about Europe and America, we have to remember that a time is coming soon when the majority of the world’s population will be living in urban areas and the majority of those will be poor and living in shanty towns, who knows what the emerging social net works in such places will bring, but one thing I think is sure, those networks will be about making up for a lack of social provision and in many cases resistance to abuses by the ruling elites.
The form that resistance takes is an issue as you point out Mike. I feel the key is in sensitive non dogmatic awareness. Sometimes it may be important to focus on creating a different locus of focus from the ones that are present in society, this is often overlooked, I think, and it just means if its not there we create ourselves and maybe what we create will be more interesting and enjoyable. But there will be times of struggle and it may be important to act also when other groups peoples are being victimized. And I don’t think that capitalism will go on and on.
It is true that class boundaries in this country are plastic, people go up and down, when I was working on the underground the driver had a PHD in philosophy and the guy that looked after the platform at Warren street a degree in archeology. The station manager at angel said to me "is this what happens to art students, they end up cleaning the rail mans toilet" and then jokingly "you had ideas above your station". But I did get into art college despite being told at the interview in 1980 that it might not be the best thing because my father was an engineer.
Well why hang on to the past? Because in order to reinvent and recreate in a better way a communist vision it is our ancestors that call to us in a sense. People like my uncle who fought at Tobruk and made a joke about the man next to him ending up as a torso because he stepped on a land mine and the many elderly people who will be inadequately cared for because of staffing shortages. And there is something in what Walter Benjamin says- "Social democracy thought fit to assign to the working class the role of redeemer of future generations, in this way cutting the sinews of its greatest strength. This training made the working class forget both its hatred and it spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grand children." xii Theses on the philosophy of history. It’s heavy but I take it in the sense that awareness of history is essential.
10 February 2010 13:23
This comment has been removed by the author.
10 February 2010 14:24
Thanks Andrew.
I don't think we disagree, I just think that the prevailing leftist discourse superceded something before it that was equally intent on a fair world, and it may be time to look toward a new discourse.
We have the (good) relic 'do unto others as you would want done unto yourself', from the New Testament. And we have, 'from each according to their ability to each according to thwir needs,' from the Communist Manifesto.
Totally common sense.. yet how do we carry it (this message) into out times. Urging people to mutter poems to God won't help, and neither will bashing the 'good book' of the left.. class war, class struggle, proletariat.
It's just an antiquated language, that's all. If people can see that in the bible, why can't they see it in leftist discourse..? But THEN, there are people who still pray to the sun god.
11 February 2010 13:10
I think what you say about dogmatic language is certainly true.
I think also what Zizek is saying about reinvention constant reinvention of communism is important.
I feel we are faced with the inoculation by society from the radical tradition of thought as a developing, living sensitive and responsive discourse.
Lets be careful about confusing the real facts that the words and terms signify, may be in a way which lacks clarity nowadays, with the words and terms themselves which may have become fossils. I know this is not what you are doing, but it could be a danger. On a sober note I have just found out that everyone’s lunch hour is going to be reduced to half an hour at work this is bad for me but I think an absolute killer for those that teach full time.
11 February 2010 15:40
True, you have a very strong point in regard to not losing touch with the important issues, and we do need to remember historical examples in which people tried to make a fairer society. So long as we can add to progress that has been made, where it has, and not just bang away repeating old mistaken ways of aiming for change. I think we agree, basically, and we're closing in on some kind of definition.
... 30 minutes seems not long to deal with so much input from students, before the business of teaching starts again.
3 March 2010 19:07
http://theothergardener.wordpress.com
There is always going to be struggle, and violence along with that struggle. Really this is all just the bourgeois fear of violence. People on the bottom know who the enemy are, and they should attack at every level and with every means.
tog
7 March 2010 08:38
Everyone fears violence apart from a psychopath. But that is not a reason not to go to war.
I don't think anything above is a reaction to fear of violence though. Although if you think that Badiou is a 'revisionist' and your particularly political party has all the answers and any discussion is bourgoise meandering then yes we may as well leave it here.
8 March 2010 15:12
well, the other gardener, i do quite fear violence, but then, such a fear never motivated me politically. how't that?!
14 March 2010 03:04
Thinking about the bourgeoisie and violence. They certainly don't fear to use it, just the opposite.