Much respect. Best wishes to the poor bastard who got stabbed. And three cheers for Jazz Randyman — you rock!
Melbourne taxi drivers consider further protests
Maria Bervanakis
Melbourne Leader
May 2, 2008
TAXI drivers have warned Wednesday’s snap city blockade could happen again.
Blockade organiser Mohammed Jama said cab drivers had been neglected for too long and were prepared to further disrupt the city to get what they wanted.
“From now on, if we are not getting what we want we will fight for our right anytime, any place, anywhere,” he said.
About 1000 cabbies blocked the intersection of Flinders and Swanston streets for 22 hours calling for increased safety in taxis.
The April 29 stabbing of Reservoir taxi driver Jalvinder Singh, 23, in Clifton Hill sparked the protest.
A 45-year-old Alphington man faces an attempted murder charge.
The 22-hour protest ended when the State Government gave in to the cabbies’ demands.
Under the agreement, all Melbourne taxis will be fitted with security screens by Christmas and the government will foot half the bill. Also, passengers will be required to pre-pay fares between 10pm and 5am.
The government also agreed to compensate the injured taxi driver and launch a media campaign to promote the pre-pay system.
It will also educate drivers on dealing with violent offenders.
Victorian Taxi Directorate general manager Peter Corcoran said the actions were offered in good faith by Transport Minister Lynne Kosky.
“The community and this government cannot condone any violence against taxi drivers,” he said at the protest.
Victoria Police negotiator Inspector Paul Pottage said he was satisfied with the peaceful protest.
He said fines issued against drivers who parked cabs illegally during the blockade would be waived.
“This was a concession we made at the meeting (with Ms Kosky),” he said.
Sony Kumer, 34, left India 13 years ago to live in Melbourne. The father of three from Hoppers Crossing was a cab driver for two years but recently gave it up after he was set upon by passengers.
He said security screens would go a long way to protecting drivers.
“I had a lot of problems. I was assaulted by three men, I stopped the cab and ran,” he said.
“I am looking for a job now but one thing is for sure, I don’t want to drive cabs.”
Satvirl Khangur, 24, from Reservoir, is a rookie cab driver of two months. He had mixed feelings about the changes.
“It’s alright, pre-pay is good and security screens, I’m not sure how much safer it will be,” he said.
Mr Khangur said he was glad he joined the protest – despite sleeping on the street in freezing temperatures and not eating for 22 hours.
“I’m with my friends, all my brothers, we all united to take on the government,” he told the Leader.
Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder and Lord Mayor John So went to the blockade on Wednesday to urge the drivers to move on.
The Lord Mayor offered to convene a meeting at his office but drivers declined.
“I’m asking them (the drivers) to get off the street,” the Lord Mayor said before leaving on foot unescorted.
The cabbies had the support of a large cross-section of the community, with Salvation Army officers handing out cups of water to the protesters.
Cadet Peter Hobbs said it was unusual for the Salvos to attend a protest but they helped “everyone in need”.
“These guys have been here a while so we are giving them some water,” he said.
East Brunswick man Mickie Skelton, 20, brought a red basket of apples and handed them out to the applause of the drivers who vowed to “never charge him” for a cab journey.
“I’m an anarchist and a unionist and I believe in solidarity,” Mr Skelton said.
“These guys are here to say that we do not just work in your 7 Elevens, your petrol stations and drive your cabs around. We keep this city going.
“This is a class issue.”
City workers interviewed by Leader were mostly in support of the drivers.
James Henderson, 26, from Port Melbourne said: “Not enough is being done about the escalating violence.”
David Matthews, 22, of Port Melbourne said it should never have come to drivers needing to blockade.
“18 months ago a taxi driver was killed and the government said safety standards would be reviewed and here we are again. There is a need to take action,” he said.
The protest was largely peaceful until police started to fine the cabs.
Nishan Singh, 29, from Glenroy copped a $110 fine but refused to move his car.
Ms Kosky will meet with taxi drivers at noon on May 15 at Flemington Racecourse to disclose further details of the introduction of the security screens.
A brilliant example of workers’ power.
I was speaking to a taxi driver today who was there, and he was saying some very, very interesting things. Apparently the drivers who did the action were annoyed that there wasn’t much solidarity from other drivers who weren’t from the subcontinent or Somalia, even though this hadn’t been an issue before with other protests and strikes. He also reckoned that a few drivers have left the ATU in disgust, because the leadership refused to do anything to back the protests and “stayed in bed while [they] were on the streets” and some were talking about leaving en masse because the union wasn’t backing direct action (he didn’t say the words “direct action”, but that’s what he was describing) and were generally useless.
It does sound pretty amazing: race, precarity, out-side-and-against-the-union, new compositions of labour. It’s got it all!
I’m not sure how strong the race card is in this issue…
I think it’s more likely the perennial thing which is that union bureaucrats do everything they can to stop militant worker actions. It’s hardly unheard of that a wildcat strike is not supported by a union bureaucracy!
Juancastro, the lowest end of the taxi economy is heavily racialised for a number of reasons, but a notable one is the formation of labour markets through the development of the use of international students as workers – an intersection of border control regimes and their policing, racism and (hyper-)exploitation. And attitudes to such people – as either workers or students – are saturated in coyly expressed racism and xenophobia from the relevant ‘representative’ bureaucracies and from the Australian Left.
As Liz Thompson wrote a couple of days ago in relation to these struggles:
While the above comment is schematic (but in my observation broadly accurate), Liz’s general discussion, and other related work at archive, is worth a look on these intersections.
c) from the anarchists and the socialists: they are just aspirational middle class kids (which is okay for whitey, but not for anyone else) who are just making their way up the corporate ladder anyway and will be finished in their shit jobs in a few years – then they will be our enemy!
— versus —
East Brunswick man Mickie Skelton, 20, brought a red basket of apples and handed them out to the applause of the drivers who vowed to “never charge him” for a cab journey.
“I’m an anarchist and a unionist and I believe in solidarity,” Mr Skelton said.
“These guys are here to say that we do not just work in your 7 Elevens, your petrol stations and drive your cabs around. We keep this city going” [said one of the drivers…].
“This is a class issue.”
Mind you, I’ve not read anything much written by anarchists or leftists on the subject. Off the top of my head, the only reference I can remember making to Indian students in Australia was in terms of accommodation, and the provision of substandard housing to them by jailbird Darren Ray:
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=721
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1026
(Cheers for the link.)
Um, re: anarchists and the drivers, Liz may have been referring to views expressed by a certain Melbourne big A-S anarcho-syndicalist at a recent meeting, which seem, from reports, to have followed that general line, though I wasn’t there.
Mickie Skelton’s leaflet does reflect a very different political impulse, though.
OK. I will conduct some further enquiries…
Oh, and the driver said that their fines had been immediately revoked as part of their deal with Kosky. So yay for that.
Liz seems to be a bit off the mark for once. I’m in a position to know that the staff at at least one student union are exasperated that some student politicians at RMIT have been actively obstructionist (the majority just being passively obstructionist) when it comes to international students for similar reasons attributed to the ‘left-wing staff’.
As for her general description of the anarchists and socialist line, well, to be frank that’s such a minority position that you can afford to put generalisations aside and talk about specific lines from individuals and groups, without taking up too much space. I’d be very interested to hear what that was based on, particularly being on the anarchist side of things and not ever hearing that attitude expressed. Guess I’ll ask. It could be true, and Liz definitely talks to more people than I do.
If, as Lumpnboy seems to be saying, that can be attributed to the ASF, I’d be very surprised given the current composition of the group. I’d ask Lumpnboy to put his cards on the table if he thinks he has pertinent information, as it skirts very close to malicious gossip if left this vague. I can’t see any advantage in leaving it as that.
Otherwise, it’s a pretty good article I reckon. Gosh, Liz pulls out the facts well.
PS. PDF of the article by Mickie Skelton (courtesy of archive).
What’s the deal with the rejection of my post @ndy?
hey juan: I’ve no idea. I think it got caught in the spam filter… Can you please re-submit?
Argh! It was a bit long.
One point was that in Socialist Alternative the taxi action was celebrated as an example of the potential of militant workers’ action, and we used it (alongside the Boeing victory) as a fantastic instance of workers’ power when speaking to people on May Day.
I also suggested that international students shouldn’t be a focus of student unions, rather they should be incorporated into their industrial unions if they work. The reason for this is that defending the interests of rich foreigners probably isn’t going to be a galvanising slogan, and could lead to a) opposition amongst decent leftist students and b) an opening for a right-wing agenda pretending to speak out on behalf of the working-class/poor students.
juan:
On the second point, even if it were the case that the taxi drivers who took part in the industrial action wanted to, it appears that the relevant union — the TWU — isn’t especially interested in recruiting them. (As far as I can tell, the Australian Taxi Drivers Association, on the other hand, is moribund.) Further, successful industrial action taken without the assistance of any union body* such as the above tends to suggest that membership of such an organisation is unnecessary to achieve workers’ aims. That said, the GLW reports that: “After initially refusing to meet with the drivers until the protest was called off, the minister met with a contingent from the Victorian Taxi Drivers Association and Transport Workers Union representative John Parker met with the minister. Kosky conceded to a number of the drivers’ demands, including the mandatory fitting of safety shields, 50% of which will be funded by the state, as well as making pre-paid fares compulsory between 10pm and 5am. Police were eventually ordered to cancel all the fines that had been issued.”
Regarding whether or not student unions should ‘focus’ on international students, that’s obviously for student unions to decide (and for international students to respond to). However, the supposed class origins and degree of wealth possessed by Melbourne taxis drivers in particular, and foreign students/workers in general, is I think largely irrelevant to this question.
More later…
*See also : Ross Martin, Trade Unionism: Purpose and Forms, OUP, 1989.
“a) from the “student movement”: they are all rich kids who can easily afford the fees, and are buying their way into “our” uni places”
What a ridiculous assertion!
Dr Cam, is it ridiculous because international students aren’t just a bunch of rich kids or because student movement types here don’t act or think that way? Because I’m pretty sure the latter is prevalent. What was it juancastro said about not “defending the interests of rich foreigners”?
And lumpen, really, you’d think I’d used barely coded terms to defame an entire political tendency on the basis of reports of one person’s comments made at a meeting I wasn’t even present at… I’ll have to get back to you about that…
The supposed class background of these drivers is surely irrelevant when the drivers are in the position of workers whose labour is exploited for profit and who are given little to no protection by their employers or the state.
According to Liz: “Last time [August 2006, upon the murder of Rajneesh Joga], the Transport Workers Union totally ignored the protests, only sending one organiser with his business cards to the protests. This time, the TWU made sure they muscled in on the meetings with Lynn Kosky and made sure they did some of the media as well.”
Liz argues that the conditions facing many taxi drivers are a product of a series of previous economic, legal and political changes, which have combined to create particular forms of low-waged and precarious forms of labour, for migrants in particular. These changes have proven to be a useful mechanism for securing labour in these markets. On my reading, this appears to be a fairly accurate description and account of what’s going on in terms of the situation of many international students/workers.
Regarding ‘what is to be done?’, I think there’s a number of questions. The first is, what do these student/workers want? Secondly, assuming there’s a broad enough consensus, or at least the articulation of some general demands by a large enough proportion of student/workers, what might a student union do to assist in the realisation of these aims and objectives? In general, to my way of thinking, retaining a demarcation between a student and an industrial union in terms of representation is of secondary importance to expressing class solidarity and enabling expression of workers’ struggles.
In terms of possible expressions of hostility on the part of local students to whatever efforts a student union might make in terms of the above, in and of itself such objections shouldn’t (indeed, don’t) prevent whatever forms of collaboration are possible from developing. Secondly, to the extent that such hostility rests upon ignorance of the working conditions of (for example) international students, it’s possible to combat it by making the facts more broadly available. And to the extent it expresses a racist contempt for foreign-born student/workers, it can be repudiated. Further, I don’t believe that the production of galvanising slogans is of primary importance in this context, nor do I believe that galvansiing students is necessary to securing whatever resources might be needed. Finally, I think that the best means of nullifying potential ‘right-wing’ criticism of student unions for neglecting the interests of (native-born?) poor or working-class students is by student unions working to secure their interests. In other words, assuming that this is possible, to demonstrate that these interests — the interests of foreign-born and native-born students — are not antagonistic, but complementary.
Lumpnboy, I was taking the mickey out of Juan Nation.
Firstly, my use of “rich foreigners” should have been apostrophised. Just to clarify that. 🙂
The reason I was demarcating between student union and industrial union is that in the student union, the international students make up the right-wing, the pro-full fee places wing by default, because I think it’s fair to say that very very few people would support international HECS places over local ones. So it seems to me that the practical options are either to attack international full fee places (alongside domestic FFP’s), or undermine the struggle against DFFPs through sheer inconsistency.
Thus I’m not at all convinced that the struggle of International FF placed students AS students on campus IS a progressive one. I’m also not convinced that it’s not, but I’m definitely leaning that way pending a decent argument.
In the industrial unions, however, as the most oppressed group the international students are/can be the most progressive elements of the class, and can push the broader industrial struggle forward (as potentially happened last weekend, and happened in the USA last year with the ‘illegal immigrant’ stuff on May Day).
So in two different contexts/struggles the same group of people can play a progressive or conservative role, depending on their localised interests.
I feel that I’m either on to something crucial, or missing something obvious.
All that is in the broader context of a) their transience, and therefore (in most cases) irrelevance when it comes to building a revolutionary movement and b) their potentially conflicting class position as (in most cases) members of the bourgeoisie back home.
So as students they are (again, in most cases) bourgeois elements learning to rule/organise society, as per most university students prior to WWI. As workers, however, they cannot help being affected by the inevitable class conflicts in their places of employment.
Does that make sense?
At the same time, I don’t think I would argue against international students if they got active in the student union; union struggle is contagious!
I was under the impression that most student socialists have a conflicting class position as members of the bourgeoisie back home.
Juan: the most obvious flaw in your argument is that when the conditions of international students are undermined, it undermines the conditions of all. Their status as international students is critical in the ability of employers and landlords to increase exploitation. It makes no strategic sense to quarantine them from a struggle to improve conditions on or off campus. Just because their status might be “transient” (although I’d note that even a poor middle class student eating 2 minute noodles is still middle class), the conditions are real. This is why internationals of any occupation belong in local organisations if they’re studying locally.
And I think you’re confusing the particular strategy of the Young ALP of corralling international students into the NLA of NUS and then only supporting the dullest, most right-wing of the students for the leadership, with a (fictional) innate conservatism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liaison_Committee if just for the LOLs. Let’s just say that their claims of neutrality, at least historically, are greatly exaggerated.
Juan: the most obvious flaw in your argument is that when the conditions of international students are undermined, it undermines the conditions of all.
I don’t see that that’s always the case. I could imagine a very progressive struggle that sought to eliminate all full fee places, including international ones, and this hardly undermines the mass movement. On the other hand, a progressive struggle to increase services to students would definitely intersect with their interests. The role which international students might play is not clear one way or the other IMO, but I still think my point, that they’re not going to be the most left-wing people on campus, holds.
Their status as international students is critical in the ability of employers and landlords to increase exploitation.
That’s true. The employers part I’ve already dealt with, the landlords issue… not sure that the student union is involved with that stuff, though they could/should be in the future. Again, as a specific campaign, I wouldn’t be stressing it and would only really support it if there was a decent groundswell already happening. I just think with our limited resources (talking as a member of SA/rev left here), there ARE more vital things to be doing, things that will shift more people to the left.
It makes no strategic sense to quarantine them from a struggle to improve conditions on or off campus. Just because their status might be “transient” (although I’d note that even a poor middle class student eating 2 minute noodles is still middle class), the conditions are real. This is why internationals of any occupation belong in local organisations if they’re studying locally.
I agree with all that, except the strategic sense part. I don’t think it makes strategic sense to make blanket statements either way RE their role, but I certainly can imagine more instances in which they would have a conservatising role than where they would be the radical wing. In fact, at Monash influence from international students has already changed the union pitch from anti full fee places to anti domestic full fee places. Are IFFP’s somehow more acceptable than DFFP’s because they come from “poor” and/or “backward” countries? I would suggest that’s a racist position.
I was under the impression that most student socialists have a conflicting class position as members of the bourgeoisie back home.
By Marx’s definition very few (if any) of us are bourgeois (ie. owning any means of production), though we can’t help what our parents did. Furthermore, no one can be a member and take up such a position, or even a role involving hire/fire powers. So actually, we’re all working class, even if it is by choice.
Actually, interesting fact: I am probably the only member of SA that IS involved in a capitalist venture. My dad died years ago and left me a 1/6th stake in a small lebanese grocery store. I can’t touch that till I’m 25, so I guess I’m an unwilling member of the petit bourgeoisie till then. Shame on me.
Did you know that earthworms have five hearts? FIVE.
Just for future reference, that is what we would call an interesting fact.
Worms:
Death:
Penises:
Hehe 🙂
juan:
You appear to be arguing that in contemporary Australian society there are essentially only two classes: the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). In which case, an individual belongs to only one of two classes, and if that person is not a member of the bourgeoisie, logically, they must instead be a proletarian. But what of the middle class?
Marx’s definition was less a definition than a world-view, in which the middle class(es) (the so-called petit-bourgeoisie) experience an inevitable decline, and society splits into essentially two classes. Over one hundred years later, the fact that the middle class apparently continues to persist suggests that Marx may have been mistaken in this view. Further, the frequent denunciation of anarchists by Marxists as being exponents of an essentially ‘petit-bourgeois’ (middle class) socialism suggests that, in polemical terms at least, there is some acknowledgment of this fact.
In terms of SAlt’s membership, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to the outside observer that many if not most of its members are University students. Further, many of these students are drawn from the University of Melbourne. Melbourne University is typically understood as being a middle or upper-middle class institution. (In 2005, for example, only 8% of students were categorised as coming from a background of low socio-economic status.) Assuming this to be the case, I believe this is the reason SAlt is viewed by some as being a political grouping of the middle class, rather than the working class.
Well there is not much of a ‘petit-bourgeoisie’ left. Rather there has been a massive proletarianisation (as in, those of us that have only our labour to sell) of the population: but this does not lead to homogenisation. Rather it functions through the creation of mobile and flexible hierarchies of difference within the proletariat. (Cf. Federici for historical work on this.) “Middle Class” describes a certain nebulous terrain of subjectivity within this formation.
Though it is less clear how any sociological understanding of ‘proletariat’ connects with the radical notion of the proletariat as the subject of communism: that is the social force for the abolition of capitalism. An abolition that is primarily a self-abolition. The robotic determinism of groups like SAlt never really take this question up.
For me two questions become imperative: the militant investigation in class composition, taking into account the hierarchies of difference, identity and subjectivity that are the a priori condition for labour to exist as labour for capitalism.
Secondly, how on the basis of this composition we can become the proletariat proper, that is the subject of its own evacuation from, subversion of and/or affirmation beyond the capital relation.
under a communist moon
Dave
I have yet to read much of Marx’s writing… But your claim seems at odds with what I often hear in SA discussions about class, in which people always say that the petit-bourgeoisie are under pressure from both sides, and segments can be won to the revolution very late in the process.
Implicit in this is an acknowledgement that the class exists! So not sure that your point is based on a correct reading of Marx, or otherwise he was wrong, and we’ve acknowledged that and moved on.
RE SAlt’s membership, it is true that a majority of members are students, but students do not comprise a class! We’re a group of people in transition, with (maybe?) tendencies towards idealism and intellectualism. So in reality, we’re able to choose future trajectories, and hopefully put aside our (very real) opportunities to join the technocratic/bureaucratic elite and instead work towards socialism as members of working-class unions.
Also, while you’re right that Melbourne Uni holds more wealthy kids than any other, the reality is that we’ve moved far beyond the Melbourne Uni-centric phase. Only one branch of the org is active at Melb Uni, and there are 4 branches in Melb alone. I think LaTrobe is almost as big now. Anyway, there are a few reasons for the targeting of students as far as I have gathered from questioning a few different people:
1) Primacy of ideas. At this stage in historical proceedings, industrial action is at a real lull. Thus even when we attract workers to the organisation, it is hard to retain them, because at present all we are is a propaganda/educational group. This is not to say that workers aren’t into radical ideas (shouldn’t even need saying), but sitting down and discussing those ideas for hours doesn’t appeal to everyone, especially when there is no immediate outcome in terms of organising activism and political action.
2) Pressure of the system. The reason this doesn’t appeal to workers as much as students is that workers’ lives include more stressors than those of most students. That students are free from conservatising constraints such as mortgages and families means that they can be open to more radical ideas.
3) Statistics. There is a minority of people who are open to socialist ideas everywhere, but universities are very large hubs of people (larger than most factories these days!), and large centres are logical targets for small groups of revolutionaries. The odds are slightly better!
There are probably more, but I’ve just worked 10 hours for shitty pay, and I’m exhausted. Buenas noches compañeros.
BTW, an Anarchist’s take on the Lebanon situation would be interesting…
‘Angry Anarchist’ is no longer blogging… a-films has a few films on Lebanon… there’s also a mob based in paris of lebanese @s…
http://middleeaststreet.blogspot.com/
http://a-films.blogspot.com/2007/07/videos-from-lebanon.html
http://www.albadilaltaharrouri.com/
http://www.albadilaltaharrouri.com/english.htm
Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanese War: The Anarchist Debate About National Liberation
Wayne Price (NEFAC-NYC)
http://nefac.net/node/2123
Eyewitness Lebanon: In the Land of the Blind
Michael Schmidt (for Anarkismo)
[PDF]
It doesn’t hurt that you get a fresh batch every year who don’t realise how fucked in the head the SAlt leadership are.
National Workers Of The World Unite!
How are they fucked in the head?
“I have yet to read much of Marx’s writing… But your claim seems at odds with what I often hear in SA discussions about class, in which people always say that the petit-bourgeoisie are under pressure from both sides, and segments can be won to the revolution very late in the process. Implicit in this is an acknowledgement that the class exists! So not sure that your point is based on a correct reading of Marx, or otherwise he was wrong, and we’ve acknowledged that and moved on.”
Marx wrote a lot, obviously. He and Engels used the term ‘middle class’ in various ways, and not always consistently. Further, attempts to account for not only the existence but also the expansion of a middle class (between the ruling and the working class) have been taking place since the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. Generally speaking, an orthodox Marxist account describes the middle class as being a class in transition; in other words, “people always say that the petit-bourgeoisie are under pressure from both sides, and segments can be won to the revolution very late in the process”. Which may or may not be true, but the point I was attempting to make was to suggest that there may exist more than two classes of people in contemporary Australian society, and that in addition to the ruling class and the working class, there is a middle class. Further, that SALt draws the bulk of its membership from this class — not the working class as you seemed to suggest: “By Marx’s definition very few (if any) of us are bourgeois (ie. owning any means of production), though we can’t help what our parents did. Furthermore, no one can be a member and take up such a position, or even a role involving hire/fire powers. So actually, we’re all working class, even if it is by choice.”
By most definitions, the middle class occupies a range of positions, employment and social roles: shopkeepers, small producers, highly paid professional and managerial personnel, lower paid professional, technical or supervisory workers, clerical workers, etc. Some even divide the middle class itself in two, between a lower and upper middle class. In any case, whatever the merits of these analyses — and in particular the ways in which they intersect with understandings of the so-called new social movements given birth to in the 1960s, as well as the supposed emergence of a ‘new class’ in roughly the same period — the existence of a sizable middle class presents some problems for a Marxist analysis (and especially the immiseration thesis).
More later.
But you’re wrong, because none/very few of us are in fact “shopkeepers, small producers, highly paid professional and managerial personnel, lower paid professional, technical or supervisory workers, clerical workers, etc”. You defined middle class as this vague and amorphous thing, and then using your own definition (which isn’t backed by any real argument, material or otherwise) you claim that we’re all middle class!
In contrast to your view, we’re either working students who (for now, and hopefully forever) reject present/future petit-bourgeois employment on principle, or we’re workers. Not sure, but I think Sandra and Mick are exceptions, as they are (I think) beyond a working age.
And I disagree that many Marxists living today believe that the “middle class” (a vague term I don’t think I can accept without further definition) or the other classes – eg. the peasantry – are merely transitional classes. We all (assuming I’m reasonable!) understand that there ARE multiple classes with specific and distinct interests, but the key to Marx is that the conflict between the growing WC and the Bourgeoisie was the only conflict which had the potential to radically change society. This conception of the dialectic relationship between WC and B doesn’t negate the existence of other classes at all, it merely recognises that these classes are not able (due to their relation to the modes of production bla bla bla) to challenge those with all the power.
Classic example: Paris only really gained momentum when the workers became involved. As was said by a member in last week’s meeting: “the students were the flame that brought the simmering tension of the WC to the boil, but without the WC the spark of revolution would have been mercilessly put out.” The students at the time knew that – hence their focus on involving the workers – and so do we. Unfortunately, due to the influence of Stalinist forces via the CGT, the near-revolution was mercilessly quashed anyway.
I’m interested to see what you mean by the “new class” that was created in 68.
This was a reference to the likes of Mick Armstrong, for the record. I think it’s fairly obvious.
1) On class
The definition of ‘middle class’ I provided is a fairly standard one. Here’s another standard definition: “the social group between the upper and working classes; professional and business people”. Another: “In a society stratified by class, a group of people who have an intermediate level of wealth, income and prestige, such as managers, supervisors, executives, small business owners, and professionals”. In most sociological literature, and literature generally, the existence of a ‘middle class’, however defined, is a generally-accepted fact. For ‘evidence’, I suggest you consult any one of the numerous texts on sociology, especially those concerned with questions of class.
Beyond this, of course the exact definition of the ‘middle class’ is far from clear. Its ‘amorphousness’ and ‘vagueness’, I would suggest, is related precisely to the fact that it constitutes a middle, in-between class, defined by reference to classes above and below.
There are various ways of understanding or not understanding the middle class, of which the Marxian model is one, not the only. Within this model, class is defined in reference to the relationship between the individual and the means of production (land, commercial and industrial enterprises, and social wealth/capital generally understood). More specifically, class is defined in terms of the ownership of this means of production, and the ability to employ the labour of others. Essentially, capitalist society is characterised by a class divide between owners (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie) and workers (the working class or proletariat). In addition to these two classes, Marx and Engels made reference to the existence of two further classes: the petit-bourgeoise (‘the middle class’) and the lumpenproletariat (often theorised as constituting an ‘underclass’). (It’s also worth mentioning the existence of a further class: the peasantry.)
The problems which are associated with this model stem, in large measure, from the fact that Marx and Engels analysed nineteenth century society; we, on the other hand, inhabit the early twenty-first. Since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, and the Marxian model has been both abandoned, on the one hand, and further adapted, on the other, to create a range of ‘neo-Marxist’ approaches to questions of class (and class consciousness). For example, for some scholars, focus on ownership has been transferred or greatly augmented by the question of authority (cf. Dahrendorf, Wright, and others). This process of re-evalusation was greatly assisted by, for example, both the persistence of a ‘middle class’, but also the emergence of the corporation as a means of organising production, a development which only really crystallised, in its modern form, between the mid-1800s and early 1900s. One might also note the development of Keynesian economics and the welfare state.
In brief, the understanding of class has changed since the time of Marx and Engels.
Another challenge to Marxian theory, both in terms of its understanding of class but also more generally, was triggered by the Bolshevik Revolution and creation of a Communist state apparatus…
Anyway, here’s what another member of your party, Lorraine Pratley, has to say on the subject of the ‘middle class’ (What do we mean by “class”, Socialist Alternative, No.96, October 2005):
2) On class and SAlt
In terms of the relationship between SAlt and the middle class, I did not assert that all members of SAlt are ‘middle class’. What I did point to was the fact that the organisation’s principal organisational base is (or was), the University of Melbourne. In terms of its student population, in 1999, 7.3% of domestic students were from a low socio-economic background, as opposed to 14.7% of domestic students across all higher education institutions (Socioeconomic background and higher education: an analysis of school students’ aspirations and expectations [EIP 02/05]). A newspaper report from 2004 notes that by 2002 there had been an increase of 0.6% in low SES students at unimelb. Another report states that in the three years to 2005, the ‘Participation share for students from low socio-economic status backgrounds (all ages) for selected universities, 2005 (%)’ at unimelb had risen 0.1% to 8.0%.
The report’s author, Richard James, further notes that:
Feel free to dispute these figures, or to provide counter-evidence that unimelb is not an elite institution whose student population is overwhelmingly drawn from the middle and upper classes, the majority of whom attended a fairly small range of private or ‘selective’ public schools. Feel free also to argue that the membership of SAlt that is drawn from unimelb is atypical in the sense that it’s composed of that small percentage which is categorised as low SES. Otherwise, my point —
as far as I can see, remains.
“In contrast to your view, we’re either working students who (for now, and hopefully forever) reject present/future petit-bourgeois employment on principle, or we’re workers. Not sure, but I think Sandra and Mick are exceptions, as they are (I think) beyond a working age.”
OK. So what you’re claiming is that no members of SAlt are middle class. Rather, with the possible exception of Mick and Sandra, SAlt members are all either students and/or workers. Further, even if at some point in the future, an opportunity presented itself to join the ranks of the middle class (petit-bourgoisie), SAlt members would reject such an opportunity, on principle.
Is that a fair summary?
“And I disagree that many Marxists living today believe that the “middle class” (a vague term I don’t think I can accept without further definition) or the other classes – eg. the peasantry – are merely transitional classes. We all (assuming I’m reasonable!) understand that there ARE multiple classes with specific and distinct interests, but the key to Marx is that the conflict between the growing WC and the Bourgeoisie was the only conflict which had the potential to radically change society. This conception of the dialectic relationship between WC and B doesn’t negate the existence of other classes at all, it merely recognises that these classes are not able (due to their relation to the modes of production bla bla bla) to challenge those with all the power.”
You appear to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you don’t accept the existence of a middle class as the category is simply too vague; on the other, you accept that other classes — including, presumably, a ‘middle class’ — do exist, only their existence is tangential to the only ‘real’ classes, and their class conflict: the WC (
water closetworking class) and the B (bourgeoisie). It occurs to me that the simplest thing to do at this point is to pose some questions to you:1) Is there such a thing as the middle class?
2) How do you define it?
More generally, I think that it’s worthwhile noting that Marx (and Engels, and their numerous epigones) did indeed argue that the bourgeois world could be divided into two hostile classes. For example:
“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
I would suggest that, since the time these words were first written (late 1847), the world has yet to divide into two great warring classes, and that what we are forced to contend with, both in terms of Australian and global society, is a much more complicated picture, in which capitalist development has been intensively undertaken in some parts but very little in others. Much, much more could be said on that subject, of course.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, two further notes.
First, a definition of ‘Middle Class’ provided by the anonymous comrades at marxists.org:
Secondly, a link to an interview with Rick Kuhn on the subject of his recent book on Henryk Grossman, On Henryk Grossman, A Revolutionary Marxist – An Interview with Rick Kuhn, Radical Notes, April 9, 2007, which bears a tangential relationship to the above in terms of spelling out one view on the tendency within capitalism to enter economic crisis, crisis of the kind that I think the original Marxian contention that “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps” is in many ways dependent upon.
More later.
PS.
Briefly, on “Paris”, see:
René Viénet, Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations Movement [Enragés et situationnistes dans le mouvement des occupations (Paris: Gallimard, 1968)], Translated by Loren Goldner and Paul Sieveking (New York: Autonomedia, 1992);
Roger Gregoire & Fredy Perlman, Worker-Student Action Committees: France May ’68, “first published by its authors in Kalamazoo (Michigan) in the spring of 1969 and then reprinted by Black & Red (Detroit) in 1970. (Printed at the Detroit Print Co-op which Perlman co-founded)”.
Finally(!), I did not claim that a “new class” was created in 1968; or at least, I certainly didn’t mean to. What I was trying to suggest was that “understandings of the so-called new social movements given birth to in the 1960s, as well as the supposed emergence of a ‘new class’ in roughly the same period” are important in terms of understanding the evolution of approaches to the question of class in the modern and especially contemporary era. In other words, and to be more explicit, some have argued that the ‘new’ social movements that emerged during the 1960s (and 1970s) — such as the environmental and women’s movement — were ‘new’ not only in the sense that they embodied new claims and concerns, but that they also represented the interests of a ‘new’ class, consisting of a number of ‘non-proletarian’ (and ‘non-bourgeois’) elements: not only professionals and public service workers, but the unemployed, students, housewives et cetera. Some of the more well-known theorists associated with this development include Alain Touraine and Claus Offe.
Ok, the problem is that you keep using the term “middle class” to cover more than one class which Marxists would define more concretely – materially.
That article from Marxism.org is pretty explanatory methinks. Peasants/small farming class, small business owners etc. these are all specific classes or castes (in the case of middle/low management and others) that have specific interests, but they are DIFFERENT, even from each other. Thus it makes no sense at all to talk about them as some unified ‘middle class’.
Head. Wall.
Haha! If you would try to restrain your posts to 1000 words or less, it might make it easier for me to respond appropriately. 🙂
RE the evolution of capitalist society towards the two distinct classes, I’m not sure. An empirical question really. In the west I would suggest this has probably happened? Self-identification as working-class is another issue…
Yeah… l8r h8r. In the meantime:
1) Is there such a thing as the middle class?
2) How do you define it?
I thought I just answered that. There are a number of classes other than the WC and B, and each of these has a specific and distinct interest that do not allow them to be unified (either in reality, or conceptually) as any sort of coherent “middle class”.
How do I define the classes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Class
His predictions may have been right or wrong, but his basic definitions are still clear and useful.
That comment went to spam btw. L8r h8r…
Huh? This is the definition provided. A definition of the term ‘middle class’. Its class status is not given by the diverse occupational roles of its members; “This middle position gives to the middle-classes their specific character, apart from the fact of their diversity”. Aside from that, it’s not a great definition; the “problem” is not, I think, simply my provision of a number of different definitions, but something else again. For example: yes, the different occupational roles which might form the umbrella under which a category of ‘middle class’ might seek shelter signifies ‘difference’, but the same could be said of the different occupational roles which might form the umbrella under which a category of ‘working class’ seeks cover. In fact, to a significant degree, Marx — contra ‘bourgeois’ sociology’ — defined class in terms not only of ‘objective’, ‘material’ social relations but also social consciousness.
Regarding the Wikipedia definition: by this definition, what is a politician? A proletarian. Which seems rather odd, but which can be explained by reference to the fact that this definition (or schema) ignores a whole range of social realities. Like, the state. And different, sometimes competing forms of social power, forms which are derived from a number of different, sometimes competing, sometimes complementary, economic, political and social bases. Then there is the complexities of Marx’s own thought, as well its evolution. On that subject, see Bertell Ollman, Marx’s Use of “Class”.
Also:
Understanding Marxism: class analyisis and oppression
Vashti Kenway
Socialist Alternative
June 2008
D’oh!
LOL!
Not a very good article by Vashti — one of the reasons it appears in the pages of SA — and sadly no analysis of the middle class.
Wow – I didn’t actually know this thread was here.
Um – I have been trying in vain to interest people at Leftwrites [here] in this discussion.
And I have been working with the VTDA guys cos they seem uninterested in government overtures about becoming “the voice of all cabbies” – and more interested in networking amongst existing cabbie organisations of which there are many dozens! This is a good start – and hopefully the crew from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance can come out here and hang out and swap tips.
I am not all that interested in arguing about which particular socialists or anarchists have the line about rich kids: until both groups start arguing against it in those bureaucratic forums in which it has come up in student world (and yes of course we can all argue that the commies and anarchos in RMIT student union don’t argue this – they aren’t the student bureaucracy), then it’s kind of pointless. It is the argument that was handed down to me as Left Alliance folklore: NOSCA good, NLC bad – NLC rich kids: therefore all international student organising is inherently reactionary. This is the argument that was made to be by my comrades in the National Broad Left – not all of them, but many considered the leading lights. Of course, it has been more viciously implemented by all ALP NUS National Presidents (with the exception of Michael Nguyen) in living memory…
I have been suggesting to people in student world that the way they can be useful is to take up the 20 hour work restriction as a campaign and smash it. Why? As Sergio Fiedler (Love and Rage?) argued in a submission to parliament as a staffer of the UNSW postgrad associaiton, in 1999: the reality of the visa conditions means that whatever the class position of international students before they arrived, the reality of the visa conditions means they become the bottom of the rung, because of the work restrictions.
The stuff about international students joining unions – what? why? Do you know that many of the unions that cover international students simply refuse to get involved because they have stupid policies about how long you have to have been a member before you get help – like the SDA? The union movement also just doesn’t really understand – they have noticed the 457 visas, but not that the student visa system is both a more widespread and more effective way of creating racialised low-wage labour markets. Also – the reality is international students must often break the law in regards to work restrictions to survive – and no union in Australia is currently prepared to defend this method of survival – the closest the TCFUA ever came in its relations with clothing outworkers was advocating amnesty for those who had previously survived in the cracks between informal work and Centrelink scamming.
And the TWU – well, the taxi drivers aren’t interested because they know that any negotiations involving the TWU will involve trade offs in regards to regulation and “quality” that are guaranteed to be enforced by the Department of Immigration – it has happened before and will happen again. The TWU would sell the international students down the river in a heartbeat. At the most recent taxi driver forum at Flemington Racecourse, they spent much more time chuckling with their mates in the taxi directorate than hanging out with the drivers – though it seems that the VTDA people made sure they checked in with Jalwinder who was there (looking very very weak, poor bugger) about the promises that were made to cover his medical bills.
The ACTU is actively hostile to international students – and the ALP has argued a consistently left nationalist position within student world that feeds into this.
On housing stuff: I just did a thing for SUWA show about this and had an argument with an academic who runs the line that the exploitation that occurs is an unintended consequence of the over-reliance on international student market. Lefty academics like to argue this line in particular in seeming ignorance of the total control over the market that the 38 public universities have through their ownership of IDP, that recruits most students here. They also like to ignore their own role in making false promises on overseas junkets to kids desperate for PR – about the level of work experience they will obtain in their business courses etc. These same academics and unis talk about the “rogue education” providers when in fact whilst some of the grossest exploitation (like advertising 13 CABS forums on campus during O-week) does take place at private colleges, the public universities set the terms of this. They have ganged up on places like CQU before – because that is where students often run when they have been broken by places like RMIT. They only want to drive out their competitors.
Anyway – now I’m ranting. But I wish I had noticed this thread before… then I wouldn’t have wasted all my energy trying to convince Leftwrites people to notice things in the real world…
@ndy, the strike is over. You need to close your strikethroughs.