Class and Collars

One reason the discourse around class has become so muddled is the language around divisions within classes. If we simply use the Marxian distinction concerning ownership of the means of production things appear pretty straightforward. But reality in the 21st century doesn't conform to the simple formula. Instead we have such categorical disparities as "white, blue and pink collars" which (supposedly) denote the level of mental versus physical labor a worker performs. One might as well judge the callouses on peoples hands.

At some level we are supposed to then correlate these "collars" with upper, middle, lower and working class as objective distinctions, in this case generally based on income. So if these distinctions aren't murky enough, consider a woman wearing a blue collared shirt doing manufacturing, but she runs a complex piece of machinery and has a college degree. Now layer on the fact she owns several rental properties (as well as her own home) and owns stock in the firm she works for. Hardly a classic member of the proletariat, right?

Marxian dogma would have us believe that members of this "working class" would literally starve without the ability to sell their wage labor and that this source of their exploitation, their sheer desperation, is also the force that unites them in class belonging ( a "class-for itself") and eventually struggle. How does the terminology of "rank and file worker" sound to a young member of the gig economy who considers himself an associate, a team member highly valued ( both in status and monetary compensation) for his creativity and drive? At the level of subjectivity, this new worker can fully identify culturally with those in any any income bracket, can purchase luxury items and live well, even if on credit. It was Laclau and Mouffe's belief that

" the fullness of class identities of classical Marxism has to be replaced by hegemonic identities constituted through non-dialectical mediations.”

None of this is to suggest that class as a category has disappeared. But the issue of "fullness" is real and has to be considered. Jacobin Magazine tries to make the divide simple by equating capitalists with "the boss" but this is its own obfuscation. It ignores the hegemonic dimension of ideology and identificationor subject formation. When it comes to our social movements, so often focused on "centering the working class" in the leadership, it is going to be difficult to not look at shirt collars or pay stubs or cultural markers. Especially true in the climate movement, a persons level of exploitation or oppression may be less relevant to their level of engagement than other, less material factors.

A worker can have inherited wealth, can collect rent, and can own capital which she invests as well as collecting a wage. We can elide this truth by inventing new categories ie "professional- managerial class", "ruling class", "contradictory class" and we can call people traitors or "cultural lieutenants of the capitalist class" but the contradictions won't disappear.