Did someone mention “class”?

Written By: - Date published: 10:43 am, April 23rd, 2025 - 55 comments
Categories: labour, political alternatives, uncategorized, vision - Tags: , , ,

We often have favourite books to which we return. One of mine is Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose.” Sherlock Homes meets the Inquisition in a riot of geo-politics, medieval cuisine, architectural critique and semiotic analysis and reference. Such are the layers of the novel that it bears re-reading far better than most. One theme rings contemporary bells. In the 13th and 14th centuries, the Franciscans pressed for reform of a venal Church, arguing for a return to earlier, simpler, less material, inclusive values. They did this within the Church, but some advocates for change were deemed to have moved outside the Church’s teachings, and many of these were burnt for their heresy.

Plus ça change. Labour politics have much in common with the medieval Catholic tradition. It has long drifted away from its socialist origins, to the point that in recent times the word “socialist” has been feared. And it’s not too long ago that the idea of the “1%” or the “10%” – terms capturing growing wealth disparity in NZ – was eschewed in favour of something less “divisive”. The Art of Politics has been reduced to defining, occupying and defending the “middle ground” (whatever that may be), supported by marketing data and polling. The problem is that the “middle ground” has been moving to the right for five decades under the onslaught of neo-liberalism, each shift rightwards impelling another dilution of Labour’s original purpose. That dilution has even longer roots in history. To understand this in New Zealand terms, one might remember the Clark government, which tried to stay the neo-liberal trend, and was subjected to furious and sustained assault, especially in relation to labour relations reform. Akin to a ratchet, one may move further right, but never left.

Institutionally, Labour has changed to meet that dilution. Power is more concentrated in the parliamentary leadership than ever, a perverse effect of constitutional changes in 2012. If public unity is at a marketing premium, then any discussion becomes a potential threat to image and brand. Thus, one may find oneself ticked off in interviews on “Nine to Noon” for having a public view on possible taxation reforms in New Zealand.

Happily, bright lights of renewal flash on the horizon. I recently attended, with many others, a “Win the Wealth Tax” event in Auckland. Speakers – including Justine Sachs, Finn Cordwell, and Max Harris – talked of Labour renewal on the basis of class analysis. There was so much to offer hope in the session. Energetic, clever, and, compared to me, young people talking to an audience made up, mainly, of the same, arguing for a Labour Party that renews both class analysis and class politics. The commitment to act within the Party, whilst understanding its power structures and where and how to exert pressure for change, was clear. Francis of Assisi would understand. Of course, a small beginning on what will be a long road, but full of hope.

The evening spoke to me of a resurgence of an analysis focused on overarching social relations of production in which we are all enmeshed in diverse ways. This is important, for it is different from two popular current traditions – the one Post Modernism and its emphasis on pluralist identity, the other the adoption of geographical explanations of exploitation, popularised in the 1970s by Dependency Theory and its offshoots and in the oft-used notion of a North-South divide. Both lead down tortuous rabbit holes.

The evening’s discussions also brought to mind vividly a quote from E.P. Thompson from his “The Making of the English Working Class” (another book meriting re-reading):

“Class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs. The class experience is largely determined by the productive relations into which men are born—or enter involuntarily. Class-consciousness is the way in which these experiences are handled in cultural terms: embodied in traditions, value-systems, ideas, and institutional forms. If the experience appears as determined, class-consciousness does not.”

This is classic Thompson, identifying the three elements, which together encompass class. In particular, there is the expression of the “unity in diversity” wherein we are all encompassed by those productive relations yet experience them in myriad forms and contexts. Instead of a latter-day pluralism, in which one conceives of competing and somehow equivalent interests, one understands how lived difference may be understood by one unified perspective.

This seems to me to be the right direction in which to take discussion within the labour movement and is in tune with the voice of renewal heard in the “Win the Wealth Tax” event. Power to its collective elbow!

55 comments on “Did someone mention “class”? ”

  1. Res Publica 1
    23 April 2025 at 11:06 am

    Hell yes! Make materialism great again cool

    Reply
    • Karolyn_IS 1.1
      23 April 2025 at 12:00 pm

      Actually, just to nitpick on your wording, but, bare with me, alternative wording will make a better acronym.

      Materialism – often these days mean means valuing material possessions over everything else.

      Alternatively Let's Make Material/ist Analysis Great Again ie MMAGA

      Reply
  2. Kay 2
    23 April 2025 at 11:07 am

    Labour made their views crystal clear after the 1999 election, and lost a huge part of their traditional voting base as a result (ie, the ones most affected by neo-liberalism.) They have yet to do anything, something, to atone for this, and show the people they're brave enough to enact structural change that will benefit the 90%. I shall watch out for pigs flying past.

    It probably doesn't help that NZers have been brainwashed into the concept that taxes are bad and much be cut/avoided at all costs. Across the classes.

    Reply
    • Corey 2.1
      23 April 2025 at 12:34 pm

      Yeah the 5th Labour government the one that gave working people direct control over $264 billion dollars of the economy by creating kiwi saver, while growing everyones share of the economic pie and nationalized rail and created kiwi bank.

      Or was it the 6th labour govt who were the most social democratic government since Kirk who led a massive increase in welfare, wages and passed workers rights agreements and Keynesian infrastructure programs.

      The left love to criticize Labour (guilty as charged) few seem to realize that whats important is actually retaining the treasury benches for more than a term or two to institutionalize reforms.

      National get this and have been in power for the vast majority of the last century but instead of blaming them, its Labours fault. Its always Labours fault.

      Reply
      • weka 2.1.1
        24 April 2025 at 10:47 am

        The Clark government removed Special Benefit from beneficiaries, thus ensuring a new degree of entrenched poverty. Also introduced Working for Families, which excluded non-working beneficiaries.

        Ardern's government tried to side step the issues and increase benefits eg the winter energy payment. But they also completely ignored disabled beneficiaries who are unable to supplement their income.

        I agree with you that there's risk on only being critical of Labour, because they have done a lot of good things as well. But they seem still largely wedded to neoliberalist centrism. I'd like to see someone reconcile the good/bad Labour with the idea in the post that the Clark government tried to stay the neoliberalism. From my uneducated position, it looks more like that government adapted to neoliberalism and centred Labour on that adaptation going forward, including now.

        Reply
  3. Corey 3
    23 April 2025 at 12:26 pm

    Yeah the 5th Labour government the one that gave working people direct control over $264 billion dollars of the economy by creating kiwi saver, while growing everyone's share of the economic pie and nationalized rail and created kiwi bank.

    Or was it the 6th labour govt who were the most social democratic government since Kirk who led a massive increase in welfare, wages and passed workers rights agreements and Keynesian infrastructure programs.

    The left love to criticize Labour (guilty as charged) few seem to realize that what's important is actually retaining the treasury benches for more than a term or two to institutionalize reforms.

    National get this and have been in power for the vast majority of the last century but instead of blaming them, it's Labours fault. It's always Labours fault

    Everytime national further mutilates workers rights and turns the state into user pays, it’s always Labours fault.

    Reply
    • Ad 3.1
      23 April 2025 at 1:14 pm

      Also Robertson lifting tax on income over $180,000 often gets forgotten.

      And IRD under Labour cracking into family trusts was very important to targeting wealthy families.

      Reply
    • gsays 3.2
      23 April 2025 at 2:12 pm

      For those modest changes, they kept the >$1B Handout to Landlords Accommodation Supplement ticking over.

      Housing has to be one of the key areas for radical reform to curb poverty and inequality.

      Reply
    • KJT 3.3
      24 April 2025 at 8:43 am

      "by creating kiwi saver"

      Privatised super and handed provision over to FIRE! Fixed it for you.

      One of the most Neo-Liberal actions of any Government.

      Reply
      • tWig 3.3.1
        24 April 2025 at 10:31 am

        Labour could have set up the Super fund ownership as split between unions and industry, as in Australia. Therefore keeping unions relevant (although perhaps not immune from corruption).

        Reply
  4. Darien Fenton 4
    23 April 2025 at 12:57 pm

    Depends on the definition of class. My mum always aspired for us to be on the upper stratum of working class ; despite us living on the bones of our ass in a State House. That was the promise of MJ Savage, that our kids would do better than the.previous generation. Today, I would appreciate some reading on a modern definition of class ; including how so-called “identity politics” and “anti woke” stuff all fits together in this argument. Is it just about income, or property, or is it about a lot more? While I am not a great Marx reader, can you be an educated scholar and still have class politics, or a kid who grew up in West Auckland and is doing well in the world like my son but has strong Labour values at his heart?

    Reply
    • gsays 4.1
      23 April 2025 at 2:50 pm

      While not answering yr whole question, I would observe that lots of women see themselves as a class, regardless of income/social standing.

      Especially in the context of sex based rights.

      Reply
    • Binders full of women 4.2
      23 April 2025 at 4:06 pm

      Class is no longer relevant as a word. Classes still exist but not as 'working' or 'middle' etc. 10 years ago a colleague used to bang on about their upbringing as 'deeeply working class" as if it was some badge of honour. Tedious. Working and middle are defunct now. Even 'blue collar' no longer resonates as all my plumber mates are wealthy af. Trotter probably nailed it with 'waitakere man' swinging right. Today's classes are probably = beneficiaries15% , working poor (trapped as forever tenants25%), property owners 50% (wage, salary or business owners) , wealthy 10%, mega wealthy 1%.

      Reply
    • SPC 4.3
      23 April 2025 at 4:28 pm

      Once upon a time only property owning men could vote.

      Then all could.

      Then came the aspiration that the many, not the few would own their homes and the state would provide homes to those who did not own.

      At some point, came the well to do who bought investment rentals (but did not borrow to own) as well as owning a bach.

      Then came floating the currency, an open market and tax reform. Top rate 66 to 33 cents and then no estate tax and then no gift duty. And many earnt more from CG than they did from income earned.

      And despite a change to more of the people never to own their home (as per people unable to retire at age 65 as they cannot afford to pay their rent out of super), no increase in state house numbers (as the population increased from 3 to over 5 million).

      Because of our property asset values we rank highly in wealth among first world nations. This despite our lower incomes and lower standard of living and second rate public services.

      Class, a classless change in our society, as in a change that was without any class.

      A reduced commons and a well to do group of homeowners who have private schooling and health insurance.

      A society divided into winners and losers since the “reform” from a social democratic state to a neo-liberal regime.

      Reply
      • roblogic 4.3.1
        23 April 2025 at 10:57 pm

        100% SPC.

        That's why little shitstain Seymour crapping on about equal rights is just a massive distraction and attempt to divide NZ by race

        The root of our social divisions is a massive, yawning socioeconomic divide that enriched a few at the expense of the many. No wonder hate is festering and is being expressed in stupid ways by the victims of our rockstar economy

        Reply
  5. mickysavage 5
    23 April 2025 at 4:27 pm

    Excellent post Nigel.

    The problem is that four decades of neoliberalism has infected the media.

    I am currently reading "The men who killed the news" about Murdoch et al and how the means of communnication was usurped to support neoliberalism.

    Nowadays the right is trying to push the Herald further right. And there are all these privately funded alt news sites in the country furiously pushing the right's agenda.

    The left are going to have to learn to communicate better and to resource the fight back somehow.

    Reply
  6. Ad 6
    23 April 2025 at 7:52 pm

    A new government should take note of the nationwide shift from petrol tax to RUC.

    Ever more acutely people will know what they pay for transport will be spent on transport

    Imagine a fully hypothecated tax for the health system. I bet people would pay more for that.

    We already have that for some NZSuper. And ACC.

    We need a focus on the actual logic of tax. Not more "let's just raise tax" and pretend egalitarianism just happens to return.

    Reply
  7. roblogic 7
    23 April 2025 at 10:49 pm

    Unlike the crazy American Evangelicals, the Catholic Church still has a relatively strong socialist tradition. Frances was an exemplar of that. Church doctrine might not be explicit about political philosophy but it is outspoken on issues of social conscience. The medieval Church established libraries and schools and hospitals and advocated redistribution of wealth. Usury was outlawed and a mortal sin for most of history, until around 500 years ago. And now the bankers rule the Earth

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 7.1
      24 April 2025 at 8:18 am

      "…the Catholic Church still has a relatively strong socialist tradition"

      You mean the church that supported Franco and his landowner and Nazi friends in the Spanish Civil War?

      The church that did nothing after Pinochet’s viscous coup in Chile?

      Reply
    • Ad 7.2
      24 April 2025 at 9:05 am

      Holy Jesus have you been to the Vatican?

      And check out their schools and hospitals here. Loaded.

      The Catholic church ain't even Fabian.

      Reply
  8. Ad 8
    24 April 2025 at 9:10 am

    Tax reform always sounds good until the IRD has to actually implement it.

    Check out today's Family Boost disaster. Supposedly going to help 21,000 families, in reality onlyb200 families get a useful entitlement.

    IRD blames poor data.

    Ask them to do more than fiddle with PAYE and they struggle.

    Reply
  9. Sabine 9
    24 April 2025 at 10:03 am

    And because everyone including the last PM of the Labour Party – abnd i don't mean the male XY chormosome haver – is in that wealthy class.

    The husband of that last PM of the Labour Party is in that weatlhy class.

    Grant Robertson, on a 650.000 payback job from Otago University with free acommodation is in that wealthy class.

    And that is why Labour will NOT, NEVER increase the taxes on the wealthy class.

    Ditto btw for the TPM'sters and the crew that pretends to be the Green Party.

    They are Not going to INCREASE TAXES ON THEMSELVES

    Like literally have no not learned anything from the last crew>?
    Oh yeah, men are women, but rich people still don't pay taxes. Vote for labour, cause we did shit fuck all the last time we had a FULL MAJORITY and did not increase Taxes on our rich mates and our rich selfs.

    Reply
    • weka 9.1
      24 April 2025 at 10:31 am

      If any GP MP or exec or member has assets above a certain point, they too would be taxed under the proposed GP GMI policy, just like everyone else. I get the point you are making here about the relative wealth of MPs and how this impacts on policy making, but the Greens do actually have a wealth distribution policy as a core platform.

      The Income Guarantee is fully funded through simple changes to the tax system:

      A 2.5% Wealth Tax on assets – things like properties or shares – worth more than $4 million (minus mortgages and other debt) for couples and $2 million (minus mortgages and other debt) for individuals. This will not affect most family homes or retirement savings
      A Trust Tax of 1.5% so people cannot just move their money into a trust to avoid the Wealth Tax
      A new top rate of income tax of 45% on income over $180,000, so the top earners contribute more
      A new corporate tax rate of 33%, returning corporate tax to what it was before National came into government in 2008.

      https://www.greens.org.nz/green_party_s_new_income_guarantee_for_every_new_zealander

      It wouldn’t surprise me if TPM has similar positions, but I’m not familiar with their policy.

      Reply
      • Sabine 9.1.1
        26 April 2025 at 7:37 am

        with all due respect,

        but unless the Greens clean up the mess that is their party and their representatives of that Party, they are nought but a Party of thiefs, labour exploiter, racists, bullies, and men who post questionable images of their children on public / open social media.

        and

        The Greens will also not vote to increase their taxes.

        Again, the Greens and Labour – whithout whom they are literally just a fringe party on the sides, had a chance during Labour to bring meaningful tax reform and all we got was Self ID, men in Prisons, children desexed, adults mutilated, huge costs to anyone, and other then that bumkins.

        Reply
        • weka 9.1.1.1
          26 April 2025 at 8:59 am

          sorry, when did they have the chance to bring in tax reform? The last Labour government was a majority Labour govt, and the one before that had Peters yanking Labour to the right. Be specific about how you think the Greens could have introduced tax reform

          Reply
          • weka 9.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2025 at 9:05 am

            Self-ID (BDMRR) was a NZF then Labour bill. Yes the Greens were part of the problem esp in select committee, but if they hadn't been parliament it still would have passed. It was voted into an Act by all MPs.

            Whatever the criticisms of the Greens (and I agree with some of them obviously), my problem here is yet another political commentator simply not understanding how parliament works. The Greens don't have a magic want, and they don't have the kind of leverage that NZF do. 99% of people saying 'oh the Greens should have done this', never say how.

            Reply
        • SPC 9.1.1.2
          26 April 2025 at 9:46 am

          The Green Party has never been in a coalition government.

          They were a support partner to a Labour-NZF government 2017-2020.

          Labour had a majority 2020-2023.

          The Green Party literally ran on a wealth tax policy.

          Reply
      • Sabine 9.1.2
        26 April 2025 at 7:38 am

        with all due respect to you as a 'deep greenie'

        unless the Greens clean up the mess that is their party and their representatives of that Party, they are nought but a Party of thiefs, labour exploiter, racists, bullies, and men who post questionable images of their children on public / open social media.

        and

        The Greens will also not vote to increase their taxes.

        Again, the Greens and Labour – whithout whom they are literally just a fringe party on the sides, had a chance during Labour to bring meaningful tax reform and all we got was Self ID, men in Prisons, children desexed, adults mutilated, huge costs to anyone, and other then that bumkins.

        Reply
    • Ad 9.2
      24 April 2025 at 10:46 am

      Factually untrue.

      The Bright Line Test of 5 years for rentals was as close to Capital Gains Tax as we will get, and scoops most of NZ local capital.

      Robertson also increased tax for the $180k+ salaries.

      Also Ardern+Robertson did massive subsidy increased to the poor across a variety of welfare measures. Also climate taxes aplenty.

      Get your damn facts in order before you rail against Ardern and Robertson, Sabine.

      Reply
      • weka 9.2.1
        24 April 2025 at 10:51 am

        The Bright Line Test of 5 years for rentals was as close to Capital Gains Tax as we will get, and scoops most of NZ local capital.

        Didn't really achieve much in terms of redistribution of wealth though.

        Also Ardern+Robertson did massive subsidy increased to the poor across a variety of welfare measures.

        Kind of. Some of the increases in fact aren't increases for beneficiaries who end up with a few extra dollars once all the calculations are done. The impression I am left with is two fold:

        1. Labour are primarily focused on stopping more people dropping into the underclass, but aren't going to do much for those already there.
        2. Labour are also primarily focused on those that can work. Everyone else is sidelined.

        As per the above conversation, Labour obviously do good things as well. But it irks to see lefties still talking about poverty release measures also in inaccurate terms.

        Reply
        • Ad 9.2.1.1
          24 April 2025 at 11:22 am

          Tax is for the state to run things. It redistributes from there. It's not the revolution.

          For what benefit increases were done, just go to the 2017, 18, 19, and 2020 budgets. It's all there, and more useful than sweeping comments about any party.

          The fastest tax shift any government could do is equalize the lowest rate with Australia.

          Way faster and more efficient than a massive tax on all assets. And most importantly won't lose you the election.

          If we go out hard on tax in 2026, welcome back to Opposition.

          Reply
          • SPC 9.2.1.1.1
            24 April 2025 at 12:03 pm

            Do you even know how much that costs?

            It is only doable with serious new tax revenue.

            More affordable – double the IETC from $10 to $20 – applies $24,000-$70,000.

            Otherwise up the 30 cent threshold from 70,000 to $100,000.

            Apply the 39 cents rate from $150,000 to help with the funding.

            Also a stamp duty at 5% on property over $2m.

            Place a 1% mortgage surcharge on investment property loans (excluding new builds).

            Bright-line test at 20 years (applied from 2018).

            Restore the estate tax (collect it in advance via a wealth tax).

            Reply
          • weka 9.2.1.1.2
            24 April 2025 at 2:26 pm

            For what benefit increases were done, just go to the 2017, 18, 19, and 2020 budgets. It's all there, and more useful than sweeping comments about any party.

            Again, whatever the rate that's being talked about at the big picture level, the reality is that many beneficiaries don't get much of a raise, because of the complex system of calculations used to determine the rates of TAS and accommodation supplement in particular (two supplements essential for any long term beneficiary).

            This has been explained many times on TS when people pop up saying hey look at this great rise in benefits. Repeating myself, but yes, Labour did good things, but the things they didn't do tell us much about intent and values.

            The figures of what beneficiaries actually get reinforces my two points above about Labour.

            Reply
    • SPC 9.3
      24 April 2025 at 11:48 am

      Except, they did lift the top rate of tax, to 39 cents over $180.000.

      And extend bright-line to 10 years – though Treasury said the best form of it was 20 not 20 years.

      They need to make that to 20 years from the original extension beyond 2 years that occurred in 2018.

      Reply
      • SPC 9.3.1
        24 April 2025 at 12:31 pm

        And extended bright-line to 5 and then 10 years – though Treasury said the best form of it was 20, not 5 or 10 years.

        They need to make that 20 years from their original extension to beyond 2 years that occurred in 2018.

        Reply
      • Sabine 9.3.2
        26 April 2025 at 7:42 am

        Labour yesterday said it would lift the top tax rate from 33 per cent to 39 per cent for people earning more than $180,000 a year, if it was returned to power at the October 17 general election.

        Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking, in an interview with the minister, asked if the

        500 mil

        a year expected to be raised by the tax increase was "miserly" and "not worth the bother".

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/grant-robertson-defends-labours-new-top-tax-plan/664KI7LVGK5BZTV4XXSB6CTQ6M/

        it was miserly, and not worth the bother.

        The reform did not include those that struggle, but it pretended to take more from those that earn over a 180.000

        did you know that a whole bunch of MPs are just below that line.?

        "The Authority determined that alignment to this salary range met the legislated need to achieve and maintain fair relativity with levels of remuneration being received elsewhere. That level of annual salary for the ordinary MP is $168,600 per annum (rounded). This is an increase of 2.8%"

        https://www.remauthority.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/review-of-mps-salaries-and-allowances-2023-24.pdf

        Cause that is all they gave us.

        Reply
        • SPC 9.3.2.1
          26 April 2025 at 9:39 am

          Cause that is all they gave us.

          The only change to income tax.

          And $500Mpa is not nothing.

          Landlords also paid more tax on their rent income (less mortgage cost deductibility).

          The impact of NACT-NZF ending this is obvious in spending cuts, such as food in schools.

          They did some work identifying how much the rich were paying in tax and were looking at wealth tax until the lets be less ambitious 2023-2026 "bonfire".

          I suspect the experience of the Luxon administration might change minds by 2026.

          Reply
  10. weka 10
    24 April 2025 at 10:41 am

    Can someone expand on and explain what this paragraph means?

    This is classic Thompson, identifying the three elements, which together encompass class. In particular, there is the expression of the “unity in diversity” wherein we are all encompassed by those productive relations yet experience them in myriad forms and contexts. Instead of a latter-day pluralism, in which one conceives of competing and somehow equivalent interests, one understands how lived difference may be understood by one unified perspective.

    Reply
    • Shanreagh 10.1
      24 April 2025 at 4:08 pm

      Just so I could find out a bit more about the Thompson who is written about, who I now know to be EP Thompson and who I am sure was a reading in a social history paper I did back in the day I found this from Mrs Google per AI:

      'E.P. Thompson's concept of class emphasizes the lived experience and agency of the working class, rather than a static, pre-defined structure. He argued that class is a relationship that evolves over time, shaped by social interactions and struggles, and that class consciousness is a dynamic process, not a predetermined outcome. Thompson's work, particularly The Making of the English Working Class, explored how the working class actively created its own identity and culture through its experiences and struggles.

      Here's a more detailed look at Thompson's ideas:

      • Class as a Structured Process:

        Thompson argued that class is not a fixed category but a "structured process," meaning it emerges from class struggle and the development of class consciousness. This process involves a combination of objective economic conditions and subjective experiences of class.

      • Emphasis on Agency and Experience:

        Thompson's work highlights the importance of the lived experiences of working people in shaping class consciousness and identity. He emphasized the active role of the working class in their own making, rather than viewing them as passive recipients of economic forces.

      • Class Consciousness as a Dynamic Process:

        Thompson viewed class consciousness as a process of becoming, not a state of being. He argued that working-class consciousness evolves through social interaction, struggle, and the development of a shared understanding of their interests and position in society.

      • Rejection of Determinism:

        Thompson's work rejects the idea that class is solely determined by economic factors or pre-defined structures. He emphasized the importance of individual agency and the capacity of working people to resist and transform their circumstances.

      • Historical Focus:

        Thompson's concept of class is rooted in a historical perspective, examining how class consciousness and identity emerged and evolved over time. His work, particularly The Making of the English Working Class, provides a rich account of the development of the English working class in the late 18th and early 19th centuries"

      So it argues that when we look at class, if we want to look at class, and I'm not sure we want to, we should move away from saying that class is defined by income levels alone. Of course when we look at economic factors it is easier (?!) to assign people who we think are working class by income into a slot called working class.

      However there is more to considering oneself working class than income alone. Thompson argues that doing so overlooks the concept of what I call agency or the ability within a structure to think and do for oneself.

      'Thompson viewed class consciousness as a process of becoming, not a state of being'.

      When we look at income levels it is easier to say people on this income by and large:

      • may also be renting (so therefore subject to the vagaries of landlordism, including being more transient so children suffer)
      • may be less likely to have a family doctor because of being transient and perhaps not fitting in to free or low cost programmes or finding it difficult to understand how to
      • may be in poorer health
      • may have poorer access to nutritious food becasue of cost and because they don't understand how obtain low cost of free food.
      • may need to rely totally on public transport to travel to work or to buy food etc (so fiddling around with bus routes has a greater impact)
      • may work at uncomfortable hours and need access to low cost cars. Uncomfortable hours mean that the impact of brainy middle class ideas such as cycle lanes mean that at the end of the uncomfortable darkness hours workers have a walk, even if they are lucky enough to be able to catch a public transport

      Notably in my suburb in Wellington where the comfortably off with discretionary income to buy electric bikes used during commuting hours of 6-9am and 5-7pm only were adamant that the roads had to be kept clear for them 24/7. In effect this pushed low income workers away from these cycle lane allocations (prime rental areas) out beyond the 3 hour max parking nearby and to areas where parking is less restricted

      Reply
      • Nigel Haworth 10.1.1
        24 April 2025 at 5:43 pm

        Thank you. If one was engaged with Marx in the late 1960s and early 1970s, one was precipitated into a bitter war between French (and German) Structuralism (Althusser et al.) and "English" alternatives, derived substantially from a combination of anti-Stalinism after Hungary 1965 and other English Left traditions. I chose the latter for multiple reasons. The former had, in my view, the perverse effect of encouraging Post-Modernism, a tradition in part driven by the backlash against the fierce determinism of the French Structuralists. Thus was created the groundwork of contemporary emphases on identity and interests. European Structuralism has a lot to answer for, in my book

        Reply
  11. Tiger Mountain 11
    24 April 2025 at 5:54 pm

    The fog that seems to envelop the question of class on the part of various TS commenters has an explanation in my view.

    The ascendency of Post Modernist philosophy–where essentially anything can mean anything–following the decline of once dominant materialist philosophy, where data mattered and even enemies agreed on certain terminology, has had a major effect, along with 40 odd years of neo liberal individualism and union busting etc. which has impacted on the social being of millions. And lest we forget–a shift from analogue to digital, and some very evil algorithms. Finance capital looms large.

    Karl Marx laid it out…class is about your relationship to the means of production and the ownership of it. All wealth in this world is created by the application of physical and intellectual labour to the natural and now tech resources of the world. The ongoing conflict being between capitalist class ownership and appropriation of socially produced wealth.

    Do you sell your labour power or do you appropriate the work of others…this has always been complex, in NZ, a colonised country there is a major streak of self employment “be your own boss”, Tradies, working farmers on stolen land, etc. but even small employers and SMEs are ultimately beholden to banks and Finance Capital.

    Reply
  12. SPC 12
    25 April 2025 at 5:34 am

    SOCIALISM: An In-Depth Explanation

    Reply
  13. Sabine 13
    26 April 2025 at 7:49 am

    Teh problem with everyone who touts Marxist and still lives in the 20st century is that we are in the times of Post National States, and the future working class will be people who either are govt drones, or generally work in the sex industry.

    The rest will be done by AI, drones, robots and the likes.

    Most people here discuss a world that died in 2020, never to be resurrected.

    And again, discuss this for once,

    Why did labour not reform the tax brackets and the income groups – in a meaningful way – when it had a majority.

    Why did labour squander 3 years of a majority on fuck all.

    Becuase, and i state this again, they did not want to.

    Nothing for the critters that live on below 20 grand a year.

    Nothing for the working critters whose rent costs increased by 60 + dollar once a year.

    Nothing for anyone but a tinkerin on the fringes, on a level where it broght them 500 million, lol.

    That there is Labour Problem. It never answered the questions, and it can't answer them because 'we did not want too' was never a good enough response.

    Reply
    • SPC 13.1
      26 April 2025 at 9:56 am

      Tell that load of risible forecasting to those in construction, roading, tradies, farmers, forestry workers, etc.

      Why did labour not reform the tax brackets and the income groups – in a meaningful way – when it had a majority.

      What does meaningful mean, reducing income taxes when there is a budget deficit and underfunded public services like health?

      We know NACT-NZF will not tax landlords/wealth to afford it.

      Nothing for the critters that live on below 20 grand a year.

      All benefits were increased in real terms.

      Those in employment had the MW going up at over $40 a week pa for all 6 years. The MW is now well over $40,000 pa.

      The Fair Pay (Industry) Award was a pathway blocked by 2023 election.

      As they say ello-hay, scored a uck-day – ig-pay atin-lay expressionism.

      There endeth the sermon.

      Reply
  14. Sabine 14
    26 April 2025 at 7:49 am

    Sorry for the double post, not sure how that happened.

    Reply

Leave a Comment