Marv is right that having a college degree, a higher income, or a white-collar job does not exclude someone from being working class. Teachers, social workers, journalists, programmers, and government researchers usually lack ownership of the means of production, have limited control at work, and depend on selling their labor. Calling only factory workers 'real workers' is more about nostalgia than about actual Marxist analysis. But Marv goes somewhat too far. People's reliance on wages does not erase the real differences within the working class. Workers have different amounts of authority, independence, credentials, job security, access to institutions, and relationships with management. These differences can shape their politics and how they organize, even if they do not make them separate classes. Your post also puts too much emphasis on job type and education when it says DSA is 'firmly' PMC. The real issue is not that professors, nurses, nonprofit workers, or technical staff are outside the working class. Instead, DSA often attracts people whose jobs give them more cultural capital, flexible schedules, experience with institutions, and confidence in meetings and campaigns. This imbalance can shape what the group focuses on, how it communicates, and where it puts its energy. Marv, I agree that someone with a college degree and a salaried job can still be working-class. Teachers, social workers, journalists, technical workers, and many professionals depend on wages, so it would be a mistake to say only industrial workers are part of the proletariat. DSA does not attract a truly representative mix of wage and salary earners. Instead, it primarily brings in younger, college-educated people who work in fields such as academia, nonprofits, government, media, technology, and professional services. The question is not whether these members are 'real workers.' The real issue is whether their place in the working class shapes DSA’s culture, priorities, language, and ways of working. Different groups of workers have different levels of independence, authority, job security, credentials, and access to institutions. These differences do not always mean they are separate classes, but they still matter politically. For example, a unionized university worker, a nonprofit policy expert, a warehouse worker, and a home health aide all sell their labor, but they face different workplace situations and have different resources for organizing. So we need to consider two questions at once. First, what economic and social factors make some groups more likely than others to join socialist organizations? Second, what does DSA do, or not do, that leads to this selective recruitment? Its focus on elections, meeting style, policy choices, language, location, and reliance on highly educated activists all shape who joins and stays. Pointing these factors out does not mean college-educated members are not working class. The point is that an organization does not truly represent the working class just because most members earn wages. The key question is whether it connects to all parts of the class, especially those with the least power, influence, and job security. This way of looking at things avoids the unhelpful 'PMC versus real workers' debate and instead focuses on what matters: how social makeup, organization, and political strategy are connected.
-- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42425): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42425 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120177484/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
