What follows is a first sketch of a campaign proposal that is designed to bring to an end a form of discrimination referred to here as institutionalised classism. What exactly is meant by this term will become clear as we proceed. But for now I will just say that this proposal is inspired by the three class analysis that informs the participatory economics model. I am putting this proposal “out there” in order to seek feedback from others who might have an interest in this area of, and approach to, social justice organising. More precisely, I am seeking comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvements from those who have an interest in and knowledge of; (1) class analysis, (2) anti-discriminatory law, and (3) organising and campaigning.
On the 1st October 2010 a new piece of anti-discrimination legislation was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That piece of legislation was the Equality Act 2010. The national human rights institution, The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), state that the Equality Act (2010) “simplifies, strengthens and harmonises the current legislation to provide Britain with a new discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society.” More precisely, according to the GOV.UK website, the Act specifies the following nine “protected characteristics” that are covered by the Equality Act (2010):
- age
- being or becoming a transsexual person
- being married or in a civil partnership
- being pregnant or having a child
- disability
- race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
- religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
- sex
- sexual orientation
Combined these protected characteristics legally define what is meant by “equality” within Britain today. Clearly, there is much to be celebrated within the Act, as it outlaws many of the forms of discrimination that progressives have been fighting for, often over long periods of time.
However, the Equality Act also helps to explain a lot about the strange world of politics in which we all have to live today. What is striking, to me at least, is the way in which this legal definition of “equality” says nothing about economics, or more precisely, how this piece of anti-discriminatory law fails to even begin to tackle institutionalised classism as a form of discrimination. This omission helps to maintain one of the features of society that generates inequality and social injustice, making a nonsense of the (EHRC) claims highlighted above. In effect, excluding economic factors from the Act legalises classism. As Polly Toynbee pointed out back in 2009, “How can you challenge the unfair treatment of women, minorities, the disabled and the old while ignoring the one great inequality that trumps all these several times over?”
When I looked into this a little bit more I found that the Equality Act that was passed only contains 90% of the original Bill with the socio-economic duty missing. This socio-economic duty was designed to reduce class inequality but was dropped from the Act. As already suggested above, omitting economic factors, and classism as a form of discrimination, reduces the Equality Act to a very bad political joke in which the notion of “equality” is used as a Liberal mask that conceals the reality of class exploitation and oppression. This is pure ideology which ignores the evidence base that shows the damaging impact inequality, that resukts from institutionalised classism, has on people and society.
However, I also feel that the Equality Act can be used to help inform a contemporary campaign that builds on the progressive success of the past. After all, it seems clear that institutionalised classism – as a form of legal discrimination – constitutes, if not the, then one of the major issues that progressives face today. Given the combined neglect and significance of this issue it seems like an obvious area around which progressives could build a popular movement.
Such a movement could have a number of functions but should probably be based on a shared understanding of the institutional origins of classism. Here I would like to suggest two possible contenders that are highlighted within the participatory economics model. The first is private ownership of the means of production (the power source of the capitalist class). The second is the corporate division of labour (the power source of the coordinator class). These two institutional features of capitalist economics not only represent the root cause of classism but can also be used to inform a campaign designed to address classism.
Furthermore, self-managed worker councils and balanced job complexes (respectively) are proposed as alternatives to these two capitalist institutions. Again, it seems that these alternative institutions could be used to help inform such a campaign.
Some possible objectives of a campaign to outlaw classism could include:
- Raise awareness of institutionalised classism as an unacceptable and yet legal form of discrimination.
- Highlighting the similarities between classism and other forms of discrimination – such as racism and sexism – and the damaging impact this has on people’s lives and society as a whole.
- Getting protective characteristics added to the Equality Act that outlaw classism.
Perhaps the history of the abolition of economic slavery based on white supremacism can be used to inform a modern campaign for the abolition of economic slavery based on class supremacism? I would be interested to know what you think…
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
5 Comments
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your post.
It’s informative considering that I am currently tossing up what research would be most useful for my several purposes.
First, I want to do a degree by research.
Second, that research, I want it to support the argument that schools must address classism – individual and institutional – in my context of South Australia..
Third, the process of researching must instigate reflection on class and classism in everyday life among those who have an interest in high school education, especially students. For example, interviews about perceptions of how class impacts student’s participation.
Fourth, the research must lead into producing a workshop. The workshop’s purpose is to provoke individual and institutional reflection and action.
Fifth, the research and workshop must be useful for laying the ground works of a social movement which can organise and force and secure change. The audience the research and workshop is aimed at is the lower levels of the school hierarchy which have less interest in maintaining classism.
It’s a tall order. Legal reform to account for class discrimination is a tall order too.
Still, I think that showing the limits of reform is important and that this can instigate the formation of a social movement to push for radical change. Saying that, the means do influence the ends, a social movement composed of working class people for dignity is very different than coordinator class people working towards legal reform.
Noam Chomsky said it well in 2012 when talking about May Day,
“A sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits, for two good reasons. First, because the reforms can be valuable in themselves…Secondly, on strategic grounds, you have to show that there are limits to reform.”
And of course,
“If you get to a point where the existing institutions will not bend to the popular will, you have to eliminate the institutions.”
Cheers
Sam
Mark:
I don’t think you are missing anything. Probably I am. I guess I am much more cynical about representative democracy than you.
In my opinion, it does not exist at all on a national level in the US, so it’s usually a tactical waste of resources to try. Co-optation is the largest problem, among many.
The lack of a parliamentary set-up (with at least a potential for multiple parties, etc.) and the Electoral College contribute greatly to the stranglehold of the capitalist duopoly here.
Especially since the total obescience of the corporate media helps capaital’s electoral stooges to frame any debate in that arena.
While I don’t romanticize parliamentary “democracies” by any means, possibly you have more of a chance to use them successfully.
If I overstated my point by failing to point out the national differences that we work from, I apologize. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment.
Solidarity,
Tom
Hi Tom – I think you are right in saying that corporate control of the political system is more advanced in the US than the UK.
But it is also true that if we can get enough people together we can change that. Despite corporate power we can impact the political system, and in ways that disempower corporations and weaken the class system.
I am sure we agree on that. The question is, what is the appropriate focus today? I am suggesting outlawing classism. Just as people used not think of sexism and racism as forms of discrimination, today many people don’t see classism as a form of discrimination. That has to change.
In the US we have an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission which allegedly enforces anti-discrimination laws similar to those in this article.
The EEOC is largely a failure because it is highly bureaucratic, legalistic and puts the burden of proof totally on the victims. Some significant class-action actions have been won in the past, but our Supreme (Constitutional) Court makes that more difficult all the time.
If the proposed law were ever passed in the UK (it wouldn’t even be discussed here), it would fail. Here’s why:
The proposal intends to reform one facet capitalism through the legislative, bureaucratic. legalistic apparatus of the capitalist system. Capitalism is incapable of self-reform – or even regulation – because, by definition it is based on inequality.
While the UK may get some public discussion over the matter because – even today – it is a much more class conscious society than the US, we generally don’t recognize anything but “the rich” and the “middle class.” The poor don’t even exist in our collective consciousness, except in terms of social pathologies.
It may be worth looking again at the last sentence about the abolition of economic slavery based on white supremacy. You could begin by talking to some of the 2.5 million human beings in jails and prisons in the U.S. (where slave labor is quite legal), the many tens of millions of people who are under permanent jurisdiction of the “justice” system and the millions of sex slaves and addicts who’ve become a permanent feature of the economic system.
Hi Tom and thanks for your feedback!
Just to be clear, I didn’t meant to imply that capitalism can “self-reform” towards classlessness and I agree that capitalism requires inequality – after all it institutionalises classism.
However, I am not convinced that the politics of representative democracy could not be used as a space in which to generate a public debate about outlawing classism in the same way that, historically, there has been debates about outlawing sexism, racism, etc…
But maybe I am missing something?