Log in

View Full Version : Present Day Class Society



OCMD
19th March 2009, 15:40
A really good analysis of present day class society and its struggles.


The Four Post-Marxist Classes of Society



There are four major social classes in the post-Marxist system.



(1) The Parasite Class

This class creates a negative value for society because they suck up more value from society than they create through their labor. It includes not just people in prison and people collecting welfare, but the working poor as well. In the United States, government spending per capita exceeds $20,000 per year, so the way I see it, a person who makes less than $20,000 per year is most likely creating less value than he sucks out of the system.



Now it’s true that the person earning $20,000 per year is actually creating more value than his salary because some of the value he creates has been transferred to the value transference class before he receives his paycheck, but the working poor also tend to use up more government services than people in the higher classes; their low class behaviors place greater burdens on the police, they receive various public benefits because society deems them too poor to get by on their own, and their children are more expensive to educate because they are “at risk” and cause behavior problems in the schools, etc.



Additionally, their low class behaviors create negative externalities, imposed mostly on the class immediately above it, the proletariat.



In Karl Marx’s day, the parasite class existed, but it was a much smaller percentage of society and more easily ignored. The parasite class has expanded because of dysgenic breeding and dysgenic immigration which has increased the percentage of low-IQ people, and because government spending per capita was tiny in the 19th century; there were no food stamps, no social security, and no free medical care.



A sensible society would try to reduce the parasite class by discouraging this class from reproducing, but our current social policies do the opposite. Women from the parasite class are rewarded with welfare payments when they have a baby.



(2) The Proletariat

This is the modern-day laboring class, not too much different than Karl Marx’s proletariat. This class has a higher IQ than the parasite class below it, but a lower IQ than the college graduate class above it.



This class is predominately a value creation class. Being even minimally successful at legal forms of value transference requires higher IQ than most people in proletariat possess. Maybe some people from this class are working as car salesmen are in other low-paying value transference jobs, but for the most part the men from this class do traditional blue collar work, and the women do low-paying office work, retail work, or medical work.


What has changed since Marx’s day is that there are no longer any high-IQ people in this class; they are now part of the college graduate class. This is the reason why the labor unions are dying out. Back in the old days, there were high-IQ laborers who would organize the workers, but today these high-IQ individuals are now in the college graduate class and are not interested in unionizing.



The people in the value transference class have convinced the people in the college graduate class that unions are for low class people. The proletariat no longer has any members capable of organizing a union, and over the last century, the value transference class has successfully trained this class to believe that they are not worth any more than they are getting paid.



The other thing that has changed since Marx’s day is that the size of this class has shrunk considerably. The majority of people in the parasite class and the college graduate class used to be in the proletariat.





(3) The College Graduate Class

This class has a higher IQ than the proletariat, and the overlap in IQ with the class below it is rather minimal. Most people whose IQ is high enough to graduate from college do so. And the proletariat contains many people who started college, but their IQ just wasn’t high enough for them to last long enough to graduate.



This class is the most productive class in terms of value creation, which explains why they have higher incomes than the proletariat. In a modern society such as we live in, value creation requires a high IQ. At the top end of this class are people making six figure salaries doing technical work like engineering or computer programming. This class includes middle management, but not upper management.



Compared to the class below, a higher percentage of the work done by this class is value transference work, but members of this class are not successful enough at transferring value to themselves in order to be part of the value transference class. They may make work in value transference industries like finance or advertising, but they get paid regular cubicle-worker salaries.



This class is comparable to the “petit-bourgeois” in orthodox Marxist theory, but Karl Marx didn’t think the petit-bourgeois were very important, and he thought that they would eventually move down to proletariat, with a lucky few moving up to the true bourgeois class.



Boy was he wrong about that!



This class has grown and become a very important class. In fact, it’s the growth of this class which has fueled the argument that Marx was wrong about everything.



The growth of this class has been of much benefit to the value transference class, because a great deal of the value created by the college graduate class is transferred to the value transference class.



Furthermore, the value transference class encourages class struggle between the proletariat and the college graduate class. Members of the college graduate class are made to feel like they are the economic winners, thus they ignore the fact that the value transference class is stealing a good portion of the value they create.



(4) The Value Transference Class

At the top of the Marxist class structure was a class called the bourgeois or the capitalists. This class owned the “means of production,” and thus they profited from the labor of the proletariat. The “means of production” meant owning a factory.



There are some members of the value transference class class who own factories, but what has changed since Marx’s day is that owning factories is no longer the primary means by which members of the value transference class transfer value. What we can say is that members of this class have value transference capital, and it’s this value transference capital which allows this class to be far richer than the value they create with their labor.



There is some value transference capital which can be bought and sold. You can buy or sell a value transference business, which I define as any business which primarily makes money by transferring value rather than by creating it. But much value transference capital is human capital. The CEO of a corporation has a great deal of value transference human capital. He is unable to sell his CEOship, but as long as he works as the CEO, he transfers value from the corporation’s employees and shareholders to himself.



Because value transference capital usually doesn’t exist as a tangible asset, or even as something you can purchase (accountants would call purchased value transference capital “good will”), a lot of people will deny its existence. They will insist that the CEO is making millions of dollars a year because he is creating millions of dollars of value per year through his labor, even though they can’t pinpoint anything that a CEO can do that many people in the college graduate class can’t also do.



The average IQ of the value transference class is somewhat higher than the average IQ of the college graduate class, but there is a great deal of overlap between these two classes. Most people with IQs higher than the average member of the value transference class are nevertheless stuck in the college graduate class. Most people with high IQs are able to use their IQs to create value, but they lack the value transference capital which is necessary for membership in this class.

Much of my analysis is based on the innate genetic IQ differences between the post-Marxist classes, and leftists are the people who are outraged at the idea that group differences in IQ are responsible for group differences in outcomes.
Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out before the modern left is no longer very much concerned with issues of class struggle. Instead, their focus is on egalitarian issues such as affirmative action and gay marriage, and on promoting the new religion of Earth Worship.


Credit: halfsigma

mykittyhasaboner
19th March 2009, 15:46
Cool story bro.

danyboy27
19th March 2009, 16:37
i hate when people divide people with their IQ, its so lame.

revolution inaction
19th March 2009, 16:58
i hate when people divide people with their IQ, its so lame.

it is but this poster is not dividing people by there iq they are just pretending to do so, which is far lamer

Demogorgon
19th March 2009, 17:04
One could spend a great deal of time taking that apart, but I have a much simpler analysis that covers all the issues present here:

What a load of crap.

Hegemonicretribution
19th March 2009, 17:11
Is this serious? :confused:

I can almost see a worthwhile point somewhere on the horizon....but it ill need a lot of work and qualification of this mess to even bring it remotely into focus. I will leave this up to others incase I have missed something bigger and really obvious here.

Just a few bits I will pick on for now:
Much of my analysis is based on the innate genetic IQ differences between the post-Marxist classes
In the last couple of decades I have been in groups 1, 2 and 3. What is my innate IQ?

There are no innate differences in IQ, at best there are tendencies towards 'intelligence' being concentrated at the top. This is explained in Marxist terms by pointing to different educational opportunities. A degree of comfort which enables some to view education as an end as well as a means, which is not the case lower down the ladder. Also perception of education within particular classes which is valued more the higher up the ladder you go (usually). And various other factors stemming from one's material background.

Claiming innate differences in IQ is one of the worst things I have ever heard on this board, and certainly shows one of the poorest grasps of Marxist theory.

Also this does not even attempt to have universal application, and is quite clearly biased towards the most developed western economies.

Yes it is useful to offer a 'post-Marxist' analysis which explains a larger middle class, but not if this is done by appeal to innate qualities.

IQ is a bogus concept anyway, but even allowing for this, it is still not even established that people are actually smarter the wealthier they are. I have met many of the stupidist people I know at university, and some of the smartest people I know are currently working shit jobs.

Being economically savy does not mean that you are smart, yet this is more important that actual intelligence or productive power when moving up the ladder. If you begin from an advantaged position all you need to do is learn how to retain this position in order reap the benifits of your class. You do not have to have a high IQ to do so. Likewise, transcending classes requires more than intelligence, and even if someone was very intelligent it does not mean that they will be able to move up the ladder. Nor does it mean that they will want to move up the ladder.

I am sorry I just really disliked this post, and I find it very worrying that there is an emphasis on innate qualities which justifies current class divides.

mikelepore
19th March 2009, 17:53
The proletariat versus the college graduates ... complete nonsense. As if someone with a college diploma will go to a job interview and then walk out owning the company instead of being its hired servant.

mikelepore
19th March 2009, 17:58
This class is comparable to the “petit-bourgeois” in orthodox Marxist theory

Wrong again. The term "petit bourgeoisie" doesn't refer to college graduates. It refers to self-employed small business owners.

Hegemonicretribution
19th March 2009, 18:13
Apologies for claiming a poor understanding of Marxist analysis; I didn't realise this was posted in OI. I assume that you reject Marxxist analysis.

Still I find that justifying class structure in terms of innate qualities is sommething that even the most barefaced capitalist would have problems with.

This seems to imply a virtually unchangable notion of class, and justifies it as being almost meritocratic. This is a throwback to religious doctrines which justify society in terms of being a natural rather than created division of society. Restriction pending no doubt?

#FF0000
19th March 2009, 19:16
How can you base this analysis on IQ, when IQ tests are classist and culturally biased? It discredits itself!

Pogue
19th March 2009, 19:18
I feel you would be well met with the trash can dear friend.

synthesis
19th March 2009, 23:48
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Class has always been defined as one's relation to the means of producing value, and the author does not offer any decent justification for trashing that paradigm.

Honestly, the essay reads like something written by a guy who can't make up his mind if he belongs here or on StormFront.

Plagueround
20th March 2009, 00:34
Trash and Ban (Sung to the tune of the Spiderman theme)


Trash and ban, Trash and ban
Dump this post in the trash can
On the web, trolling guys,
Racist trash, in disguise
Look Out!
Here comes the Trash and ban.

Is he wrong?
Listen bud,
He's thinks he better because of blood.
Can he troll with a thread?
Take a sec, put your palm on your head.
Hey, there
This need a trash and ban!

In the wing of the right
This post is not a crime
But here why fight
And give this loser our time?

Trash and ban, Trash and ban
Trolling fiend should be trashed and banned.
Moronic and lame
Best ignored
Angry response is his reward
Look Out!
He needs a trash and ban.

To him, hate is his big hang up
No need for us to gang up
Just have a mod trash and baaaaan!