Revleft classism/general hating: elitist keyboard comrades

[ellipsis]

Call me a tree-hugger but there seems to be too much blatant "discrimination"/general "hating" that passes on Revleft. There are some things which sure do get my goat when members use them, like the following:
middle-class- some revleftist blantanty denounce individuals and organizations as being "a bunch of middle class _____" seemingly imply that people of middle class background are less authentic than other comrades of working class backgrounds. often used with the term lifestylist. To be this is classism, which on this forum(or anywhere) should not be tolerated.
kids- again people denounce groups as being a bunch of kids. lots and lots of people, the majority of revleft users are under 18/21. does being young somehow disqualify you for being a good,effectual activists?

i could go on, talking about the negative use of white, hipster, hippy, rich, etc.

All I wanna know is why is there all of this hating? Shouldn't we(comrades in general) be building unity with all types of leftists/activists who, when it comes down to it share many if not most of the same goals as us? Or at least not spouting hateful, divisive and destructive rhetoric at people who we disagree with on some issues?

I thought we were all trying to build a class-less society, but apparently some are intent in seeing their fellow humans/workers/comrades not as that but as "anarcho-hipster punks".

[Lyev]

Yeah the classism thing pisses me off as well. Anyway didn't Marx's parents convert to Christianity to blend into German middle class society? And plus my family's unashamedly middle class, but I can't bloody help the family I was born into.

[gorillafuck]

I'm middle class but honestly, I definitely see where the dislike comes from. It would be pretty patronizing of me if I tried to be the leader of a socialist organization rather than someone who knows living a hard life first-hand, and middle class people often do talk down about the working class.

Edit: I don't think hatred of the middle class is a good thing but my point is that it's kind of understandable.

[fiddlesticks]

The hating is everywhere, I see it on the streets, its just, bah. It is especially sad to see on here because I thought the left would be a more tolerant group of people. If someone is going to preach for acceptance, they should take their own advice and accept everyone, especially people you disagree with or dont particularly like.

It seems like it would be particularly awesome that a middle class individual shared leftist ideals because they would likely be aware of their own situation, the ease of which they can become a comfortable member of the middle class, but would rather see people less privileged them them in a better situation. I really hope that made sense. Acceptance is love!!!!:)

[RedCommieBear]

See: use of terms like white trash, redneck.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I don't judge too much on class, but I do note the amount of malevolence of any person. Rich people are just in a better position to be exploitative.

So, when it comes to the richer/bourgeois society, when the revolution comes they will be judged by if they give power to worker...

or if it has to be taken from them. :thumbup1:

[Manifesto]

It does make sense that the middle class is hated but should it really be a bad thing that you are doing ok? The rich should be hated much more considering they are the reason that they are poor.

[Il Medico]

There is no middle class. However, there certainly some animosity between lower and higher rungs (based on income) of the proletariat. This is neither helpful or productive, although quite understandable.

[RotStern]

Hatred towards Whites??
I was always under the impression that 99.9% of leftists are white.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Hatred towards Whites??
I was always under the impression that 99.9% of leftists are white.

I'm sure that was sarcasm... right...?

RIGHT?
:confused:

[gorillafuck]

Hatred towards Whites??
I was always under the impression that 99.9% of leftists are white.
Oh my god.

[9]

Well, I think the point of the original post (correct me if I am mistaken) was not that class struggle should be minimized or anything of the sort, but that using "middle class white kid" as a pejorative against anyone you disagree with is completely baseless (its the internet, no one knows if anyone is really who they say they are; I think most of the time the people who employ this sort of slander are actually middle class white kids themselves who feel some sort of guilt which they project onto others) and extremely divisive. It is true that many here seem more interested in "internet cred" among their own little faction instead of contributing to the pool of ideas and being open to other views within the revolutionary left.

[9]

There is no middle class. However, there certainly some animosity between lower and higher rungs (based on income) of the proletariat. This is neither helpful or productive, although quite understandable.

No doubt, but I don't think this is what we're seeing transpire on revleft.com. I don't think the people who use slander to discredit others among the revolutionary left are doing it because they are less privileged than the person they are debating - there is really no way of knowing what anyone's economic status is on the internet, so it may well be that many of the people who are baselessly deriding others as "middle class white kids" (or whatever) are actually themselves members of the petit-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie. Which is why it makes no sense to use this sort of slander here.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to learning.

[Bilan]

I'm not going to get caught up about people being criticised for being "middle class", considering that, as far as classes go, it is a non-existent (or at least relatively minute) class.

The way it's used is usually ideological - at least, that's how I read it.
Middle class - in terms of ideology - implies that the groups/persons politics are not centered on the working class, but are in fact more general and ambiguous: they are accepting of a non-class central political program, with an emphasis on "peoples" or "the people", or other such things, irrespective of whether these other focal points have interests which are counterpoised to the working class. For example, "the people" encompasses all - which includes the upper classes, and the most reactionary elements of a given place. It also restricts itself to a national, ethnic, or regional basis - thus decentralizing both the working class, and internationalism; two things which are absolutely central to communist politics. All of these other focal points have interests which are incongruous with the goals and interests of the working class - irrespective of what façades certain "socialists" might veil these interests in.

[Black Dagger]

^--- Not necessarily, the BBP for example was not a 'middle class group' and they frequently used the kind of rhetoric you are associating with 'middle class' politics (I.E. 'the people' etc.). Eschewing anarchist/marxist political vocabulary in favour of less complex or more easily understood language is not a trait of the bourgeoisie, it's a necessary facet in context, of communicating one's ideas without sounding like a political caricature. Though that said an over-emphasis on 'the people' type rhetoric can be just as silly/cliched, particularly in contexts like the Soviet Union or modern day North Korea where 'the people's interests' are invoked in a context to justify a political dictatorship.

[StalinFanboy]

i could go on, talking about the negative use of white,


I would assume that most people here view race as a social construct, and therefore being White is certainly negative.

[Bilan]

^--- Not necessarily, the BBP for example was not a 'middle class group' and they frequently used the kind of rhetoric you are associating with 'middle class' politics (I.E. 'the people' etc.).

Rhetoric is one thing; a political program centered on such ambiguous rhetoric is quite another.
And Certainly, the BPP's leniency toward Black Nationalism indicates a counter-revolutionary line of thought, which was not dropped until the near demise of the Panthers.



Eschewing anarchist/marxist political vocabulary in favour of less complex or more easily understood language is not a trait of the bourgeoisie, it's a necessary facet in context, of communicating one's ideas without sounding like a political caricature.

It's not a matter of vocabulary, but a matter of clarity. It's not enough to say that one is 'more complex', and therefore use the other which is 'less'. Simply because one indicates something very different: it implies the focal point of a program is elsewhere. Class and People are not interchangeable terms, no more so than alligator and crocodile.

[Black Dagger]

It's not enough to say that one is 'more complex', and therefore use the other which is 'less'. Simply because one indicates something very different: it implies the focal point of a program is elsewhere. Class and People are not interchangeable terms, no more so than alligator and crocodile.

You seem to be implying that word choices are important than the ideas communicated? I disagree; the vocabulary used really has little significance.

[Bilan]

You seem to be implying that word choices are important than the ideas communicated? I disagree; the vocabulary used really has little significance.

They are important. If you wish to articulate a position or program, being able to identify it clearly - for both yourself, and others - is paramount. Ambiguities do us no favours.
Plus, I presume people make these word choices for a reason (And I doubt I'm wrong). The use of "people" as opposed to "the working class" is done to appeal to a wider audience; to acquire a larger base for the "movement". Rent-a-crowd politics are no substitute for precision.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm not going to get caught up about people being criticised for being "middle class", considering that, as far as classes go, it is a non-existent (or at least relatively minute) class.

Actually if you stay within the context of Marxist terminology the term "middle-class" was/is used by Marxists to refer to the bourgeoisie class, since it was the middle-class in feudalism.

There are many references to the term in that context in Marx and Engels' writings, for example:


By Bourgeois Society, we understand that phase of social development in which the Bourgeoisie, the Middle Class, the class of industrial and commercial Capitalists, is, socially and politically, the ruling class; which is now the case more or less in all the civilized countries of Europe and America.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_09_23.htm)

The use of the term middle-class by non-Marxists to describe upper layers of the working-class or petty-bourgeoisie is pointless. De-classed elements are either referred to as intelligentsia or labour aristocracy (top layer of the working-class bought off by super profits extracted from imperialist exploitation).

So it's better to stick to the good ol' term petty-bourgeoisie when criticizing those kind of people, unless you're criticizing their middle-class, i.e., bourgeois politics.

[nuisance]

Alot of the 'classists' on revleft probably use it to hide their actual middle class credidentials- internet personas and all that.

[ComradeOm]

I thought we were all trying to build a class-less society, but apparently some are intent in seeing their fellow humans/workers/comrades not as that but as "anarcho-hipster punks".Fuck that. What do I have in common with lifestylist hippies whose socialist leanings go no further than an abhorrence of showers or a refusal to eat meat?

Classism has nothing to do with this and I suspect that this thread is nothing but an attempt to rehabilitate 'lifestylism'. The disdain reserved for the likes of Crimethinc is not due to some hatred of the "middle class" but rather the complete bankruptcy of their ideas

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I would assume that most people here view race as a social construct, and therefore being White is certainly negative.
Surely viewing race as a social construct means that you see being white as basically meaningless, no?

[Bilan]

Actually if you stay within the context of Marxist terminology the term "middle-class" was/is used by Marxists to refer to the bourgeoisie class, since it was the middle-class in feudalism.

I'm aware of that, but to define it as middle in our context makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[9]

Maybe I misunderstood what the OP was getting at, but I thought the complaint was about people being assholes and using baseless cheap shots and slander ("middle class white kid", "liberal", "anarkiddos", etc) to discredit other revlefters; most of the responses seem to be under the impression that the OP was diminishing the role of class struggle, but that is not at all how I perceived it. Maybe I am the one who is confused?

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm aware of that, but to define it as middle in our context makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Well as I said it could make sense if they're referring to someone's ideology or politics.

Like, if I said to someone "you have middle-class politics", I'd be saying that they have bourgeois politics. Or if I said "That is a typical middle-class argument", I would be saying that they're putting forth a typical bourgeois argument.

It's the same with the petty-bourgeois term Marxists throw around a lot. If you call them out on it and point out that you're actually working-class, they say: "Well, yeah, but your politics are petty-bourgeois!"

But yes, in the actual class-sense it's meaningless (the petty-bourgeois term as well by the way). It's just a political slur most of the time.

[Killfacer]

It can be pretty annoying, i particuarly find the slurs: "Lifestylist, Ultra-leftist, Middle class and evil anarchist hypocrite why are you an admin" annoying.

[ellipsis]

Fuck that. What do I have in common with lifestylist hippies whose socialist leanings go no further than an abhorrence of showers or a refusal to eat meat?

Classism has nothing to do with this and I suspect that this thread is nothing but an attempt to rehabilitate 'lifestylism'. The disdain reserved for the likes of Crimethinc is not due to some hatred of the "middle class" but rather the complete bankruptcy of their ideas
what do you have in common? Hmmm I guess humanity doesn't mean anything to you. I am not defending crimethinc but when revleftist are dismissing them as smelly middle class white kids, something is wrong. If you continue to seperate yourself from those who are different, soon you will be alone. It also seems as though the nebulous and often reactionary "proletariat/worker" is given more credit on this forum for revolutionary potential than "lifestylists" who may not be the ideal comrades but who are at least part way there.
I should say that I am of middle class background, am white and rarely bath. However I also work manual labor outside. Perhaps I am a lifestylist because I haven't started a collective farm or organized a factory take over. What can I do to be more authetically revolutionary?

Maybe I misunderstood what the OP was getting at, but I thought the complaint was about people being assholes and using baseless cheap shots and slander ("middle class white kid", "liberal", "anarkiddos", etc) to discredit other revlefters; most of the responses seem to be under the impression that the OP was diminishing the role of class struggle, but that is not at all how I perceived it. Maybe I am the one who is confused?
the former. Class is real and I support class stuggle.

[ComradeOm]

what do you have in common? Hmmm I guess humanity doesn't mean anything to youFunnily enough humanity is something I also have in common with bourgeois politicians. Who would have guessed? So no, I don't accept "humanity" as a basis for unity

And, for the record, I dismiss Crimethinc not because of their class background but because their ideas are shit. The same applies to any lifestylists or 'post-leftist'. This is not a class issue but rather simply divergent politics/philosophies


the former. Class is real and I support class stuggle.Yet you hold that lifestylists (an inherently individualistic concept) hold more revolutionary potential than "reactionary proletariat/worker" [sic]?

[Pogue]

fuck the middle class. bunch of wankers.

[Bilan]

Well as I said it could make sense if they're referring to someone's ideology or politics.

Haha, now you're just repeating me! :lol:


Like, if I said to someone "you have middle-class politics", I'd be saying that they have bourgeois politics. Or if I said "That is a typical middle-class argument", I would be saying that they're putting forth a typical bourgeois argument.

It's the same with the petty-bourgeois term Marxists throw around a lot. If you call them out on it and point out that you're actually working-class, they say: "Well, yeah, but your politics are petty-bourgeois!"

But yes, in the actual class-sense it's meaningless (the petty-bourgeois term as well by the way). It's just a political slur most of the time.

Yeah, we're in agreement.

[ellipsis]

Funnily enough humanity is something I also have in common with bourgeois politicians. Who would have guessed? So no, I don't accept "humanity" as a basis for unity

And, for the record, I dismiss Crimethinc not because of their class background but because their ideas are shit. The same applies to any lifestylists or 'post-leftist'. This is not a class issue but rather simply divergent politics/philosophies

Yet you hold that lifestylists (an inherently individualistic concept) hold more revolutionary potential than "reactionary proletariat/worker" [sic]?

I don't believe that it was you specifically I was talking about being classist/hateful towards crime thinc and others, except when you claimed to be "better" than them.
My point about relative revolutionary potential was not to make a value judgement one way or the other, but more to point out that we shouldn't discount people because they aren't revolutionary enough right now. If we did then most of the working class would be excluded as well as lifestylists. Do you see the point I'm making?

[Ismail]

Surely viewing race as a social construct means that you see being white as basically meaningless, no?Nope (http://colours.mahost.org/articles/sakai.html).

J. Sakai (author of Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/59309.html)):

There’s a certain trend of fashionable white thought that claims that race (or nation) is nothing more than a trick, an imaginary construct that folks are fooled into believing in. So we even find some middle-class white men claiming that they’ve “given up being white” (i can hear my grandmother saying, “More white foolishness!” with a dismissing headshake). Needless to say, they haven’t given up anything. Race as a form of class is very tangible, solid, material, as real as a tank division running over you … tank divisions, after all, are also socially constructed!

[....]

This liberal intellectual polarity that "race issues" and "class issues" are opposites, are completely separate from each other, and that one or the must be the main thing, is utterly useless! We have to really get it that race issues aren't the opposite of class issues. That race is always so electrically charged, so filled with mass power, precisely because it's about raw class. That's why revolutionaries and demagogues can both potentially tap into so much power using it. Or get burned. You can't steer yourself in real politics, not in amerikkka and not in this global imperialism, without understanding race. "Class" without race in North America is an abstraction. And vice-versa. Those who do not get this are always just led around by the nose, the manipulated without a clue -- and it is true that many don't want any more from life than this. But wising up on race only means seeing all the class issues that define race and charge it with meaning. Why should it be so hard to understand that capitalism, which practically wants to barcode our assholes, has always found it convenient to color-code its classes?

[Hit The North]

fuck the middle class. bunch of wankers.

Oh, stop it! You'll upset your parents.

[Sarah Palin]

fuck the middle class. bunch of wankers.

I didn't know working class revolutionaries could balance multiple jobs and participation in an online forum. Props to you.

[Invader Zim]

The use of the term 'middle class' as perjorative is typically a loosely disguised ad hominem. Naturally, with the anonymity of the internet as a medium for discussion, it is impossible with rare exceptions for anyone to know the actual background of the individual whom they are addressing. As such the only purpose in employing the term in this fashion is to deflect a difficult argument by effectively dismissing the argument's proponent as being middle class and thus incapable of attaing a true understanding of the issue. My advice would be ignore it. And even if you are middle class remember that Marx's father was a lawyer, Engels was a factory owner, Lenin's father was a school inspector, Trotsky's father was a successful farm owner, and Bakunin's family were aristocrats. So quite clearly fate of birth did not hinder these individuals in forming leftwing senitment and theories.

[h9socialist]

Is it worth mentioning that neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor Che Guevara could have been considered poor or proletarian in their upbringing?

Che once wrote of Fidel Castro, something to the effect of, "I have always considered Fidel as a bona fide representative of the leftist bourgeoisie."

A comrade's class origin has never been a disqualification for participation in the socialist movement.

[ArrowLance]

There is no middle class. However, there certainly some animosity between lower and higher rungs (based on income) of the proletariat. This is neither helpful or productive, although quite understandable.

Managers? Shop and Franchise owners? There is a middle class.

[Bilan]

Is it worth mentioning that neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor Che Guevara could have been considered poor or proletarian in their upbringing?

Che once wrote of Fidel Castro, something to the effect of, "I have always considered Fidel as a bona fide representative of the leftist bourgeoisie."

A comrade's class origin has never been a disqualification for participation in the socialist movement.

You're missing the point. The term middle class, when used as a criticism of politics, isn't referring to the persons actual class, but to the class that the persons politics represent.

[9]

The term middle class, when used as a criticism of politics, isn't referring to the persons actual class, but to the class that the persons politics represent.

The only occasions on which I've ever heard it used as a pejorative in debate, it has been by one leftist against another. No class (certainly not in America, anyway) broadly identifies as anything on the left, so I can't say your explanation applies to my experiences. Really I just think everyone ought to quit clinging to it and acknowledge that its a stupid insult and usually a baseless scapegoat.

[narcomprom]

Of course most people in the upper tiers of revolutionary parties were were from the lower part of the upper tiers of society, because only they had the education and the self-interest to do the job. Them I wouldn't call middle class kids because kids do play games and they didn't. Kids are people who play rebels as a recreational activity and I don't mind that at all.

They are my comrades, as long as they stand up for our cause and I always respect my comrades. I just wouldn't expect too much from a comrade who is illiterate or childish. I'd express my respect, instead, by doing my best to make him read.

[Pogue]

I didn't know working class revolutionaries could balance multiple jobs and participation in an online forum. Props to you.

what?

[Oswy]

Call me a tree-hugger but there seems to be too much blatant "discrimination"/general "hating" that passes on Revleft. There are some things which sure do get my goat when members use them, like the following:
middle-class- some revleftist blantanty denounce individuals and organizations as being "a bunch of middle class _____" seemingly imply that people of middle class background are less authentic than other comrades of working class backgrounds. often used with the term lifestylist. To be this is classism, which on this forum(or anywhere) should not be tolerated.
kids- again people denounce groups as being a bunch of kids. lots and lots of people, the majority of revleft users are under 18/21. does being young somehow disqualify you for being a good,effectual activists?

i could go on, talking about the negative use of white, hipster, hippy, rich, etc.

All I wanna know is why is there all of this hating? Shouldn't we(comrades in general) be building unity with all types of leftists/activists who, when it comes down to it share many if not most of the same goals as us? Or at least not spouting hateful, divisive and destructive rhetoric at people who we disagree with on some issues?

I thought we were all trying to build a class-less society, but apparently some are intent in seeing their fellow humans/workers/comrades not as that but as "anarcho-hipster punks".

Yeah. I'm working class by pretty much any standard, Marxist or otherwise, and I think class-based hating is anti-leftist, counterproductive and just plain stupid. Our focus as leftists is to promote a class-free society and our distaste should be for the forces, material and ideological, which generate class-based exploitation not for other classes. Middle class people (etc) are no more responsible for finding themselves in a particular place in the social system than anyone else is - I didn't 'choose' to be working class. I'd also say that I've probably encountered as many reactionary working-class people as I have middle-class in my life; the issue is what values people have and what politics they support, not, ultimately, whether they were, through no fault of their own, born into particular social relations.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm middle class but honestly, I definitely see where the dislike comes from. It would be pretty patronizing of me if I tried to be the leader of a socialist organization rather than someone who knows living a hard life first-hand, and middle class people often do talk down about the working class.

Edit: I don't think hatred of the middle class is a good thing but my point is that it's kind of understandable.

good post. most middle class types talk down to workers without even being aware of it.

[RHIZOMES]

I come from a middle-class family so therefore I completely loathe the middle-class, sorry.

[Bilan]

The only occasions on which I've ever heard it used as a pejorative in debate, it has been by one leftist against another. No class (certainly not in America, anyway) broadly identifies as anything on the left, so I can't say your explanation applies to my experiences. Really I just think everyone ought to quit clinging to it and acknowledge that its a stupid insult and usually a baseless scapegoat.

Using it against other leftists doesn't undermine what I said: it reaffirms it. Leftists, broadly speaking, are not anti-capitalist, or proletarian by nature. Leftists can be used to refer to a broad range of tendencies and ideologies, some of which are bourgeois in both aims and ends, some of which appear as proletarian, but which use both bourgeois methods with similar results, and some of which are intrinsically linked to the working class, and thus their aims and methods are both useful to the emancipation of that class.
The criticism of other leftists as "middle class" refers to the prior two categories, and the many other categories which fit into them in one way or another. That goes for "leftists" who's politics are nationally based, or who ignore the necessity of internationalism; those who use anti-working class means to attempt to realise emancipatory ends (such as the bourgeois political structure), and so on so forth.

[ZeroNowhere]

those who use anti-working class means to attempt to realise emancipatory endsUsing anti-working class means to attempt to realize a classless society would seem quite sensible, to be honest.

[9]

Using it against other leftists doesn't undermine what I said: it reaffirms it. Leftists, broadly speaking, are not anti-capitalist, or proletarian by nature. Leftists can be used to refer to a broad range of tendencies and ideologies, some of which are bourgeois in both aims and ends, some of which appear as proletarian, but which use both bourgeois methods with similar results, and some of which are intrinsically linked to the working class, and thus their aims and methods are both useful to the emancipation of that class.
The criticism of other leftists as "middle class" refers to the prior two categories, and the many other categories which fit into them in one way or another. That goes for "leftists" who's politics are nationally based, or who ignore the necessity of internationalism; those who use anti-working class means to attempt to realise emancipatory ends (such as the bourgeois political structure), and so on so forth.

I'm familiar with the meaning of the terms, and I am not questioning the validity of the terms in and of themselves. The point that I was attempting to make is that the terms are employed in debate as polemic catch-alls to discredit and deface an 'opponent' without the 'inconvenience' of having to actually engage said 'opponent' on the merits of their argument. And, while in theory the relationships that you mentioned can be measured objectively, in practice (in this particular situation) the degree to which a given current within the revolutionary left is "middle class" or bourgeois in nature varies tremendously depending on who happens to be holding the measuring stick. Just as an example: to me, Stalinism is a bourgeois anti-worker ideology. To Stalinists, left-communism and anarchism (etc.) are bourgeois ideologies. After over half a century of back and forth, both sides are still accusing the other of advocating a bourgeois ideology. It is one thing to elaborate on this accusation and provide an analysis when necessary. But, unless I have mysteriously found myself in the revleft twilight zone, this is almost never the context in which these terms (bourgeois, middle class, etc.) are used here. They are used as intellectual-sounding insults, most often with no relation to the particular dynamics of the issue being discussed, by an individual seeking to divert a discussion via strong-arming anyone who disagrees and behaving like a sanctimonious, self-impressed asshole, implying that he/she is more 'working class' than his/her opponents (which, I suspect is quite contrary to the reality in the vast majority of instances) while hiding behind the convenient anonymity of the internets, e.g. "yeah, kid, that's a typical bourgeois argument, but what more can we expect from a middle-class liberal kiddie like you". Basically, behaving this way to others within the revolutionary left (regardless of substantive disagreements) is not only immensely disrespectful and infantile, it is also counterproductive, both to the broader atmosphere here and to the actual content of the discussion. I just think we should make a conscious effort to avoid elevating petty sectarian masturbation to any level of importance or prominence in general discussion.

And, while many posters in this thread are making the point that they don't blame a working-class person for loathing the middle-class, they seem to be consciously or unconsciously ignoring the fact that this is an internet forum and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the people who come in here with their online personas and make baseless claims about the bourgeois status of others (others who may well actually be workers) aren't simply bullshitting their economic background to gain the upperhand in an argument.

[narcomprom]

Apikoros, if you accuse the bulk of RevLeft of freudian projection you fall in your own trap; for if class was irrelevant on the web you couldn't dismiss people calling bourgeois kids "bourgeois kids" because of them being "bourgeois kids" themselves.

Fact is middle class (petty bourgeois if you will) kids do exist, as they always existed. Since 1968 they form the bulk of western left.

"Petty bourgeois", indeed, also existed as meaningless swearword in populist discourse. Such is the fate of any term from political theory - communist, reactionary, fascist, stalinist, socialist, trotzkist, anarchist, neoliberal cosmopolitan bolshevik etc. etc. etc. but that does not rid these terms of their original, actual, meaning. :)

[9]

Apikoros, if you accuse the bulk of RevLeft of freudian projection you fall in your own trap; for if class was irrelevant on the web you couldn't dismiss people calling bourgeois kids "bourgeois kids" because of them being "bourgeois kids" themselves.

There are several errors with your defense of internet cheap shots. Firstly, I have not accused "the bulk of revleft" of behaving this way; the majority do not accuse others of being "middle class kids" without anything to back up their assertions. Though, perhaps this would be a good time to express that it is very difficult on this site to attempt to offer any constructive criticism aimed at more productive discussions without someone, or indeed many people (which does not mean "the bulk of revleft"), taking it personally and becoming extremely defensive. I think there is a problem when constructive criticism becomes taboo.
Secondly, my criticism of those who hide behind the anonymity of the internet and dismiss the views of others with whom they are debating as "bourgeois kids" (etc) and my hypothesis that those who use this as a slur to derail a discussion may well be bourgeois kids themselves is hardly the same as dismissing someone with whom I am engaged in a discussion as a "bourgeois kid". I was not singling anyone out to discredit their opinion or trying to derail the conversation, which was my criticism to begin with.


Fact is middle class (petty bourgeois if you will) kids do exist, as they always existed. Since 1968 they form the bulk of western left.And here, once again, the giant leap is made between the internet and real life as if the two are the same. If a worker is arguing with a middle class teenager in real life and they employ the term, I am not going to criticize it. But the fact of the matter, and indeed the heart of the issue, is that the internet is not real life. In "real life" we cannot hide behind faceless anonymous personas and project any image we choose depending on how it benefits the arguments we happen to be making.

[narcomprom]

If progressives stopped bickering we'd have no discussions here on revleft! Trotskists, Stalinists and Anarchists will not make peace with one another and, as any intellectual establishment would, they'll sneer at/paternalize teenage idealists. But I don't think we'll scare anyone from the movement as long as we do the bickering and sneering with all respect due to a comrade.

Derailing discussions with personal attacks is despicable, and it doesn't matter what slur you use - lumpenprol, mc kid or elitist snob - I couldn't agree more! But you can't deny the existance of either group with it's specifics. Both teenagers and first worlders are evidently overrepresented on internet forums, (they form the bulk of the forum demographic, my bad) and they will irritate erudite posters like ComradeOm.

[ellipsis]

Great points on all sides.

[Muzk]

Hating on the middle class IS wrong, since it is NOONES fault that they are blinded by society.

I live in a middle class family, though only since I was a teenager, and they think sitting in an office and working for 6 hours is 'really hard'

[ellipsis]

Case in point:

The Zapatista's love it when privileged, white, college-educated first-worlders spend a few weeks and several thousand dollars being tourists and acting out their "guerilla warfare" fantasies with them fighting for indigenous rights.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not going to get caught up about people being criticised for being "middle class", considering that, as far as classes go, it is a non-existent (or at least relatively minute) class.

The way it's used is usually ideological - at least, that's how I read it.
Middle class - in terms of ideology - implies that the groups/persons politics are not centered on the working class, but are in fact more general and ambiguous: they are accepting of a non-class central political program, with an emphasis on "peoples" or "the people", or other such things, irrespective of whether these other focal points have interests which are counterpoised to the working class. For example, "the people" encompasses all - which includes the upper classes, and the most reactionary elements of a given place. It also restricts itself to a national, ethnic, or regional basis - thus decentralizing both the working class, and internationalism; two things which are absolutely central to communist politics. All of these other focal points have interests which are incongruous with the goals and interests of the working class - irrespective of what façades certain "socialists" might veil these interests in.


^--- Not necessarily, the BBP for example was not a 'middle class group' and they frequently used the kind of rhetoric you are associating with 'middle class' politics (I.E. 'the people' etc.). Eschewing anarchist/marxist political vocabulary in favour of less complex or more easily understood language is not a trait of the bourgeoisie, it's a necessary facet in context, of communicating one's ideas without sounding like a political caricature. Though that said an over-emphasis on 'the people' type rhetoric can be just as silly/cliched, particularly in contexts like the Soviet Union or modern day North Korea where 'the people's interests' are invoked in a context to justify a political dictatorship.

If one really has to use the word "people," why not qualify it by saying "ordinary people"? Surely this more populist expression would exclude the upper classes, would it not?