Class relations and awareness...

[RadioRaheem84]

After seeing for my own eyes the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor in America, I have to wonder why so many Americans do not see that in this system, the middle and lower classes are getting royally screwed? Is this what is meant by false consciousness? Do many Americans just not see that the wealthy (the truly wealthy) are in a class all on their own that doesn't even begin to relate to everyone else?

And what is with the class warfare between the lower classes? Does the middle class think they're "rich" that they have to staunchly defend the system over the poor they look down on so much? Do they not realize that they're closer to being poor than wealthy by real economic standards? These are the questions that really stand out in my mind when understanding class relations.

How come it's OK to understand that the common man is well aware of his position in society but it's taboo to say that the upper class is conscious of their standing in society and thus will defend their interests over ours?

In essence, what all of these questions are trying to understand is; what is our relation as workers to this society? And how and when did the owner/worker society relations get so blurred (talks of class cooperation, meritocracy, classless society)?

[Winter]

Well, I think the reason for middle class hostility to the poor is that the middle class still believes the lie that they too can become wealthy. Most middle class people are against welfare, immigration, and anything that will raise their taxes because they see it as a threat to there own economic well being.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, I think the reason for middle class hostility to the poor is that the middle class still believes the lie that they too can become wealthy. Most middle class people are against welfare, immigration, and anything that will raise their taxes because they see it as a threat to there own economic well being.

Absolutely! The staunchest republicans I've ever met were middle to upper middle class. The types that own a small business or are middle managers. They're the type that try to maintain their way of life by any means necessary. They either want their business to grow or to maintain what they've gained. Either way they see the government and poor people as an obstacle to those goals.

[cenv]

And what is with the class warfare between the lower classes? Does the middle class think they're "rich" that they have to staunchly defend the system over the poor they look down on so much? Do they not realize that they're closer to being poor than wealthy by real economic standards? These are the questions that really stand out in my mind when understanding class relations.

...

what all of these questions are trying to understand is; what is our relation as workers to this society?
I think you're question contains the answer here. We need to be conscious of our relation to capitalism as workers. Instead of talking in terms of the vague "lower class" and "middle class" -- words that reduce class relations to identity and roles while obscuring the underlying power relations of capitalist society -- we need to reveal the fundamental class relations that shape our lives. Despite the torrent of consumer goods and illusory images of class, the framework of capitalist society is still inseparable from the problems Marx identified 150 years ago: exploitation, alienation, etc. So understanding our relation to society as workers means tearing away the veil of ambiguous, obscuring definitions of class; challenging the destructive images of class that pervade our culture and keep workers living under the weight of the illusion that they will ever have power over their own lives in capitalism; and grasping the underlying power relations that exist beneath the flood of modern capitalism's consumer goods, false identities, and roles.


And how and when did the owner/worker society relations get so blurredThis is a tough question. Certainly, the explosion of consumer goods has played a part. A lot of these ideas have probably trickled down from the bourgeoisie's consciousness to that of the proletariat via media, schools, literature, etc. Capitalists need a way to justify their position (to themselves as well as to others), so they rely on the "American dream" and tell themselves that they are powerful because they've worked hard, so they have the right to exercise their authority over the means of production. And now, so much of popular culture glamorizes being rich, working your way up, etc. But this is a big question, one which we should research more.

[Winter]

Absolutely! The staunchest republicans I've ever met were middle to upper middle class. The types that own a small business or are middle managers. They're the type that try to maintain their way of life by any means necessary. They either want their business to grow or to maintain what they've gained. Either way they see the government and poor people as an obstacle to those goals.

Exactly.

Of course the government is an obstacle to their goals. It's a bourgeoisie government!

The system is specifically set up to turn the middle class against the poor class. Instead of uniting the two lower classes it divides them and turns them against eachother. My family owns a small business, and let me tell you from a first hand perspective, they hate the fact that they can't accumulate more wealth. It's like there's a "border" to prevent them from becoming more wealthy. And who do they blame? Taxes and welfare, not the rich who created the system!

Sure, they acknowledge the system as being at fault. But as far as they are concerned, it's the only way things can get done, through the system. I share my views, but they dismiss it and say, "That's nice, but that will never happen." The middle class and small business owners are stuck. They know the system is flawed but at the same time curse the "unproductive" masses. It's really complicated, and I must say, the ones who created the system were geniuses. Evil, but geniuses.

[mikelepore]

After seeing for my own eyes the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor in America, I have to wonder why so many Americans do not see that in this system, the middle and lower classes are getting royally screwed? Is this what is meant by false consciousness? Do many Americans just not see that the wealthy (the truly wealthy) are in a class all on their own that doesn't even begin to relate to everyone else?

The way people get trained to think in a given society, they are easily capable of thinking some thoughts, but find it difficult to think other thoughts. In modern capitalist society, people are trained to believe it's not even an option to change the social system, and they feel that those who want to change the system live in fantasy, denying reality and practically hallucinating. They think that we could no more change the social system than we could jump into a children's story book world. Most of us here may report that, with all the variety of discussions we have heard on television, we have never once heard someone on television say to someone else, "Do you think another political or economic system might work better than the one that we have now?" This subject may be mentioned in a philosophy class, but it's found nowhere in popular culture. I actually find it refreshing to argue with right-wing "Libertarians", because, while I disagree with all of their conclusions, at least they begin with the premise that it's possible for people to weigh and select some set of principles for setting up a system of society, which liberals and conservatives don't even believe to be an option.

[turquino]

In North America the ‘middle class’ of wage earners is bought off by widespread home ownership. A house is a commodity that has a labour value, but the price of the land it sits atop of is partly determined by capitalist profitability (housing prices and the interest rate are inversely related, and interest is just a deduction from the rate of profit). Unlike propertyless proletarians who are hurt by a rise in land rents, home owners are small landlords who benefit from a rise in property prices. They are encouraged to support lower taxes and business subsidies instead of social programs in order to raise profitability and their own home equity.

European countries like Germany have low rates of home ownership and more powerful unions that demand higher wages. Germany also retains a large manufacturing sector and thus a larger industrial proletariat that thinks more progressively, while in the US the number of industrial workers has declined in relative and absolute terms since the 1970s.

The problem is more complicated for oppressed nations. Stats suggest fairly high rates of home ownership in Latin America, but a number of factors like the size and number of persons under each roof make comparisons with imperialist countries difficult. Maybe someone knows more, or could research this.

[(A)(_|]

Cultural narcissism.. insecurity. Especially in less developed countries where resources are limited and a huge bulk of the economy is generated by the flow of capital. Everyone views only the path which favors him most. And also once wealth is more difficult to accumulate, there's a general feeling of insecurity towards possession and material earnings. Like say for instance, instead of helping out the poor or donating for shelter or housing which are gravely in need. Middle class people tend to favor buying property since it's a "stable" asset, they tend to get married and have children although not really backed with any firm conviction or reason; simply because they want to get laid. My dad always told me "Look for your own good" while discouraging me to live abroad. When I tell him my own good is abroad, he'd tell me "But here are your people, and here's where you're financially backed and secured". It's much easier to only care for your own material well being then to get wound up in political activity and starting shunning government actions and policies, this also coupled with the fact that -in my situation- we live in a police state and most lower middle class are -like working class- governed by need and want.

Anyway, yeah.. cultural narcissism :thumbup1:

[ReggaeCat]

to give you an example of what happens in america even if i dont live there...check on youtube obama socialist or anythng related to communism and stuff...hell they dont even know engels...or what exactly is socialism.its an 60 years propaganda one of the most brutal for socialism greater of the nazis since it continued after WWII with the aid of the russians leaders of course who were anti stalinists...:rolleyes:
I feel sorry for them ...they learned nothing from hiroshima,nagasaki,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq,11/9,civil war,1929 economical crisis, it's like 150 years since their civil war and they still don't get it...they still continue to be the capitalist beast,the imperialist fuckers,the hidden empire,and the fear of every other capitalist country...(capitalist not communist) :D:thumbup:

[rednordman]

How come it's OK to understand that the common man is well aware of his position in society but it's taboo to say that the upper class is conscious of their standing in society and thus will defend their interests over ours?This is something that seriously riles me about the times we are living in. Sometimes I wonder whether im being delusional, but after reading alot of posts on this forum, I can see that im not alone.

It is outrageously obvious how the double standards manifest themselves when it comes to class. Like you mentioned how its fine for people to put down and expose the working class role in society. Yet when people try and do the same with the middle and upper classes, its like we have just commited murder of something.

I just find it really shocking that in these supposed days for freedom and liberty, there still is this sort of social inequality and boundaries that people dare not cross. Sure we might cross it, and people who are members anarchist and communist parties, but this is never ever done in parlament. Whenever it is, all hell brakes loose and it is totally shunned on.

It amazes me how people can celebrate 'representitive democracy' when the MPs who are supposed to be representing us cannot speak of the truth.

I dont really know if this really is what is meant by false conciousness tbh. I think the problem is that people can see it, just they are so apathetic about it, that they have come to tell themselves that it is in someways a good thing. Ok, this is a false notion so mabye you are right about that definition. But then again some people are actually choosing to take those views. They actually want to believe in the modern aristocracy, and more strikingly are looking for someone to hate and use as an enemy, to fit into the one-dimensional 'them' slot.

[rednordman]

to give you an example of what happens in america even if i dont live there...check on youtube obama socialist or anythng related to communism and stuff...hell they dont even know engels...or what exactly is socialism.its an 60 years propaganda one of the most brutal for socialism greater of the nazis since it continued after WWII with the aid of the russians leaders of course who were anti stalinists...:rolleyes:
I feel sorry for them ...they learned nothing from hiroshima,nagasaki,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq,11/9,civil war,1929 economical crisis, it's like 150 years since their civil war and they still don't get it...they still continue to be the capitalist beast,the imperialist fuckers,the hidden empire,and the fear of every other capitalist country...(capitalist not communist) :D:thumbup:I know what you are talking about. I dont live there either, but have seen it all probably because these stupid statements are one of the most popular things on the web. In all seriousness, its more of a bad thing because in making themselves look very very stupid to the rest of the world, they are also making the whole of the USA look stupid aswell. Which probably is not a fair representation of the actual opinions within the whole of the country.

[RadioRaheem84]

They actually want to believe in the modern aristocracy, and more strikingly are looking for someone to hate and use as an enemy, to fit into the one-dimensional 'them' slot.

I think people are coming more and more to terms with the notion of a modern aristocracy. The media surely has as it promotes this new royalty. I now see NewsWeek magazine covers with the headline "The New Elite". Other call Obama the "new" Camelot. I've seen some that outright call others in the upper class, the aristocracy. I mean to say that they're not conscious of where they are in life is silly. In fact, they're probably more aware of class then most people in the lower classes. You think someone who inherited a billion dollar company and spent his whole life in boarding school and Ivy League schools is really going to believe that we live in a meritocracy. The rich even distinguish wealth amongst themselves (new money vs. old money). They are more class conscious then we are!

I hate it that whenever a politician even mentions this, he is automatically accussed of inciting class warfare. Well I assumed politics was class warfare as competing class interests seek representation. Of course no one want to appear as if they're for the rich so they campaign for the poor then turn around and do the opposite in office. We get disapointed and then wait for the next snake to sell us his tonic.

[Nwoye]

To be fair it's imo widely understood that vast inequities in wealth and opportunity exist and that the state is controlled by a relatively small minority and used for their interests. The problem is that people consider this a product of economic mismanagement, bad government, too much government, etc etc, rather than as an inherent problem in capitalism. You'd be surprised how much common ground you can reach with liberals and conservatives of all varieties with regards to the current state of affairs in the economy and in government.

[rednordman]

I think people are coming more and more to terms with the notion of a modern aristocracy. The media surely has as it promotes this new royalty. I now see NewsWeek magazine covers with the headline "The New Elite". Other call Obama the "new" Camelot. I've seen some that outright call others in the upper class, the aristocracy. I mean to say that they're not conscious of where they are in life is silly. In fact, they're probably more aware of class then most people in the lower classes. You think someone who inherited a billion dollar company and spent his whole life in boarding school and Ivy League schools is really going to believe that we live in a meritocracy. The rich even distinguish wealth amongst themselves (new money vs. old money). They are more class conscious then we are!

I hate it that whenever a politician even mentions this, he is automatically accussed of inciting class warfare. Well I assumed politics was class warfare as competing class interests seek representation. Of course no one want to appear as if they're for the rich so they campaign for the poor then turn around and do the opposite in office. We get disapointed and then wait for the next snake to sell us his tonic.Mmm...old money vs new money. interesting. How is that supposed to mean anything? Money is money. Are the rich that desparate to be competitive and compare themselves to others, that they invent their own class divisions within class divisions?

Be honest here, do you ever get the impression that some people in the USA actually yern for a royal familiy? Serious question.

[RadioRaheem84]

Mmm...old money vs new money. interesting. How is that supposed to mean anything? Money is money. Are the rich that desparate to be competitive and compare themselves to others, that they invent their own class divisions within class divisions?

Be honest here, do you ever get the impression that some people in the USA actually yern for a royal familiy? Serious question.

Absolutely some do. Since we've never had a royal family to speak of ogle at we tend to look at our wealthy as filling that aristocratic void. We also love new money types that came from nothing but now own an empire. The generation we have now in the States is very glam obsessed. Everything has to have a touch of luxury in it now.

Also about the new money, old money. Older more established families tend to look down on people who just became rich unless it was through some profound breakthrough. It's a silly way of making themselves feel better about their lives.

[RadioRaheem84]

To be fair it's imo widely understood that vast inequities in wealth and opportunity exist and that the state is controlled by a relatively small minority and used for their interests. The problem is that people consider this a product of economic mismanagement, bad government, too much government, etc etc, rather than as an inherent problem in capitalism. You'd be surprised how much common ground you can reach with liberals and conservatives of all varieties with regards to the current state of affairs in the economy and in government.

Oh I agree. The problem is always without and not within according to people. It's liberals who grow the government, conservatives who slash the government (closer to the truth), immigrants and the poor who take too much, corruption, apathy, moral degradation. It's everything except the system itself. But all of this is is because if the system were free of any of things listed above, the American Dream would continue, hence they still believe in the things I listed in first post.

Honestly, I think that a lot of Americans still think that they live with the same opportunities their grandparents had during the 'Golden Age' of capitalism. At least that is how they thought before the crash. I mean, it didn't matter that our purchasing power hadn't risen since the 70s and that we had to supplant it with credit, as long as we were still able to buy homes (at ridiculously inflated prices) cars (likewise) and cool clothes, then we were OK because the American Dream was just 'tweaked' a bit but still active. This had to be, because if you eliminated the use of credit for nearly every major purchase in the American budget, then we would have a severely rich and poor nation.

[rednordman]

Absolutely some do. Since we've never had a royal family to speak of ogle at we tend to look at our wealthy as filling that aristocratic void. We also love new money types that came from nothing but now own an empire. The generation we have now in the States is very glam obsessed. Everything has to have a touch of luxury in it now.Surely this must be hell for poorer people. After all, its bad enough where I live. Sometimes I seriously worry about my future prospects with the current job that I have. I honest cannot envision having a family or living in a decent house. No-one will want to share any of this with me because I am trapped in the poverty of a bad job. Also, if I was to meet someone and have children, would it be fair of me to raise them in such an environment?

Ironically, I believe that this is what the more hardened conservatives secretly want, but to make it official policy somehow. That is to limit people of certain wage brackets of having children. I have even heard some people talk of this also.

[RadioRaheem84]

Surely this must be hell for poorer people. After all, its bad enough where I live. Sometimes I seriously worry about my future prospects with the current job that I have. I honest cannot envision having a family or living in a decent house. No-one will want to share any of this with me because I am trapped in the poverty of a bad job. Also, if I was to meet someone and have children, would it be fair of me to raise them in such an environment?

Ironically, I believe that this is what the more hardened conservatives secretly want, but to make it official policy somehow. That is to limit people of certain wage brackets of having children. I have even heard some people talk of this also.

What I don't understand is that you live in the UK and this is happening? I assumed that the UK was at least better off than the States in terms of prospects for the lower class. I mean you don't have to pay for health care, you have subsidized housing, better social benefits, etc. The only thing we have going for us in the States is that we import some of the cheapest stuff possible so we're able to subsist off of third world slave labor.

It seems like then in some regards (not all) it might be worse to live in Europe without prospects. It seems like the EU governments restrict a lot of cheap stuff flooding into their countries, which is good but also diminishes the opportunity for people in the lower classes to move up in society. I could be totally wrong but this is how it looks to me in the non-Scandinavian EU nations. The good thing about America is that goods and services are so cheap and accessible that you can define where you want to go in life and how you want to live based on how you allocate your funds. Young people in my State, live, work and play off of a salary of 20k and they make it look like they live off of 50-60k. Of course credit plays a part too. But people leverage this to advance themselves. It can be hell though for those that do not seek to advance in life and it varies from state to state (someone could not do this in NY but certainly in TX). And this possibility is diminishing more and more.

It just seems like things are so by the book in the EU, class based, like certain things are restricted. It's as though you guys have the worse of neo-liberalism and the best of social democracy, yet it doesn't quite mix together. In the States though, if you really want something you can achieve it, but you have to sacrifice a lot and it comes as the expense of others who just want to live a simple life.

[rednordman]

What I don't understand is that you live in the UK and this is happening? I assumed that the UK was at least better off than the States in terms of prospects for the lower class. I mean you don't have to pay for health care, you have subsidized housing, better social benefits, etc. The only thing we have going for us in the States is that we import some of the cheapest stuff possible so we're able to subsist off of third world slave labor.

It seems like then in some regards (not all) it might be worse to live in Europe without prospects. It seems like the EU governments restrict a lot of cheap stuff flooding into their countries, which is good but also diminishes the opportunity for people in the lower classes to move up in society. I could be totally wrong but this is how it looks to me in the non-Scandinavian EU nations. The good thing about America is that goods and services are so cheap and accessible that you can define where you want to go in life and how you want to live based on how you allocate your funds. Young people in my State, live, work and play off of a salary of 20k and they make it look like they live off of 50-60k. Of course credit plays a part too. But people leverage this to advance themselves. It can be hell though for those that do not seek to advance in life and it varies from state to state (someone could not do this in NY but certainly in TX). And this possibility is diminishing more and more.

It just seems like things are so by the book in the EU, class based, like certain things are restricted. It's as though you guys have the worse of neo-liberalism and the best of social democracy, yet it doesn't quite mix together. In the States though, if you really want something you can achieve it, but you have to sacrifice a lot and it comes as the expense of others who just want to live a simple life.I must stress that the UK sticks out a bit. The rest of Europe isnt as bad imo. Its not so much what is happening now, but rather, what is very likely to happen in the future, under a proper conservative government. That is why I believe that there is no prospects.

Dont get me wrong here either. The economy is complex and that does help in the fact of having alot of avenues for progression, but this is not as good as it sounds. In the end, its very hard to progress from the base level and stay there, without becoming an selfish souless arsehole.

This is what bothers me about the whole 'anyone can achieve anything arguement'. Its flawed because what about people who are low on confidence, or weak in certain areas. What about the excellent worker, who is very shy and a shrinking violet? Do you really think they have an equal opportunity than a load, brash buisnessman who talks out thier arse all day? I strongly doubt it.

This is one of the real evils of thatcherism. Everyone has to be a buisness person first and foremost. If you are an awesome worker and you cannot 'sell yourself' you can forget it.

I can remember trying for jobs in the leisure sector. I have a BTEC, Degree, and a professionally recognised qualification. While at uni, I had a mate who was doing a different degree and suddenly decided that he wanted to go for the same line as work as me. This is totally fine. What happened was that he scrapped uni and went and got a more expensive qualification to mine. He didnt have other qualifications or experience relating to this sector.
low and behold, I try for jobs all over the place get nothing. He gets the first job he went for and is now a manager. 7years of education, experience and alot of money (which I dont have)..all for nothing. I swear that some of the people who interviewed me, just took a look at me and thought 'no way'..'you are going to have to really really impress us'. I could almost taste the contempt, and I had not even said a word yet.

Yes someone may counteract this by saying that I should go and get a job in a company or warehouse (which i have), but to put it honestly, those jobs simply are very poorly paid with low security.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is one of the real evils of thatcherism. Everyone has to be a buisness person first and foremost. If you are an awesome worker and you cannot 'sell yourself' you can forget it.


.....I swear that some of the people who interviewed me, just took a look at me and thought 'no way'..'you are going to have to really really impress us'. I could almost taste the contempt, and I had not even said a word yet.

Yes someone may counteract this by saying that I should go and get a job in a company or warehouse (which i have), but to put it honestly, those jobs simply are very poorly paid with low security.

I have the exact same problem. I did everything I thought I was supposed to do in this sell yourself society. I went to a good university, I interned at all the right places and I majored in something relevant. None of this helped. You either have it or you don't. It is a load of bull that you can have exactly what you want if you go out and get it. There is always that 'fit' that the company looks for regardless of qualifications. The game is heavily, heavily rigged. It all comes down to the certain look people want and if they don't see you as someone that can represent their company, they don't want you. It's that simple. Unless you look like a pencil pusher that can do all the grunt work.

[rednordman]

I have the exact same problem. I did everything I thought I was supposed to do in this sell yourself society. I went to a good university, I interned at all the right places and I majored in something relevant. None of this helped. You either have it or you don't. It is a load of bull that you can have exactly what you want if you go out and get it. There is always that 'fit' that the company looks for regardless of qualifications. The game is heavily, heavily rigged. It all comes down to the certain look people want and if they don't see you as someone that can represent their company, they don't want you. It's that simple. Unless you look like a pencil pusher that can do all the grunt work.Very very true.