Class Culture/Nature....

[RadioRaheem84]

Have any Marxists ever written on the near unison of class interests, tastes and beliefs of the upper class? It really seems to me that the upper classes are a hell of a lot more tied in with one another, more connected to each other, more familiar with each other than us proles who are so fragmented and divided.

How is it that rich people in Venezuela can say or feel they have more in common with rich people in Miami or Paris then they do their own countrymen who are poorer? How is it that you can find your favorite actor or actress champion a liberal cause or make a liberal movie then they're there for the grand opening of a hotel in Dubai that was built with near slave labor by Indian and Malaysian workers?

I mean how can one entire class nearly all think in unison on a lot of major issues, tastes, and beliefs. I mean I know they vary but a lot of upper class, from celebs to moguls, seem to all share similar class tastes to the point of being caricature.

I just thought when ascending the upper echelons does one change their tastes and beliefs with the more income they earn and adapt new tastes or were they always there?

How does one go from liking "simple" things to really enjoying organic non-gluten vegan pumpkin bread or something akin to that, driving a Prius, and just turn so yuppie or extravagant?

It just doesn't seem like one merely ascends into a new income bracket, one enters a new class . With it comes social norms, tastes, beliefs and a loyalty I think rarely anyone breaks.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

*shrug* Sociologically speaking, the ruling class is small and relatively homogenous. They attend the same institutions, go to the same parties, etc.
Psychologically, for those outside of the ruling class, we all experience a sort of cognitive dissonance. We absorb bourgeois ideology through the institutions of class rule, while at the same time experiencing very different concrete conditions - basically, we all end up alienated and crazy. Hardly a good basis for class unity.

[RadioRaheem84]

*shrug* Sociologically speaking, the ruling class is small and relatively homogenous. They attend the same institutions, go to the same parties, etc.
Psychologically, for those outside of the ruling class, we all experience a sort of cognitive dissonance. We absorb bourgeois ideology through the institutions of class rule, while at the same time experiencing very different concrete conditions - basically, we all end up alienated and crazy. Hardly a good basis for class unity.


Makes sense. Any readings on that comrade?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I disagree. There is a huge amount of variation within just the American ruling classes, simply because the ruling classes are composed of a multitude of different social groups -- compare the cultural tastes and preferences of a wealthy Black man to a wealthy Latina to a wealthy white yuppie, for example. The difference become even more stark when you compare internationally. The bourgeoisie is not a homogenous group.

[RadioRaheem84]

I disagree. There is a huge amount of variation within just the American ruling classes, simply because the ruling classes are composed of a multitude of different social groups -- compare the cultural tastes and preferences of a wealthy Black man to a wealthy Latina to a wealthy white yuppie, for example. The difference become even more stark when you compare internationally. The bourgeoisie is not a homogenous group.

They seem way more connected than we do especially when it comes to class interests. I would say it's a lot like how the differences between the Dems and Repubs is more about strategy.

Wealthy black, latino or white, doesn't matter when you're challenging their wealth.

[Blake's Baby]

So are you saying that the upper classes are more aware of their class identity than the working class?

OK, take a step back; look at it in the abstract. You have a class society - doesn't matter what kind, could be capitalist, feudal or an antique slave empire - in which a small group of people control a vast slice of the social wealth. Those people can come from any background (in terms of race or culture) but they have to opt into the values of the system. They control a society composed a of a huge number of poor (again, doesn't matter what their background is) who don't have any real choice about their situation. The maintainance of the system relies on the poor failing to unite to overthrow those at the top.

In that situation, I think the class interest of the rulers will be a pretty obvious imperative to 'hang together'. Apart from the fact that they go to the same schools and universities (internationally too), the same clubs and whatnot, so there are social ties that bind them; they are a very small section of the population so there are family ties that bind them; but apart from these things, they are a tiny elite floating on a huge mass of the dispossessed. The last thing they need is to give us an opportunity to turn on them. Instead, they use their ideological channels to peddle the idea that we live in a meritocracy, that corruption is down to a few bad individuals, that really the problem is foreign workers trying to steal our jobs by being lazy (?), that really the problem is too many young women want abortions, that men who have the wrong sort of beard are all trying to kill us, that gays are the ones destroying our society...

So we end up divided and fighting each about nothing, while they continue to rule by a combination of force and ideological manipulation.

So, yeah, I think their class interest is more obvious, in short. Because no-one is lying to them about it.