Disdain for the Middle-Class

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The almost universal disdain toward the middle class -- the bourgeoisie -- by those with cosmic visions can be more readily understood in light of the role of such visions as personal gratification and personal license. The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline, to a far greater extent than the underclass below them or the wealthy and aristocratic classes above them. While the underclass pay the price of not having the self-discipline of the bourgeoisie -- in many ways, ranging from poverty to imprisonment -- the truly wealthy and powerful can often disregard the rules, including laws, without paying the consequences. Those with cosmic visions that seek escape from social constraints regarded as arbitrary, rather than inherent, tend to romanticize the unruliness of the underclass and the sense of being above the rules found among the elite.

Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice [The Free Press, 1999], pp. 139-140


Couldn't have said it better myself. Notice how he disregards both the rich and the poor? So, before you scream "lapdog for the ruling class", keep that fact in mind.

[Publius]

Basic Economics is an excellent book.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Is Sowell trying to formulate some kind of criticism of Marxism here....because if he is, he really should have actually bothered to figure out what exactly constitutes classes with regards a Marxist analysis.


Originally posted by Sowell+--> (Sowell)The almost universal disdain toward the middle class -- the bourgeoisie....[/b]

Oh dear. :lol:

Perhaps you could e-mail Mr. Sowell to inform him that the bourgeois is, in fact, not the "middle class"....people who live in suburbia and manage shit.

The "middle class", in Marxist jargon, is called the petty-bourgeois, and they are generally considered the most reactionary of all classes.

Sowell himself, mentions this....


Originally posted by Sowell+--> (Sowell)The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline, to a far greater extent than the underclass below them or the wealthy and aristocratic classes above them.[/b]

The common traits of, well....fascists.

The German petty-bourgeois adored Hitler far more than the big bourgeois and the working class....fascist discipline is the ultimate pleasure of the petty-bourgeois. :lol:

And, as for the "aristocratic classes"....who are they???


Originally posted by Sowell
While the underclass pay the price of not having the self-discipline of the bourgeoisie -- in many ways, ranging from poverty to imprisonment....

Yeah, my "genetic inferiority" has sure stifled my progress in life....if only I'd had "middle class genes". :lol:

It's actually quite funny that these days "intellectuals" can't use race "science", but Social Darwinism like this is still considered "valid"....it's as if the developments in materialist philosophy never happened. :(


[email protected]
....tend to romanticize the unruliness of the underclass and the sense of being above the rules found among the elite.

Indeed....this board is full of threads where people are "romanticizing the unruliness of the underclass". :lol:

It's actually curious that Sowell calls it an "underclass" and not the working class....I suppose this is just part and parcel of being a petty-bourgeois ideologue.


Capitalist Lawyer
Notice how he disregards both the rich and the poor? So, before you scream "lapdog for the ruling class", keep that fact in mind.

If Sowell was a "lapdog for the ruling class", then they'd adopt some of his ideas....as it stands, he's, as I mentioned, as petty-bourgeois ideologue who the ruling class probably find of little or no use.

In other words, he's just blowing in the wind....and history will likely forget him just like it will forget you and I.

[redstar2000]

It's clear from this excerpt that Sowell believes in inherent "social constraints"...a metaphysical notion that probably invalidates anything he might have to say about anything else.

Metaphysics is not about reality.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I reject any notion that middle class people are reactionary at all.

Perhaps you might care to define what you call 'inherent social constraints' means.

Normally I respect Thomas Sowell's views on a lot of things. But I don't really see any 'universal disdain toward the middle class'. Certainly not in the US, anyway. Especially since the middle class there is so large, perhaps 5% are truely wealthy, 12% living at or below the poverty line, so lets see, that would leave what 83% who are 'middle class' (count lower middle/middle/upper middle all in that group.)

I somehow doubt that 3/4 or more of the American people hold 'universal disdain' of themselves.

Actually, I would say more that there is more disdain for the super rich because they can do what they want, flaunt thier wealth, often skip the legal system, etc, etc... and somewhat less disdain for the poor who are often seen and living life on the public dole and not paying anything for it.

I haven't read this particular book, so I am not sure which country's middle class he is referring to. But his referring to it as "the bourgeoisie" may provide a clue.

Certainly no one I know of the ranks of the middle class refer to themselves using that term.

[Publius]

I would say he understands Marxism better than most of you: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068806426...glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688064264/104-5613133-8769538?v=glance&n=283155)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)I reject any notion that middle class people are reactionary at all.[/b]

You can reject any notion you like, but the political tendencies that the petty-bourgeois embraces in a more enthusiastic manner than any other class, tells us a lot.

As Sowell himself comments: "The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline".

I've never seen anyone associate those values with progression, rather they are often the hallmark of reaction....and in extreme cases, fascism.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)I somehow doubt that 3/4 or more of the American people hold 'universal disdain' of themselves.[/b]

And I know that whatever definition you are using of "middle class" is woefully inaccurate....and if you got that definition from Sowell, then I think my characterisation of Sowell as ignorant of basic Marxist class structure is spot on!


Capitalist [email protected]
I haven't read this particular book, so I am not sure which country's middle class he is referring to. But his referring to it as "the bourgeoisie" may provide a clue.

The term bourgeois is not "nation specific"....it applies to a specific group of people with a specific relationship to the means of production.


Publius
would say he understands Marxism better than most of you....

He may have written a book on the subject, but that he calls the "middle class" the "bourgeoisie", doesn't inspire me with confidence with regards his understanding of Marxism.

Though if I ever see that book, I will buy it, because my interest has been spiked now....in other words, I'm interested in just how bad Sowell's explanation is! :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Perhaps you might care to define what you call 'inherent social constraints' means.[/b]

It's Sowell's phrase, not mine. Here's how he used it...


Originally posted by [email protected]
Those with cosmic visions that seek escape from social constraints regarded as arbitrary, rather than inherent, tend to romanticize the unruliness of the underclass and the sense of being above the rules found among the elite.

Now, are "social constraints" in his view "arbitrary" or "inherent"? I conclude from this statement that he does, in fact, think that they are "inherent"...presumably either "commandments from God" or "genetically inevitable".

Either view does not inspire confidence.


Publius
I would say he understands Marxism better than most of you.

The customers' reviews at Amazon.com were quite favorable...but then why would a bookseller publish an unfavorable review?

This guy reads like he learned his "Marxism" from J. Edgar Hoover and Tailgunner Joe McCarthy! :lol:

If an excerpt were available, I might have a look. Like Armchair Socialism, I'd be mildly curious as to how he "fucked up".

To be sure, there's no "law of history" that says a bourgeois intellectual "cannot" present an accurate summary of Marx's views; but it is highly unlikely that such a summary would find a mainstream publisher. Especially in 1986!

My experience with bourgeois intellectual treatments of Marx that are, at least, interesting, is that they come from university presses in very limited editions and are extremely expensive. In fact, unless you have easy access to a university library, you are quite unlikely to have even heard of such works.

It's possible that Sowell merely updated his doctoral thesis with a last chapter: "Oh, by the way, Marx really sucks!". Figuring that conservatives would buy anything with his name on it, he just saw an opportunity to make a little extra money. :lol:

He wouldn't have been the first guy to do that; professional writers recycle their own work all the time.

And, to be realistic, it's certainly quite possible that any given person might understand Marx's ideas quite well...and still reject them! If Sowell is religious, then that's an insurmountable obstacle to "accepting Marx". The plans and desires of a "god" obviously over-ride any human understanding of anything.

Here and there you may find some poor fool who thinks that communism is "part of God's Plan"...based on a few scraps and tatters torn from some "holy book".

There was, I've read, an Anglican archbishop back in the 1930s who actually believed that.

Or said he believed it. :lol:

Most people know better than that...including, in all probability, Sowell.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cyu]

The almost universal disdain toward the middle class -- the bourgeoisie

According to onelook.com, you have these definitions of bourgeois:

adjective: belonging to the middle class
adjective: (according to Marxist thought) being of the property-owning class and exploitive of the working class

Pretty contradicting definitions. Depending on what you mean, you could say "The bourgeois (property-owning) owner is exploiting the bourgeois (middle-class) employee."

Without using words with more distinct definitions, discussions of the bourgeoisie is pretty meaningless.

[peaccenicked]

"the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation. It was acclaimed throughout the world as the savior of society. Under its sway, bourgeois society, freed from political cares, attained a development unexpected even by itself. Its industry and commerce expanded to colossal dimensions; financial swindling celebrated cosmopolitan orgies; the misery of the masses was set off by a shameless display of gorgeous, meretricious and debased luxury." Marx Civil war in France.


The middle class are those economically posited in between these extremes. This group is so amorphous that little can be ascertained that makes good for all events. The important thing is class attitude. The middle class can swing both ways and in a revolutionary situation will tend to the side of the working class.

[JudeObscure84]

Sowell was a former Marxist. His book on Marxism is impecible. He is a brilliant man.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I've never seen anyone associate those values with progression, rather they are often the hallmark of reaction....and in extreme cases, fascism.


That is a pretty idiotic characterization of at least the American Middle Class. They are the ones who work and work and work and not the ones who are out demonstrating or screaming persecution/discrimination at the drop of a hat. There is, IMO, a very serious flaw in these intellectual road trips when it comes to America--First, most Americans think they are in the middle class whether they are or not so the behaviors are not always predictable; second, Americans tend IMO to reject any effort to pigeon hole them as it is an affront to one's inviduality; and lastly, we all think we will be rich one day and that influences how we think of society as a whole.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by peaccenicked+--> (peaccenicked)The middle class can swing both ways and in a revolutionary situation will tend to the side of the working class.[/b]

I don't think that is a very credible assertion....during the Spanish Civil War and in thirties Germany when the KPD were really powerful, the "middle class" in general, didn't side with the working class.

In Spain, they either supported Franco or the left-bourgeois, but not the Anarcho-Syndicalists....and in Germany, they almost all flocked to the Nazi Party.

I'd say, that a really serious study of this would show that the "middle class", even when it does "side" with the working class, tries to drag the working class to the right....in other words, the most "radical" option they will propose is a more "radical" version of social-democracy.

Indeed, in a post-revolutionary society, I suspect it will be former members of the "middle class" that will be the ones who most frequently propose that X or Y needs to be managed!


Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected]
That is a pretty idiotic characterization of at least the American Middle Class. They are the ones who work and work and work and not the ones who are out demonstrating or screaming persecution/discrimination at the drop of a hat.

In my last post, I characterised your definition of "middle class" as "woefully inaccurate"....so before we discuss this any more, I think it would be useful to hear how you define "middle class".


Capitalist Lawyer
First, most Americans think they are in the middle class whether they are or not so the behaviors are not always predictable....

I doesn't really matter what class you think you're in....rather it matters what class you are actually in.

A basic part of materialist philosophy is to disregard peoples illusions about themselves, and rather, focus on their objective situation.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Now, are "social constraints" in his view "arbitrary" or "inherent"? I conclude from this statement that he does, in fact, think that they are "inherent"...presumably either "commandments from God" or "genetically inevitable".

Either view does not inspire confidence.


They are as inherent as anything can be. They are subject to re-interpretation, but the core meanings remain the same.


But on the contrary. I submit that those who possess inherent social constraints in how they conduct themselves (lead by example?) inspire much more confidence than those who don't. (Those who profess others should act one way, but themselves act another).



then I think my characterisation of Sowell as ignorant of basic Marxist class structure is spot on!


Basic Marxist class structures are flawed. In the period he was writing in his predictions were understandable, but so far history has proved Marx to be wrong.

My definition of middle class is pretty much economic. As Jack Nicholson said in the film "A Few Good Men" on 'imminent threat': "Is there any other kind?"

The government establishes the poverty level. My guesstimate of the "truely wealthy" was a ballpark figure. And apparently not all that far off the mark, according to the Census Dept. In 2001, it was at least $160K annual income. I suspect today it is approaching $200K. (almost $17,000 a month - well above what a middle income earner makes).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f01.html

Everybody else i put in the middle class. You can use what ever definition of middle class you like. That is mine.




As Sowell himself comments: "The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline".

I've never seen anyone associate those values with progression, rather they are often the hallmark of reaction....and in extreme cases, fascism.

What a load of theoretical, poly-sci mumbo-jumbo. The political tendencies of the American middle class is far from fascist. They are far more concerned with providing for their families, raising their kids, and dedicated to their working life than reacting in any extreme reactive way. In fact, it was the American middle class who sent its "Citizen Soldiers" off to Europe to defeat fascism.



The term bourgeois is not "nation specific"....it applies to a specific group of people with a specific relationship to the means of production.


Ahh, but ya see, one can be a member of the American class and not produce anything.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
They ["social constraints"] are as inherent as anything can be. They are subject to re-interpretation, but the core meanings remain the same.

Indeed?

Are you familiar with all of the necessary rituals that must be followed prior to dining on human flesh...and do you always pick the particular "appropriate ritual" on each occasion? :lol:

Your statement is completely a-historical...and, like Sowell, you evidently think there are "timeless truths".

There aren't.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Basic Marxist class structures are flawed. In the period he was writing in his predictions were understandable, but so far history has proved Marx to be wrong.[/b]

So, 150 years on from Marx's era, some people no longer own the means of production and other people no longer sell their labour power to these people?

We've all become labourers and owners at the same time? Or do you mean something else?

And despite your assertion that "Marxist class structures are flawed", it is a fact that modern social thought is undeniably based on the work of Marx and it is also a fact that anyone studying sociological theory has to read Marx....so whilst, to suit your political motivations, you choose to dismiss Marx as "flawed", nearly everyone who wishes to study human society finds the work of Marx, at the very least, valuable.

Indeed I bought a book yesterday entitled Formations of Modern Social Thought and the three thinkers discussed in this book are Marx, Durkheim and Weber....why do you think sociological theory still focuses on Marx if he is so "flawed"?

And keep in mind here, that this is bourgeois sociological theory....hardly the place in which Marx is the most "respected" thinker and yet even they admit that Marxist analysis is far from "flawed".


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)My definition of middle class is pretty much economic. [....] You can use what ever definition of middle class you like. That is mine.[/b]

You, of course, are free to use whatever definition of class you like....but from a sociological standpoint, Marxist or bourgeois, your definition is "flawed".

Despite, in my opinion, confusing the issue of class quite a bit, even Weber acknowledged that a persons class was based on said persons occupation rather than their economic standing.

Indeed, despite not being an inhabitant of the intellectual circles that discuss sociological theory, I am pretty sure that your definition is not one that carries much weight.

Terms like the intellectual class, the political class, the management class and so on, don't just come about because people are pissing around. Rather, the people who try to explain social phenomena quite rightly consider ones occupation to be a crucial factor.

Basically, most (maybe all?) half-decent analyses of society, start from the basis of certain groups of peoples objective relationship to the means of production....the ghost of Karl Marx, it seems, haunts sociological theory with vigour! :lol:

Only bourgeois politicians and poor journalists use economic standing to define class as far as I know....and the record of these people with regards explaining social phenomena, isn't really anything that would act as validation of their approach.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
The political tendencies of the American middle class is far from fascist.

That's because your definition of "middle class" is nonsense.

The "middle class" is generally accepted to be a term that can be used to describe people who manage shit....to put it bluntly. Your definition, on the other hand, makes no distinction between those who manage and those who just work.

Therefore, attributing a rigid set of values to such a "class", becomes just as much a fools game as attributing a set of values to a whole nation....something social theory, decent social theory at least, moved past in about 1900.

In order to study social phenomena, one must place specific people into specific groups based on objective relationships....and the objective relationship that is most used for this purpose, is occupation.

If one uses this method, then we find that over the years, fascism has found the most support from the ranks of the petty-bourgeois ("middle class") and sometimes "old money" (the decaying big bourgeois).

Upon further investigation, we find that the "values" of this class, which Sowell listed, do help promote a "fascist mindset".

In all fairness to Sowell, I don't think he uses your definition of class, and to be honest, I suspect he'd be rather embarrassed that you are using his work to support your arguments....he, from what I can tell, does not use economic standing to define class like you do.

Indeed, there's a Weberian-esque feel to his analysis of society....not something to boast about, but a step up from your method of analyses anyway! :lol:


Capitalist [email protected]
fact, it was the American middle class who sent its "Citizen Soldiers" off to Europe to defeat fascism.

No....the composition of the rank and file soldiers used by Britain, America and Russia during the WWII, was, in the overwhelming majority, working class.

Likewise, most of the German bombing of Britain was of working class areas....unless you are going to say Industrial cities are mainly occupied by members of the "middle class".


Capitalist Lawyer
Ahh, but ya see, one can be a member of the American class and not produce anything.

What the fuck is the "American class"???

[Comrade-Z]

My definition of middle class is pretty much economic. [....] You can use what ever definition of middle class you like. That is mine.

One reason that definition doesn't work is because one's economic well-being is a temporary phenomenon, especially in the context of the vagaries of the capitalist system, whereas one's relation to the means of production is rather permanent, depending on the level of social stratification in a particular society.

That's because the control over how much a worker earns is in the hands of the class which owns the means of production.

Let's say an owner at a workplace makes $50,000 a year (fat chance in hell, but just supposing...). And let's say a worker at the same workplace makes $100,000 a year.

Using your definition, you'd say the worker is middle class and the owner is lower-middle class, right?

But which person really has more economic well-being and security? The owner, of course! That's because the owner has control over how much the worker earns. The owner could raise his own earnings to $1 million a year and decrease his worker's earnings to $30,000 a year on a whim.

Obviously, then, the owner is of a higher class (the capitalist class) than the workers (who are of the proletariat--those for whom the only control that they have is over their own labor power).

This is one reason why the relations towards the means of production are more important than one's standing regarding wealth.

[Tungsten]

redstar2000

Your statement is completely a-historical...and, like Sowell, you evidently think there are "timeless truths".

There aren't.
A fact you believe to be "timlessly true", no doubt. What sloppy thinking.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:30 PM
redstar2000

Your statement is completely a-historical...and, like Sowell, you evidently think there are "timeless truths".

There aren't.
A fact you believe to be "timlessly true", no doubt. What sloppy thinking.
And bald is a hair color?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You, of course, are free to use whatever definition of class you like....but from a sociological standpoint, Marxist or bourgeois, your definition is "flawed".

Despite, in my opinion, confusing the issue of class quite a bit, even Weber acknowledged that a persons class was based on said persons occupation rather than their economic standing.


Sooo.. lets see, then a public defender attorney working for barely more than a what an elementary school teacher earns is in the same social class as a high powered corporate lawyer earning six figures? Same profession, but the two experience a vastly different lifestyle, and social standing, based on their income.

I am not interested in what some college textbook, much less what some Marxist tells me what "middle-class" means to some socialogy pinhead who spends his or her life "studying society". I'll take the one generally accepted by most people who live it. And it is one based on relative income. Something between poor and rich.




Indeed, despite not being an inhabitant of the intellectual circles that discuss sociological theory, I am pretty sure that your definition is not one that carries much weight.


There you go again, talking down to people. Do yourself a favor and get over yourself and quit trying to impress people on how smart you think you are. It is boring. I could care less that my "definition doesn't carry much weight" with other theoretical pinheads who think Karl Marx was some sort of sociological genius.




Terms like the intellectual class, the political class, the management class and so on, don't just come about because people are pissing around. Rather, the people who try to explain social phenomena quite rightly consider ones occupation to be a crucial factor.


Perhaps if these people who are "not pissing around" spend more time actually securing an occupation rather than figuring out who belongs in what class, and how to define it...




Basically, most (maybe all?) half-decent analyses of society, start from the basis of certain groups of peoples objective relationship to the means of production....the ghost of Karl Marx, it seems, haunts sociological theory with vigour!


Blah, blah, blah.. more Marxist blather



Only bourgeois politicians and poor journalists use economic standing to define class as far as I know....and the record of these people with regards explaining social phenomena, isn't really anything that would act as validation of their approach.


Try poking your head outside of academia for a few days and join the real world. Unlike in Marxist/Communist societies, people in most of the planet with similar occupations can earn vastly different incomes depending on thier success, thier skills, their working location, among other factors. Accept it or not, but money and income defines one social standing in this world. NOT one's occupation.




That's because your definition of "middle class" is nonsense.

The "middle class" is generally accepted to be a term that can be used to describe people who manage shit....to put it bluntly. Your definition, on the other hand, makes no distinction between those who manage and those who just work.


Generally accepted by whom?


So a manager of a video store is by (your) definition "middle class", but a aircraft manufacturer earning much more, with stock options and has amassed say a net worth of over $1 million is by definition "working class". Ok, whatever. I guess in your theoretical world they are. Its not that way in real life.




No....the composition of the rank and file soldiers used by Britain, America and Russia during the WWII, was, in the overwhelming majority, working class.


No doubt. But then again, many people who are in your "working class" occupy the economic middle class.




Likewise, most of the German bombing of Britain was of working class areas....unless you are going to say Industrial cities are mainly occupied by members of the "middle class".


Yes, since most of a population (outside the Third World anyway) is in the middle class.



What the fuck is the "American class"???


I meant to write American middle class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Sooo.. lets see, then a public defender attorney working for barely more than a what an elementary school teacher earns is in the same social class as a high powered corporate lawyer earning six figures? Same profession, but the two experience a vastly different lifestyle, and social standing, based on their income.[/b]

Well whether the "public defender attorney" and the "high powered corporate lawyer" are in the same class is something we can't say without more information.

From my understanding, most "high powered corporate lawyer(s)" are partners in the law firm they represent....hence the "high power". So, in light of this, one would consider the "high powered corporate lawyer" to be bourgeois.

Where as the "public defender attorney" would generally be considered part of the petty-bourgeois....though given Capitalisms tendency towards "proletarianisation", it wouldn't surprise me to find that the job of a "public defender attorney" is become more and more proletarian in nature.

In some of the professions, like Doctors and Architects for instance, the "proletarianisation" is becoming more and more an objective fact....the autonomy and individualism that these people used to have, is being destroyed by the natural functioning of Capitalism; particularly the "monopolisation" of industry.

However, right now, the "public defender attorney" would be considered, by Marxist and most other forms of class analysis, to be petty bourgeois ("middle class").

Though one could, if they wished, maker a reasonable argument that lawyers, especially ones at the lower end of the profession, constituted the class position of an epoch specific worker....like for instance, Policemen.

Either definition, would be useful as it would identify lawyers as class enemies....their occupation relies on the Capitalist system and therefore, they'll oppose its destruction.

They are, if you will, part of the bureaucratic apparatus that Capitalism produces and therefore, one wouldn't expect them to stand on our side of the barricades! :lol:

Additionally, one would expect to find that a "public defender attorney" had a more liberal political bias, where as a Public Prosecutor would likely have a more conservative bias....I suspect the evidence of this particular hypothesis would be pretty strong.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Perhaps if these people who are "not pissing around" spend more time actually securing an occupation rather than figuring out who belongs in what class, and how to define it...[/b]

Yeah, figuring out why stuff happens is just "pissing around". :blink:

If you ever met a Biologist, would you tell them to stop pissing around and get a *real* job? Cause that seems the plausible response based on you disdain towards those who try to figure out why stuff happens.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Try poking your head outside of academia for a few days and join the real world.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

I've never so much as been to a University, never mind actually attending one....so it's fair to say I haven't even slightly "poked" me head into academia.

Indeed, my "higher education" experience constitutes a couple of years in a College learning plumbing....is that "real world" enough for you? :lol:


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Accept it or not, but money and income defines one social standing in this world. NOT one's occupation.

Not really.

The social prestige that people have, generally comes from what they do....being a lawyer makes one "acceptable" and "decent", where as a binman is well, considered to be "lower" and "undesirable".

You income contributes to your social standing....after all, having lots of money is the only way to have genuine freedom in the present world.

But, in no way does your income solely define ones "social stadning"....indeed in American society, your "colour" is a pretty important thing with regards your "social standing".

Additionally, there's a definite trend between one being of a higher class and having a higher income....an owner of a Major Corporation is part of the bourgeois and is also likely to have a really fucking high income. Where as a Coal Miner, is part of the working class and will also, comparatively speaking, have a much lower income.

Basically, the higher up on the Social Pyramid that your occupation is, the more likely you are to have a high income....which really, makes defining ones class based on ones relationship to the means of production the most theoretically sound method available.

You haven't, by the way, disputed this in any real sense. Rather, you've just decided to throw insults around....which, I suppose, is to be expected.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Generally accepted by whom?

People who's job is to study this; and the general public at large.

If you asked an Industrial Worker if they were "middle class" or working class, they'd almost always reply that they considered themselves working class.

The only country I know of where you'd probably find comparatively fewer workers identifying themselves as working class; is in, of all places, America.

However, I've actually read that the choice working class is left off some surveys in America....so that would likely be the most plausible explanation for why less Americans think there's a working class.

Additionally, the decades of segregation helped create confusion....with some people thinking the term working class only applies to "white workers" and other people, thinking the term only applies to "black workers".

And not having a mass "Labour" Party probably contributes to this scenario....how much, I don't know.

Though, I'm positive that throughout Europe the matter of there being a working class isn't really a "controversial" issue, it's just accepted as fact by most of the general public....indeed even in America, which has a rich history of working class militancy, I doubt most urban workers would find the idea that they're working class controversial either.

And generally, people also accept that the term "middle class" applies to those who manage shit....even in America, those who are workers but also consider themselves "middle class", tend to refer to themselves as lower middle class.

They make a distinction between those who work and those who manage; probably because to anyone who's work for a living, such a distinction is obvious....there's bosses and workers, simple as! :D


Capitalist [email protected]
So a manager of a video store is by (your) definition "middle class", but a aircraft manufacturer earning much more, with stock options and has amassed say a net worth of over $1 million is by definition "working class". Ok, whatever. I guess in your theoretical world they are. Its not that way in real life.

An "aircraft manufacturer" as in someone who's in the business of manufacturing aircraft and then selling them? They'd generally be consider bourgeois because they are using the labour of other people to make a product and then living off the surplus value.

Is that what you were thinking of when you used that phrase? Because, honestly, I've never heard of a wage-labourer in the Aeroplane Industry who has a "net worth of over $1 million".

I don't think even the workers on the highest end of the pay spectrum in that Industry earn over £50-60,000 a year....though if you know something I don't, feel free to share.

However, if you're just using this example to try and throw a proverbial spanner in the works with regards Marxist class analysis, then I suggest you take your own advice....you know, apply this stuff to "real life".

The reason defining class by occupation makes sense, is because, as I said, the higher up your occupation is on the Social Pyramid, the higher your wages tend to be.

If every worker was earning £2 million plus every year, then we'd have a problem....but been as that doesn't happen in the real world, we don't have a problem.


Capitalist Lawyer
Yes, since most of a population (outside the Third World anyway) is in the middle class.

Yes, Industrial Workers are "middle class"....or Coal Miners for that matter. :lol:

You know, I know a few old Coal Miners and neither they, nor anyone else, would consider them to be "middle class"....indeed that most Industries, in the past at least, had Workingman's Clubs, suggests that these people saw themselves, rightly, as working class.

Earlier, you said "I'll take the one [view of society] generally accepted by most people who live it"; and the general view of those in the working class, seems to be that they are working class....but somehow, I doubt you're going to "accept that", it just wouldn't fit your worldview.

Additionally, your analysis, that the first world is (mostly) "middle class", leads to some interesting lines of enquiry.

For instance, you do, do you not, support the War in Iraq....and therefore, one may well conclude that you wish for the American military to be used to ensure that the third world remains mostly working class and America remains mostly "middle class".

Now, as someone who also enjoys flirtations with "morality", how is this position either "moral" or "ethical"? Surely it's not "right" to use Military force to ensure that whole countries remain in a lower socio-economic class when compared to America.

That doesn't strike me as very "ethical" of you....though it is very Christian! :lol:

After all, those "coloureds" are non-believers and they deserve what they get....right? RIGHT?

Additionally, how can you justify making whole peoples the bearers of the most tiring labour that needs to be done in order to keep the world running whilst other peoples, in the first world, can reap the rewards of this labour?

After all, someone has to do that labour don't they....so is it "ok" that Indian or Chinese people do this in order to save Americans, like yourself, from doing this?

After all, it's your "Patriotic duty" to support the enslavement of foreign populaces for your own gain....isn't it?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Blah, blah, blah.. more Marxist blather

Really, CL, what did you expect when you came to this site? And you've been here long enough to know what to expect now, right?

If "Marxist blather" sticks in your throat, are there not many other boards that you can join?

To be honest, I've never understood the "urge" to post on message boards where one's ideas go unappreciated.

No one here is likely to "see the light" or "hear the heavenly choir" of capitalist "glory"...much less be "persuaded" by remarks like the one I quoted above.

Your "take" on capitalist ideology should be addressed to other capitalists...whom you may possibly persuade of your "superior insight".

Here you are as "out of place" as a country preacher at a Conclave of Cardinals. :lol:

You don't even "speak the language". So naturally it sounds to your ears like "blah, blah, blah."

Rather like the speeches of George Bush or Dick Cheney sound to me. :lol:

So what do you gain here...other than becoming needlessly upset?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[overlord]

QUOTE (Capitalist Lawyer)
Blah, blah, blah.. more Marxist blather



Really, CL, what did you expect when you came to this site? And you've been here long enough to know what to expect now, right?

If "Marxist blather" sticks in your throat, are there not many other boards that you can join?

To be honest, I've never understood the "urge" to post on message boards where one's ideas go unappreciated.

No one here is likely to "see the light" or "hear the heavenly choir" of capitalist "glory"...much less be "persuaded" by remarks like the one I quoted above.

Your "take" on capitalist ideology should be addressed to other capitalists...whom you may possibly persuade of your "superior insight".

Here you are as "out of place" as a country preacher at a Conclave of Cardinals.

You don't even "speak the language". So naturally it sounds to your ears like "blah, blah, blah."

Rather like the speeches of George Bush or Dick Cheney sound to me.

So what do you gain here...other than becoming needlessly upset?



I believe CL was was referring to the rather curious predeliction of Marxists to fill pages and pages of texts with the most vacuous sophistry mankind has ever experienced save for the odd bizarre alchemical text or Byzantine debt ledger.

If any comrade wishes to prove me wrong please tell me in OBJECTIVE terms:

a) HOW does one run a socialist economy efficiently despite the punishments for individual incentive?

b) HOW will the resultant poverty eventuating from the inevitable economic collapse be remedied by the socialist administration?

Please leave the a-priori assumptions in the bin if you wish to respond. All answers must come from reality.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:59 AM

QUOTE (Capitalist Lawyer)
Blah, blah, blah.. more Marxist blather



Really, CL, what did you expect when you came to this site? And you've been here long enough to know what to expect now, right?

If "Marxist blather" sticks in your throat, are there not many other boards that you can join?

To be honest, I've never understood the "urge" to post on message boards where one's ideas go unappreciated.

No one here is likely to "see the light" or "hear the heavenly choir" of capitalist "glory"...much less be "persuaded" by remarks like the one I quoted above.

Your "take" on capitalist ideology should be addressed to other capitalists...whom you may possibly persuade of your "superior insight".

Here you are as "out of place" as a country preacher at a Conclave of Cardinals.

You don't even "speak the language". So naturally it sounds to your ears like "blah, blah, blah."

Rather like the speeches of George Bush or Dick Cheney sound to me.

So what do you gain here...other than becoming needlessly upset?



I believe CL was was referring to the rather curious predeliction of Marxists to fill pages and pages of texts with the most vacuous sophistry mankind has ever experienced save for the odd bizarre alchemical text or Byzantine debt ledger.

If any comrade wishes to prove me wrong please tell me in OBJECTIVE terms:

a) HOW does one run a socialist economy efficiently despite the punishments for individual incentive?

b) HOW will the resultant poverty eventuating from the inevitable economic collapse be remedied by the socialist administration?

Please leave the a-priori assumptions in the bin if you wish to respond. All answers must come from reality.
now now..your being mean...your asking for reality from marxists

[redstar2000]

Two more irrelevancies. :lol:

Neither of you are interested in "how" either socialist or communist economies might "work"...you both proceed from the a priori assumption that anything "beyond capitalism" is "impossible".

You both like things "the way they are" and want very much to keep them that way.

So why are you here? What do you expect to find here except that which you would inevitably regard as marijuana-fueled "adolescent pipe dreams"?

Granted, some of the pro-capitalists who come to this forum take the trouble, at least on occasion, to mount coherent arguments on behalf of their views.

But what constantly puzzles me are the ones, like yourselves, who take shelter in the "iron axiom" what is, is right!

And even "eternal". :lol:

Do you imagine that any of us find that particularly imposing?

Or "crushing"? :lol:

Why are you wasting your time trying to talk to people who by and large regard you as cretins?

Do you "enjoy" being mocked? Do you feel especially "virtuous" or even "superior" after a few hours at RevLeft?

Not that I should be the one to ask, but do you have a life?

Shouldn't you be out there making money?

Or something? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:04 PM
Two more irrelevancies. :lol:

Neither of you are interested in "how" either socialist or communist economies might "work"...you both proceed from the a priori assumption that anything "beyond capitalism" is "impossible".

You both like things "the way they are" and want very much to keep them that way.

So why are you here? What do you expect to find here except that which you would inevitably regard as marijuana-fueled "adolescent pipe dreams"?

Granted, some of the pro-capitalists who come to this forum take the trouble, at least on occasion, to mount coherent arguments on behalf of their views.

But what constantly puzzles me are the ones, like yourselves, who take shelter in the "iron axiom" what is, is right!

And even "eternal". :lol:

Do you imagine that any of us find that particularly imposing?

Or "crushing"? :lol:

Why are you wasting your time trying to talk to people who by and large regard you as cretins?

Do you "enjoy" being mocked? Do you feel especially "virtuous" or even "superior" after a few hours at RevLeft?

Not that I should be the one to ask, but do you have a life?

Shouldn't you be out there making money?

Or something? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
so you got nothing eh

[Capitalist Lawyer]

...it is also a fact that anyone studying sociological theory has to read Marx....

I know many social work majors with a bachelor's in sociology from Furman University, which has one of the best programs in the country. Never had to read Marx. I minored in history. Never had to read Marx. It was only when I took political science classes that he ever came up as required reading.



...nearly everyone who wishes to study human society finds the work of Marx, at the very least, valuable.

Yes. As a study in flawed reasoning. Ever heard the phrase, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it,"? Just because people read Marx doesn't mean his work is valuable as an applicable theory today. It is a good way to see the evolution of social and economic theory. Nothing more.




....why do you think sociological theory still focuses on Marx if he is so "flawed"?

For the same reason that political scientists study the governments of the world. Even failed governments have something to teach us. Marxism is a failed social and economic theory. We can still learn from it. An archaeologist may have worked on many sites where he studied slavery. It's not necessarily an endorsement of the institution.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Is anybody going to respond to this?

[overlord]

Capitalist Lawyer

For the same reason that political scientists study the governments of the world. Even failed governments have something to teach us. Marxism is a failed social and economic theory. We can still learn from it. An archaeologist may have worked on many sites where he studied slavery. It's not necessarily an endorsement of the institution.

Yeah, that's where communism belongs, an archaeology class, haha. :lol: And the irony is that you guys keep saying capitalism will soon run out of steam! HA! Did you guys come to that conclusion through an analysis of history or wishful thinking?

The Raven

so you got nothing eh

That's right, the extreme a-priori brain is immune to scientific and objective reasoning. The stuff here is pure moral ethics minus applications to reality, in short, utopian.

Redstar



But what constantly puzzles me are the ones, like yourselves, who take shelter in the "iron axiom" what is, is right!

And even "eternal".

Do you imagine that any of us find that particularly imposing?

Or "crushing"?


And what can stand in the way of utopia I ask you? I thought you were a skeptic Redstar. You perhaps think it's easier to defy human nature and plunge into the smurfdom that has never existed than to make a million dollars? Anyway, the fact your and any other communist's reasoning is devoid of reality shows how freakishly primitive and unscientific the a-priori mind really is.



Why are you wasting your time trying to talk to people who by and large regard you as cretins?


You defy enterprise, hard work, technology. Communists just want to laze around under a tree in the Garden of Eden, everything is always done for them. There is no production since that is exploitative. Who are the real cretins?



Do you "enjoy" being mocked? Do you feel especially "virtuous" or even "superior" after a few hours at RevLeft?


WHO is mocking WHO? I always feel superior to communists. The a-priori mind is generally associated with the shirmpy scrawny type who needs to rely upon socialism to survive in the brutal capitalist world, <oooooo&#33; Shiver&#33;> whilst I am a 6 foot three God.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
whilst I am a 6 foot three God.

And also modest, right? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[black magick hustla]

a) HOW does one run a socialist economy efficiently despite the punishments for individual incentive?

b) HOW will the resultant poverty eventuating from the inevitable economic collapse be remedied by the socialist administration?

Please leave the a-priori assumptions in the bin if you wish to respond. All answers must come from reality.

To answer that question you need to have the specialized ability of browsing in wikipedia or google.

Read a bit about the labor movements and socialist experiments through out history, especially the experiments in the Paris Commune and anarchist controlled Catalonia.

Seriously, you guys are fucking pathetic. Atleast people like Publius make their homework, but your kind just comes here to be a fucking nuisance.


whilst I am a 6 foot three God.

:lol:

I am also 6 feet tall and I am pretty built&#33;

In fact, I think i could probably kick your ass. ;)

[overlord]

QUOTE
a) HOW does one run a socialist economy efficiently despite the punishments for individual incentive?

b) HOW will the resultant poverty eventuating from the inevitable economic collapse be remedied by the socialist administration?

Please leave the a-priori assumptions in the bin if you wish to respond. All answers must come from reality.



To answer that question you need to have the specialized ability of browsing in wikipedia or google.


The fact you have not answered that question proves you lack these basic abilities.


QUOTE
whilst I am a 6 foot three God.





I am also 6 feet tall and I am pretty built&#33;

In fact, I think i could probably kick your ass.


Well, I&#39;m medium build but i&#39;m no fighter. I use my head. So if you wanna kick my ass you&#39;ll have to do it over this forum.



And also modest, right?


Yeah, and I&#39;m also God&#39;s gift to women. In high school I had girls following me around all the time and even jumping on me :P Even the Biology teacher wanted to screw me. Just last year on the train two crazy chicks got on and started saying how cute someone was. Then I looked and saw they were talking about me out of the five guys sitting there. I went out with both of them. How about you Marmot? Or are you some endangered itsy cutsie :wub: farm animal which will go extinct when we finally clear out the amazon as your avatar suggests?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:13 AM

.


The fact you have not answered that question proves you lack these basic abilities.

No, you see I have done that numerous times.

doing that requires alot of time, and that is why i helped you by pointing out what you should browse for.

if you want my explanation be welcome to browse my posts, i am sure you will find them.



Or are you some endangered itsy cutsie :wub: farm animal which will go extinct when we finally clear out the amazon as your avatar suggests?

hilarious

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thanks for hijacking my thread...now, can we stray away from the "dick waving" contest and get back to the debate about the flaws of Marxism?

[STI]

Additionally, there&#39;s a definite trend between one being of a higher class and having a higher income....an owner of a Major Corporation is part of the bourgeois and is also likely to have a really fucking high income. Where as a Coal Miner, is part of the working class and will also, comparatively speaking, have a much lower income.

Basically, the higher up on the Social Pyramid that your occupation is, the more likely you are to have a high income....which really, makes defining ones class based on ones relationship to the means of production the most theoretically sound method available.

It&#39;s not simply a matter of how "high" on the pyramid you are correlating to your income. The big owners are called the "ruling class" because they&#39;re the ones who call the shots. They "rule" in a capitalist society.

Income aside, they&#39;re the ones who make the decisions for the companies they own and in the political sphere, and those decisions are the ones that have the most impact on society.

How lucky we are, then, that their economic interests are diametrically opposed to ours. :P