Social Class

[Palingenisis]

If you don't mind me asking--why do you have to lie about your address?

Because its a "housing project"/council estate.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Class system isn't anything OBJECTIVE. It is one way out of many to look at the world. There is nothing definitive about it. If you choose to believe that that is how the world is structured--more power to you. If you choose to see the world in another perspective--well that's fine, too.

(Some of) you guys run around here spouting all this stuff as if you believe it is something that is actually real and true and not one perspective out of many as to how the world operates.

And the amazing thing is that you are the only ones that see the world in this light and then you make these posts saying "oh, oh, oh, everybody REALLY sees the class system too--they just don't know they see it." Listen if people say they believe in Class Theory--fine then they believe in it. But if people say the believe (almost) everyone is Middle Class--they you have to take them at their word as to what they believe.

Class theory is just an opinion, it is not a reality. (And neither is the idea that everyone is Middle Class.)

You guys are making Communism sound like religion when it comes to this. (Everybody in the world really believes in Jesus--they just don't know it! )

The existence of class is a fact in that the concept is formed wround clusters of various attributes that determine one's standing in the world in relation to stuff like economic opportunity, educational skills and so on. Even mainstream stratification sociology recognizes this very simple fact of real inequality in contemporary society. It is not a matter of what people believe. One may also employ different "perspectives on life" as you say, but not every one of these may account for the way the world "operates".

[Bud Struggle]

The existence of class is a fact in that the concept is formed wround clusters of various attributes that determine one's standing in the world in relation to stuff like economic opportunity, educational skills and so on. Even mainstream stratification sociology recognizes this very simple fact of real inequality in contemporary society. It is not a matter of what people believe. One may also employ different "perspectives on life" as you say, but not every one of these may account for the way the world "operates".

And there is nothing wrong with saying that some people are poorer than others and that some people ar richer. Some people own machinery that can be used to make things and some don't. But you can also say that some people follow Allah and some people don't and in some parts of the world that may mean if you will be successful or not. Further, some people have college degrees and some people never graduated HS.

Personally, I think a college degree is a good way as any to judge economic opportunity.

[Thirsty Crow]

And there is nothing wrong with saying that some people are poorer than others and that some people ar richer. Some people own machinery that can be used to make things and some don't. But you can also say that some people follow Allah and some people don't and in some parts of the world that may mean if you will be successful or not. Further, some people have college degrees and some people never graduated HS.

Personally, I think a college degree is a good way as any to judge economic opportunity.

But not a thing you said can be linked to what you previously stated: that class is not real, but rather one of perspectives on the way world works.

[Bud Struggle]

But not a thing you said can be linked to what you previously stated: that class is not real, but rather one of perspectives on the way world works.

It is an opinion. If you want to see the world as working that way--then it is real to you. If you want to see it as just one of a myrad of factors that may or may not be important in the world--you can do that also.

It's like saying that 95% of people in America are Middle Class. That's just as real. There are a few billionaires at the top and a few homeless people at the bottom and every one else is in the middle.

Just another view.

[#FF0000]

The Class system isn't anything OBJECTIVE.

Well of course it's not objective.

(Some of) you guys run around here spouting all this stuff as if you believe it is something that is actually real and true and not one perspective out of many as to how the world operates.

And the amazing thing is that you are the only ones that see the world in this light and then you make these posts saying "oh, oh, oh, everybody REALLY sees the class system too--they just don't know they see it." Listen if people say they believe in Class Theory--fine then they believe in it. But if people say the believe (almost) everyone is Middle Class--they you have to take them at their word as to what they believe.

You know what, I think the problem lies in semantics here. To me, acknowledging class means acknowledging economic inequality or hierarchy. That's where the misunderstanding here comes from. Class isn't objective at all and class definitions are pretty broad sometimes. However, what I think everyone definitely sees, unless they are being completely dishonest, is that there are people who control incredible amounts of wealth, and there are people who do not. Call it class, call it whatever you want, but I don't think you can deny that capital and wealth isn't equally accessible to all people.

Class theory is just an opinion, it is not a reality. (And neither is the idea that everyone is Middle Class.)

Narrative is a better word than opinion I think but yeah I don't disagree.

You guys are making Communism sound like religion when it comes to this. (Everybody in the world really believes in Jesus--they just don't know it! )

I don't really believe this though.

[Palingenisis]

Well of course it's not objective.

It is objective in that its related to your relationship to production and distribution as well as your amount of social power.

[#FF0000]

Err... he changes his definitions throughout his works... show me an exact definition signed by Marx.

http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm

"How did Marx define class? It is rather ironic that Marx, a man whose name is synonymous with class, and who wrote extensively about class, should never have defined class in a definitive manner."
http://www.marxismmadesimple.esmartweb.com/class.htm

It's open to a lot of interpretation and is by no means static. [/QUOTE]

I don't think you read your link, here.

It is, however, possible to extract a definition of the concept of class from the writings of Marx. According to Marx a class is determined by its relationship to the means of production. By this what is meant is that a class is determined by its ownership or non-ownership of the means of production, that is, of raw materials, factories and land.

Not to mention that both sites you linked to define the different classes in Marxist class theory exactly as most Marxists do.

I mean it goes without saying that, when applied to people, what class one fits into isn't always so clear cut. Workers can have stock portfolios and might be able to hire someone to come over and fix the sink or something. Or, someone can be a member of one class and have a lifestyle very similar to that of someone in a different class.

For example, a friend's dad owns an auto shop. Neither of us are rolling in dough by any means. Strictly speaking, my friend's dad is of the "petit-bourgeois" (which itself is a kind of nebulous class to define!) but on this individual basis, it just doesn't mean too much. It almost definitely affects world-view in some manner (I'm probably a lot more friendly to the idea of unions than my friend's dad), though.

But, yeah overall I don't think I disagree with you a whole lot. Classes are broadly defined, but you can definitely extrapolate a definition of class and what constitutes each class from Marx and Engels (it's not as if what they say is law anyway).

[#FF0000]

It is objective in that its related to your relationship to production and distribution as well as your amount of social power.

If one defines it like that, then sure, but it's semantics. Like I said, call it what you want but I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is a division in society between people who control or own vast amounts of wealth and capital and those who do not. I think we can say that is objectively true.

Right, everyone?

[Bud Struggle]

You know what, I think the problem lies in semantics here. To me, acknowledging class means acknowledging economic inequality or hierarchy. That's where the misunderstanding here comes from. Class isn't objective at all and class definitions are pretty broad sometimes. However, what I think everyone definitely sees, unless they are being completely dishonest, is that there are people who control incredible amounts of wealth, and there are people who do not. Call it class, call it whatever you want, but I don't think you can deny that capital and wealth isn't equally accessible to all people.

Yes there is economic differences. BUT (up to now) easy credit in Western countries has blurred those lines significantly. Back in the day if a rich guy wanted a BMW he could buy one. The poor guy could not. Now both could buy BMWs. The rich buy buys his 760 for cash and the poor guy buys his 318 on credit. Both at the end of the day have BMWs. Same with mortages--with those non disclosure ones that were sold up until recently anyone could buy anything--now maybe they couldn't keep the house--but they could have bought it, still further blurring the lines.

That's why the idea of everyone being in the Middle Class works so well. It's a chimera, I'll admit that. But it gives the impression that almost all Americans are the same.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Social class" is an oxymoron.

No, it means how one is classified in a given social order. Would you say, it's still to identify someone as a slave just because that's what they do for labor?

Why do individuals have different interests than future collective ones? Why are individual interests corruptive? What class do most workers belong to when they own stocks, bonds, pension plans, land, etc., in short capital?

Individual interests are not corruptive in the abstract, I don't know what you mean here - personal interests? Like I want to learn French or how to play the piano or I want to have a month-long vacation?

How are social classes possible when people are just plain unpredictable and evolution is an individual -- not a class -- affair?

Human evolution doesn't impact human society much since society has changed much more frequently and quickly than our biology has in the same amount of time. Besides evolution is not an individual thing - for an adaptation to be effective and passed down, it would have to be a benificial adaptation, implying that that change in one animal is a better adaptation for all animals in the same situation. I have a feeling that you're not talking about biological evolution - I just have no idea what your actual point is.

Society evolves when individual interest changes, not when an abstraction called society does. A social hierarchy that never changes and has to be preserved by a political authority just doesn't exist.

Are you just mixing up words? Seriously, this makes as much sense as a Arizona-Shooter's youtube video.

How does an individual decision cause society to "evolve"?

It is an opinion. If you want to see the world as working that way--then it is real to you. If you want to see it as just one of a myrad of factors that may or may not be important in the world--you can do that also.

It's like saying that 95% of people in America are Middle Class. That's just as real. There are a few billionaires at the top and a few homeless people at the bottom and every one else is in the middle.

Just another view.

Well I live in Oakland but I can't see the bay or the Ocean from my house, so I guess I'd say that Oakland in part of "middle America" or is "Mid-west" even. It's also called the East Bay and since it isn't literally on the West Coast, in a way you could say I live on the east coast (as long as the west coats is only 10 miles inland and the East Coast is 1,000s of miles inland). It's just another view - an imprecise and useless view, but it is another view.

But this view of regional divisions I suggested makes no sense and is not useful for someone trying to drive across country or land a plane in Oakland airport. For the same reason "arbitrary" class divisions by income levels (or just lumping the non-poor and non-rich into a "middle class") is equally imprecise for our uses. Classes as detailing someone's position in society and their relationship to how society works, the Marxist conception of class, is very specific because we actually need to understand the dynamics of how this system functions. For people not interested in how our society works, then you can make up any kind of divisions in society that amuses you, because it doesn't matter much just as it doesn't matter to me how the Pentium chip in my computer works on a daily basis.

[#FF0000]

Yes there is economic differences. BUT (up to now) easy credit in Western countries has blurred those lines significantly. Back in the day if a rich guy wanted a BMW he could buy one. The poor guy could not. Now both could buy BMWs. The rich buy buys his 760 for cash and the poor guy buys his 318 on credit. Both at the end of the day have BMWs. Same with mortages--with those non disclosure ones that were sold up until recently anyone could buy anything--now maybe they couldn't keep the house--but they could have bought it, still further blurring the lines.

That's why the idea of everyone being in the Middle Class works so well. It's a chimera, I'll admit that. But it gives the impression that almost all Americans are the same.

Sure, but in the end, I don't think the biggest differences between people are whether or not one owns a BMW. Other conceptions of class might define them that way, but not the Marxist one.

[RGacky3]

The Class system isn't anything OBJECTIVE. It is one way out of many to look at the world. There is nothing definitive about it. If you choose to believe that that is how the world is structured--more power to you. If you choose to see the world in another perspective--well that's fine, too.

Niether is the species system something Objective, its just a very very logical way to analyse the world. Nothing is objective so thats a stupid argument.

(Some of) you guys run around here spouting all this stuff as if you believe it is something that is actually real and true and not one perspective out of many as to how the world operates.

Well 1% control about 90% of the wealth, it is real, a small amount control the vast majority of the world, thats pretty real.

What your saying is as stupid as saying governments arn't real, its just your perspective on the world.

And the amazing thing is that you are the only ones that see the world in this light and then you make these posts saying "oh, oh, oh, everybody REALLY sees the class system too--they just don't know they see it." Listen if people say they believe in Class Theory--fine then they believe in it. But if people say the believe (almost) everyone is Middle Class--they you have to take them at their word as to what they believe.

Who does not believe that there are classes? Who does'nt know that a few executives and buisiness men run the world economy? Every one knows that, from the buisiness men themselves to a sugar cane cutter in Africa.

Class theory is just an opinion, it is not a reality. (And neither is the idea that everyone is Middle Class.)

Its not a theory, its a fact, income disparities are a fact, so are wealth disparities, so is the system that makes those disparities disparities of power. You tell me that those things are just an opinion.

You guys are making Communism sound like religion when it comes to this. (Everybody in the world really believes in Jesus--they just don't know it! )

What christian says that? Except for you.

Heres the thing Bud, we believe in facts, logic and evidence, you don't, you have a narrative and you only accept things that fit into your litle narrative (team-America/statusquo).

Your not a Capitalist because you've been convinced its the right way, your not patriotic because you've been convinced its the right way either, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and probably say its the same way with your religion, you have a narrative thats been given to you, and you defend that narrative facts, evidence and logic be damned.

[RGacky3]

Yes there is economic differences. BUT (up to now) easy credit in Western countries has blurred those lines significantly.

Except those that took that credit most likely got majorly screwed, because for profit banks controlled it, so nope, they are still the lower class.

Back in the day if a rich guy wanted a BMW he could buy one. The poor guy could not. Now both could buy BMWs. The rich buy buys his 760 for cash and the poor guy buys his 318 on credit. Both at the end of the day have BMWs. Same with mortages--with those non disclosure ones that were sold up until recently anyone could buy anything--now maybe they couldn't keep the house--but they could have bought it, still further blurring the lines.

That's why the idea of everyone being in the Middle Class works so well. It's a chimera, I'll admit that. But it gives the impression that almost all Americans are the same.

How much of America have you seen? Seriously, what world are you living in?

It is an opinion. If you want to see the world as working that way--then it is real to you. If you want to see it as just one of a myrad of factors that may or may not be important in the world--you can do that also.

Except when talking about economic power its pretty stupid to classify people by hair color.

It's like saying that 95% of people in America are Middle Class. That's just as real. There are a few billionaires at the top and a few homeless people at the bottom and every one else is in the middle.

Just another view.

Except its a view that does nothing to actually help analyse the way the world works, which most people here (saving you of coarse) try to do.

[Bud Struggle]

Niether is the species system something Objective, its just a very very logical way to analyse the world. Nothing is objective so thats a stupid argument.

So you admit that "Class" isn't anythig objective. That's a start.

Well 1% control about 90% of the wealth, it is real, a small amount control the vast majority of the world, thats pretty real.

What your saying is as stupid as saying governments arn't real, its just your perspective on the world.

Yea, but the wroking class isn't pretending that they are rich like Bill Gates--they are just pretending that they are in the same middle class with a guy that makes ten times more than they do. Thet's the beauty of the system. Between easy credit and technology--the working class has most of the creature comforts they clould ever dream of.

Who does not believe that there are classes? Who does'nt know that a few executives and buisiness men run the world economy? Every one knows that, from the buisiness men themselves to a sugar cane cutter in Africa.

If you want to see classes in the world you certainly can see them. If you want to view the world in a thousand other ways you can see them in those thousand other ways. Class is one of a myrad of different ways to see theworld--each competing with each other. Touching in a way, really.

Its not a theory, its a fact, income disparities are a fact, so are wealth disparities, so is the system that makes those disparities disparities of power. You tell me that those things are just an opinion.

That's real, but for the VAST majority of people it doesn't matter.

What christian says that? Except for you.

I heard that on Christian TV the other day--some preacher was saying that everyone has in their soul an empty space that could only be filled by Jesus. I thought it was interesting.

Heres the thing Bud, we believe in facts, logic and evidence, you don't, you have a narrative and you only accept things that fit into your litle narrative (team-America/statusquo).

Good luck convincing people with logic and evidence. Given their own resources--most epople aren't all that logical.

Your not a Capitalist because you've been convinced its the right way, your not patriotic because you've been convinced its the right way either, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and probably say its the same way with your religion, you have a narrative thats been given to you, and you defend that narrative facts, evidence and logic be damned.

Oh yes, I think the Communism envisaged by you and the others around here would be nice and if I thought it was a possibility I'd support it. Really. I just don't see that magic happening. It's nice, but it's a dream, nothing more. I think the (your word for the day) narrative of Communism has been distroved by those that have gone before.

Sorry.

[Bud Struggle]

Except those that took that credit most likely got majorly screwed, because for profit banks controlled it, so nope, they are still the lower class.

They may be working class--but they don't know it, so it's a moot point.

How much of America have you seen? Seriously, what world are you living in?

I've been around.

Except when talking about economic power its pretty stupid to classify people by hair color.

And when your talking hair color it's stupid to classify people by economic power. But more people in America think about their hair color by FAR than think about Class Stuggle.

Except its a view that does nothing to actually help analyse the way the world works, which most people here (saving you of coarse) try to do.

Most people watch TV, plan to go on a diet and drink Bud Lite.

[RGacky3]

So you admit that "Class" isn't anythig objective. That's a start.

No one ever claimed it was objective.

DO you believe species are real?

Yea, but the wroking class isn't pretending that they are rich like Bill Gates--they are just pretending that they are in the same middle class with a guy that makes ten times more than they do. Thet's the beauty of the system. Between easy credit and technology--the working class has most of the creature comforts they clould ever dream of.

Except most people still have to struggle, most people still barely make it, and most people are not happy with the economic situation. Again, look outside.

If you want to see classes in the world you certainly can see them. If you want to view the world in a thousand other ways you can see them in those thousand other ways. Class is one of a myrad of different ways to see theworld--each competing with each other. Touching in a way, really.

If your looking at political-economics, and you don't see classes, then your not serious.

Sure if I'm looking at the world from a nature context I would'nt see classes, I'd see trees, animals, mountains.

But thats not an argument.

Again, do you believe Species are real?

That's real, but for the VAST majority of people it doesn't matter.

I disagree, people are not happy with the economic situtation.

Good luck convincing people with logic and evidence. Given their own resources--most epople aren't all that logical.

I'd venture that most have the basic logic to understand this stuff, as long as they arn't stuck to a narative like you are.

Oh yes, I think the Communism envisaged by you and the others around here would be nice and if I thought it was a possibility I'd support it. Really. I just don't see that magic happening. It's nice, but it's a dream, nothing more. I think the (your word for the day) narrative of Communism has been distroved by those that have gone before.

That last sentace is an argument that prooves you don't believe in evidence, facts, logic, or any any interest in making or hearing real arguments.

That last sentance has been disproved beyond doubt thousands of times, yet you ignore all of that because it does'nt fit your narrative, you are willfully ignorant because it fits your narrative.

Just like the Oil Company spokesperson that ignores global warming because it goes against his narrative, dispite science dispite fact.

They may be working class--but they don't know it, so it's a moot point.

Yes they do.

And when your talking hair color it's stupid to classify people by economic power. But more people in America think about their hair color by FAR than think about Class Stuggle.

You do realize you are on revleft. Also your wrong, people are pissed at economic institutions of power.

You don't know what your talking about Bud.

Most people watch TV, plan to go on a diet and drink Bud Lite.

Only the people on that 70s show, which is aparently your source for American life. Your pulling all this out of your ass, you have NO idea.

BTW, most Mexicans listen to banda, eat corn tortillas and go to church ..... And what??? What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

[RGacky3]

BTW, I find it Ironic that a great patriot like you bases his narrative around "Amricans are exceptionally dumb and ignorant," as if being born in the US makes you some how dumber than any where else in the world.

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, I find it Ironic that a great patriot like you bases his narrative around "Amricans are exceptionally dumb and ignorant," as if being born in the US makes you some how dumber than any where else in the world.

I'm not saying they are dumb. I'm saying they don't care. There'a big difference. As long as Americans have a pretty good life--they don't care about the rest: all the Class Struggle and Power and the big money. They just don't care. I guess the way I see it is that people have different theshholds for things in life. Some people really don't want to go out of their way just ot get more stuff once their life is pretty good. I see it in myself--I made some money and I really don't want anymore--and I had a higher threshold than lots of people. I have two nephews that are flying all over the world working like dogs literally making millions. I would never do that. I have another nephew that plays in a crappy rock band [so crappy that Mari3L probably wouldn't even listen to it ] and is delightfully poor living on his 99 weeks of unemployment. And he's happy doing that.

People should follow their bliss.

[RGacky3]

People should follow their bliss.

Look around Bud, very few people are in bliss.