Social Class

[#FF0000]

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.

Man I don't think you meant for this to sound as patronizing as it does.

But yeah, no, people definitely care. They just don't take the Marxist class struggle perspective and, in America, seem to have an innate aversion to making demands of their bosses, no matter how bad working conditions are. I don't think there's any one reason for this, either.

[Bud Struggle]

Man I don't think you meant for this to sound as patronizing as it does.

I apologize if I did sound patronizing.

But yeah, no, people definitely care. They just don't take the Marxist class struggle perspective and, in America, seem to have an innate aversion to making demands of their bosses, no matter how bad working conditions are. I don't think there's any one reason for this, either.

I'd say people are concerned about their individual condition if they are not doing well or if they aren't making enough money. But I don't think they see it is in any related to and sort of a "Class" issue. They "were unlucky" or "the economy is doing bad" it's never--"we are oppressed."

And you are right about Americans not making demands on bosses. That is why unions have been doing so poorly over the last 30 years. You could blame Reagan or whomever all you want--but it's the people aren't making demands--so they aren't getting anything.

And mostly in general, it's because people are relatively happy.

[RGacky3]

I'd say people are concerned about their individual condition if they are not doing well or if they aren't making enough money. But I don't think they see it is in any related to and sort of a "Class" issue. They "were unlucky" or "the economy is doing bad" it's never--"we are oppressed."

Thats the part where you say "Americans are dumb."

Ask a guy what caused the crash, what he thinks about bankers and executives, people arn't stupid.

And mostly in general, it's because people are relatively happy.

Except they're not ...

[Bud Struggle]

Thats the part where you say "Americans are dumb."

No I'm saying Americans are individualistic.

Ask a guy what caused the crash, what he thinks about bankers and executives, people arn't stupid.

They'll say that. They will also say that greedy people that bought more house than they could afford caused the crash, too. Which is exactly the case. The bankers couldn't have done it without the buyers and the buyers couldn't have done it without the bankers.

Except they're not ...

Well yes, there is the Tea Party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But yeah, no, people definitely care. They just don't take the Marxist class struggle perspective and, in America, seem to have an innate aversion to making demands of their bosses, no matter how bad working conditions are. I don't think there's any one reason for this, either.

Yeah people care, I think the thing is that they don't think there are any other options. As the saying goes, under modern capitalism, it's easier to see the end of the world than an alternative way of life. I think this is very true in the US where alienated people fear that black helicopters and secret ruling classes will run their lives rather than the much more obvious rich who are all but pissing out their jets and onto our heads right now. If the ruling class can people people in the US from expecting too much, then they can keep us fighting over crumbs and scared. That's the only real difference between US and European or Latin American workers... the French know they have something to loose from austerity, in the US, people are like beaten spouses in abusive marriages and think they deserve it.

But this is not a permanent state of affairs, and the fact that over the last decade there have been many large but short-lived movements, shows what's possible when people stop being scared: the millions who marched against the war or for immigrant rights for example. The problem with these movements wasn't the population, it was the organization - that can change.

[RGacky3]

No I'm saying Americans are individualistic.

Nope what you said was, "I'd say people are concerned about their individual condition if they are not doing well or if they aren't making enough money. But I don't think they see it is in any related to and sort of a "Class" issue. They "were unlucky" or "the economy is doing bad" it's never--"we are oppressed."" Which is pretty much you saying that Americans don't get why things are bad.

THis absurd notion of "individualism" has nothing to do with it, but since you brang it up, Americans are no more individualistic than anyone else.

They'll say that. They will also say that greedy people that bought more house than they could afford caused the crash, too. Which is exactly the case. The bankers couldn't have done it without the buyers and the buyers couldn't have done it without the bankers.

Only Fox news says that, but then again, thats pretty much your only frame of referance it sounds like.

Well yes, there is the Tea Party.

Not really that many people, just a couple hyped up big monied interests.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope what you said was, "I'd say people are concerned about their individual condition if they are not doing well or if they aren't making enough money. But I don't think they see it is in any related to and sort of a "Class" issue. They "were unlucky" or "the economy is doing bad" it's never--"we are oppressed."" Which is pretty much you saying that Americans don't get why things are bad.

No. They are not oppressed. That's your idea. I don't think I'm oppressed and never have been either when I was a Proletarian or now.

THis absurd notion of "individualism" has nothing to do with it, but since you brang it up, Americans are no more individualistic than anyone else.

I think so. There definitely are cultural differe4nces between different countries.

Only Fox news says that, but then again, thats pretty much your only frame of referance it sounds like.

Mqybe. I don't get cable so I really don't watch the network.

Not really that many people, just a couple hyped up big monied interests.

Well they got a couple of people into office and changed the tone of the Republican party. All the Liberals and radicals do is lose.

[RGacky3]

No. They are not oppressed. That's your idea. I don't think I'm oppressed and never have been either when I was a Proletarian or now.

Thats because your not paying attention, and you run your own buisiness and do pretty well financially.

Oppressed is a more subjective term, the definately are exploited, many are dispossesed, and many now are in very dire straights.

Your world of daisys and ice cream and the American way simply does not exist in reality.

I think so. There definitely are cultural differe4nces between different countries.

Sure, but nothing intrinsic about human nature is different between cultures. Americans are not more "liberty loving" or "individualistic" than other countries.

Well they got a couple of people into office and changed the tone of the Republican party. All the Liberals and radicals do is lose.

Because radicals don'g have a voice or the option of having one, and most liberals are also bought by big monied interests as well.

The problem with your view of politics is you ignore the elephant in the room, corporate, monied interests.

[#FF0000]

I'd say people are concerned about their individual condition if they are not doing well or if they aren't making enough money. But I don't think they see it is in any related to and sort of a "Class" issue. They "were unlucky" or "the economy is doing bad" it's never--"we are oppressed."

Yeah I'm aware of this. I figure there's a lot of factors that go into that.

And you are right about Americans not making demands on bosses. That is why unions have been doing so poorly over the last 30 years. You could blame Reagan or whomever all you want--but it's the people aren't making demands--so they aren't getting anything.

Also the fact that American unions in a lot of cases are pretty horrendous, or are bound by no-strike clauses. Also, without unions or anything similar, workers are pretty vulnerable if they make any demands. In fact, they really can't, since there's no collective bargaining, and in Right To Work states like Pennsylvania, the boss can just fire a guy for just trying to get a union or set up some kind of collective bargaining thing.

And mostly in general, it's because people are relatively happy.

Nooo there's just a lot of scapegoats. That and maligning the rich at all in public discourse means you are a stalinist hippie nazi terrorist muslim, so.

They'll say that. They will also say that greedy people that bought more house than they could afford caused the crash, too. Which is exactly the case. The bankers couldn't have done it without the buyers and the buyers couldn't have done it without the bankers.

Er, well, here's the thing. The lenders knew they wouldn't be able to afford it. That was the thing. They sold it like "yeah man this loan is cheap and you'll be able to own your own home and we'll work with you so you can keep it". In America, the image of being a homeowner is a VERY powerful thing for some reason, they know it, and they exploited it.

But anyway, I don't understand why you make posts like this. I mean we're all aware that the class perspective isn't popular and that most workers aren't communists. What is your point, exactly?

[Revolution starts with U]

You can't argue with Bud on economics because he's just going to be like "I care, but fuck those guys (the poor)." He "agrees with the cause, if it were practical, but doesn't favor revolution... or reform."
Do you have any idea how much more work he would have to do to take trips to Hawaii w private dolphin watching and scuba cruises if value were based off labor not ownership?

[Lt. Ferret]

you know how much less each worker would make if there wasnt an administrator or owner creating systems for efficient resource production?

[Revolution starts with U]

Wherein did I say there wouldn't be an administrator?
Non-sequiter, buddy.

[RGacky3]

you know how much less each worker would make if there wasnt an administrator or owner creating systems for efficient resource production?

Do you know how much MORE each worker would make if that administrators compensation and everyone elses was democratically decided?

(btw, no I don't know how much less they would make, probably they would'nt make less).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

About pensions, savings and stocks, yes you can own it and still belong to the working class since the owning itself doesnt change the position in the production or gives the owner mor power over the system. The word Capital in a marxist sence is a combo of something that can produce capital and gives a control over the production.

[RGacky3]

Stocks savings and so on are just a way for Capitalists to share their risk while keeping their control and inevitable profits from them.

If it goes up Both executive and small time stock holder wins (although the executive much more so), if it goes down just the small time stock holder takes the hit (and probably looses his job too), executive gets a golden parachute and switches to someother board of directors somewhere.

Thats the system you live in, .

[JTB]

evolution is an individual -- not a class -- affair?

Actually, evolution takes at the level of populations. Thanks for playing.

[JTB]

OP, could you mkae your question a bit more... concrete?

[JTB]

Class system != caste system
/end thread

(I just watched the Social Network (movie). The Napster guy; starts as a prole. Becomes a bourgie. Loses it all, so... prole again. Makes a deal with Zuckerberg and becomes a bourgie again. All too often people mistakenly believe "class" means something static.... like a caste system.)

Class is a power relation, not a social status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/op...06herbert.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/ma...mobi-m20.shtml

[JTB]

The Class system isn't anything OBJECTIVE.

Oh, yes it is. That the masses are dependent upon powerful elite, that the few control the mechanations of government, that the poor face food insecurity, homelessness, and end up fighting wars for the rich man's profits while the top 1% have to power to manipulate it all are objective realities.

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.

Like choosing to believe in evolution?

(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.

The reality that politicians know who pays for their re-election campaigns is not subjective. Citizens United is an objective reality.

And the amazing thing is that you are the only ones that see the world in this light

For a long time, few were those who saw the roundness of the earth of the sun's location on the solar system.

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.

Wait, wait, wait wait. To speak of a 'middle class' is to acknowledge the existence of a class system.