NationStates Jolt Archive

No one takes you seriously if you're a leftwing activist and you arn't poor. A socialist middle class person? Don't be ridiculous.

But these days, the middle class are in the majority, so why amongst some people is it still seen as a crime to be vaguely well off?

As a British Socialist Lower-Middle Class teenager, this means quite a lot to me. I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

It's rather Mao-ist, the punishment of those seen as bourgeois. But being Middle Class doesn't automatically mean you're a torie, or taht you can't understand the concepts or the situations.

I'd like to get soem peoples opinions on this. Is it like this in other countries?

Do I need to explain the point I'm attempting to make more clearly?

Thank you.

~~V

"Left-wing liberalism" is supposedly founded in the middle-class. I assume that people accepted the stereotypes and ad hominems that it became this way.

I know what you mean. I know some of these middle-class, even rich, left-wingers. Some are far-left. It's not evil to be rich, but it's hypocritical to rage against capitalism while basking in its best aspects. Most of these people are motivated by a sort of naive compassion, but not by a desire to control poor people (as Eutrusca suggested).

This is not to say that only rich people are left-wing. In fact the urban working class are the most socialist demographic in my country and probably the world.

No one takes you seriously if you're a leftwing activist and you arn't poor. A socialist middle class person? Don't be ridiculous.

But these days, the middle class are in the majority, so why amongst some people is it still seen as a crime to be vaguely well off?

As a British Socialist Lower-Middle Class teenager, this means quite a lot to me. I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

It's rather Mao-ist, the punishment of those seen as bourgeois. But being Middle Class doesn't automatically mean you're a torie, or taht you can't understand the concepts or the situations.

I'd like to get soem peoples opinions on this. Is it like this in other countries?

Do I need to explain the point I'm attempting to make more clearly?

Thank you.

~~V
Most of the left-wing people I have known personally were very well off and highly educated types who were either arrogant in their assumption that "lower class" types desperately needed their protection, or who felt guilty because they realized in their heart of hearts that their wealth was handed to them with little effort on their part ... or both.

Middle Class does not automatically equal wealth. I'm not talking rich people. I'm talking your average English person.

To use my self as an example:My parents work hard for a living, I am not some spoilt rich kid, I'm always skint, I don't some five story house. We shop at Asda's. If my dad wasn't so good at his job, we would be very poor. As my mother is a teaching assistant, and they are paid next to nothing.

Being a socialist is not some misguided attempt to help the poor. It's a set of idealogical beliefs on what would amke the world a better place to live in.

~~V

In a middle class peer group, I know very few Conservatives and even fewer Blairites. Anyone who's interested in British politics is a Lib Dem or Green.

It's strange, but it seems to be because it's the more ethically reasonable stance to take. Why not help asylum seekers integrate into society? What's wrong with showing a little concern for the effects of heavy industry on the environment? Shouldn't we allow people who can afford more to be taxed more than those struggling to stay afloat? Why not continue providing public healthcare and other services on government funding? And yet, the second we raise these issues, we are told to "Grow up", as if there's something inherently childish or naive about these sorts of attitudes.

*Shrug*

If the middle class abandoned Blair, you'd now see a huge surge in support for the Yellows. Probably enough to hang the parliament and actually create some form of democracy for a change. Which would be nice.

Most of the left-wing people I have known personally were very well off and highly educated types who were either arrogant in their assumption that "lower class" types desperately needed their protection, or who felt guilty because they realized in their heart of hearts that their wealth was handed to them with little effort on their part ... or both.
Psh.

There are more rich right wingers who did fuck-all to get where they are.

And yeah, we all know that the poor need vouchers for public schools and a lack of health care. :rolleyes: That's going to benefit them so much. Not to mention fewer homeless shelters and less affordable housing. Yep, that's what the poor need, they need to lack somewhere to live, the ability to get an education and the ability to see a doctor.

Middle Class does not automatically equal wealth. I'm not talking rich people. I'm talking your average English person.

To use my self as an example:My parents work hard for a living, I am not some spoilt rich kid, I'm always skint, I don't some five story house. We shop at Asda's. If my dad wasn't so good at his job, we would be very poor. As my mother is a teaching assistant, and they are paid next to nothing.

Being a socialist is not some misguided attempt to help the poor. It's a set of idealogical beliefs on what would amke the world a better place to live in.

~~V

Thank you for saying to Eut what I was about to. Its not that I think the poor need some arrogant rich kid socialist-for-a-day to save them from the big badd [insert here], I have a set of beliefs along the lines of democratic socialism that I believe are something the world needs to strive for.

As to the question of middle class socialism, I am upper middle class. I won't deny that I enjoy many luxuries, but I also am very socially conscious and believe that mankind has a social responsibility to aid the poor and needy, and beyond that, to keep the rich poor divide, and thus the standard of living divide, from growing to astronomcial sizes.

My experience in the US is that no matter what class you are, you are expected to be right wing economically. Centrist is what we call "liberal" over here. (For a more apt demonstration - go here - http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USelection2004.gif, and look at where John Kerry stands. He is considered the "far left bank" as Bush put it, of american politics.) It's a left over fear from the Cold War days fueled by greed. From no collar workers to CEO's the consensus seems to be a particularly harsh form of personal responsibility blended with what Pope John Paul II called "viscious capitalism." I am hard pressed to find a socialist anywhere in any class over here, but where they do exist, they are usually not middle class, but of the intellectual class, or of the blue collar class.

I am hard pressed to find a socialist anywhere in any class over here, but where they do exist, they are usually not middle class, but of the intellectual class, or of the blue collar class.

I'm sorry, I'm not familair with the term 'intellectual class'. Could you explin this please.

~~V

I'm sorry, I'm not familair with the term 'intellectual class'. Could you explin this please.

~~V

Sorry, I had class on the brain and thats a typo. What I meant was the intellectuals of the upper and middle classes.

I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

OoC: You mean you dare to do what nearly everyone else does? If anything, my right wing ideals are far more radical than yours in this day and age - anyone up for shooting illegal immigrant coming into England? I am? I'm called a "racist bastard" for laughing at politically incorrect jokes by one of my more naive friends whereas you just follow the mainstream.

Liberalism is mainly a middle class thing anyway, as the middle class isn't well off enough to revel in the fruits of the bourgeoisie but not badly enough off to not have the time to think of fair systems.

I know what you mean. I know some of these middle-class, even rich, left-wingers. Some are far-left. It's not evil to be rich, but it's hypocritical to rage against capitalism while basking in its best aspects. Most of these people are motivated by a sort of naive compassion, but not by a desire to control poor people (as Eutrusca suggested).

This is not to say that only rich people are left-wing. In fact the urban working class are the most socialist demographic in my country and probably the world.

It's funny, Swimmingpool, I didn't know you were mainland chinese.
Here in the U.S., most of your Leftys (the local brand, still to the right of most of europe) are Middle-to-upper-Class, basically the same "Rich" they all want to soak.
Most working-class people here are to the right-side-of-the-aisle when they aren't utterly apathetic about politics.

OoC: You mean you dare to do what nearly everyone else does? If anything, my right wing ideals are far more radical than yours in this day and age - anyone up for shooting illegal immigrant coming into England? I am? I'm called a "racist bastard" for laughing at politically incorrect jokes by one of my more naive friends whereas you just follow the mainstream.

Liberalism is mainly a middle class thing anyway, as the middle class isn't well off enough to revel in the fruits of the bourgeoisie but not badly enough off to not have the time to think of fair systems.

Whao.... SHOOTING the illegal immigrants? Yes, your ideas are far more radical than mine... In fact, your ideas are far more radical than, well many peoples. So I guess from your perspective we are all kind of mainstream. BTW, cause I'm curious, what kind of right winger? National Socialist? Fascist? Theocrat?

Oh, and Racist jokes made to be funny, not hitleriffic, are A-okay in my book.

OoC: You mean you dare to do what nearly everyone else does? If anything, my right wing ideals are far more radical than yours in this day and age - anyone up for shooting illegal immigrant coming into England? I am? I'm called a "racist bastard" for laughing at politically incorrect jokes by one of my more naive friends whereas you just follow the mainstream.

Liberalism is mainly a middle class thing anyway, as the middle class isn't well off enough to revel in the fruits of the bourgeoisie but not badly enough off to not have the time to think of fair systems.


There's not much I can reply to this apart from. Why do you not live in Texas with a swastika tatooed on your forehead, shooting squirrels for kicks?

~~V

Thank you for saying to Eut what I was about to. Its not that I think the poor need some arrogant rich kid socialist-for-a-day to save them from the big badd [insert here], I have a set of beliefs along the lines of democratic socialism that I believe are something the world needs to strive for.

As to the question of middle class socialism, I am upper middle class. I won't deny that I enjoy many luxuries, but I also am very socially conscious and believe that mankind has a social responsibility to aid the poor and needy, and beyond that, to keep the rich poor divide, and thus the standard of living divide, from growing to astronomcial sizes.

My experience in the US is that no matter what class you are, you are expected to be right wing economically. Centrist is what we call "liberal" over here. (For a more apt demonstration - go here - http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USelection2004.gif, and look at where John Kerry stands. He is considered the "far left bank" as Bush put it, of american politics.) It's a left over fear from the Cold War days fueled by greed. From no collar workers to CEO's the consensus seems to be a particularly harsh form of personal responsibility blended with what Pope John Paul II called "viscious capitalism." I am hard pressed to find a socialist anywhere in any class over here, but where they do exist, they are usually not middle class, but of the intellectual class, or of the blue collar class.

In twelve years of being a "Factory bum" working in manufacturing and construction, I've met exactly two (that's "2", as in a pair...) Socialists who weren't taking a paycheck directly from an AFL-CIO office anywhere near where the work is being done.

In two years of college, I've encountered more Socialists/Left-wing types who've never lifted a hammer or turned a wrench (or done work-that-gets-you-dirty-and-tired) than I can properly remember or count.

The very-wealthy are right wing because of their intellectual stances. The lower classes (and yes, we have them too.) are right-wing, because they can't (for the most part) afford to get the special-exemptions to heavy taxes used to finance the lifestyles of the lazy, the Incompetent, the tax-fattened hyenae that infest Government from top to bottom.

No one takes you seriously if you're a leftwing activist and you arn't poor. A socialist middle class person? Don't be ridiculous.

But these days, the middle class are in the majority, so why amongst some people is it still seen as a crime to be vaguely well off?

As a British Socialist Lower-Middle Class teenager, this means quite a lot to me. I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

It's rather Mao-ist, the punishment of those seen as bourgeois. But being Middle Class doesn't automatically mean you're a torie, or taht you can't understand the concepts or the situations.

I'd like to get soem peoples opinions on this. Is it like this in other countries?

Do I need to explain the point I'm attempting to make more clearly?

Thank you.

~~V

i completely sympathise with evrything yu say. however i think it's also bad that people associate the torys with being evil for example at my school we recently had a mock election to coincide with the real one and it was practically an insult to say to someone that they support conservative and it pissed me off when people had these stereotypes and stuff without actually knowin anything whatsoever. but yeh I know what you mean.

The lower classes (and yes, we have them too.) are right-wing...
Excuse me? Which mixed-up country do you live in? As far as I know, the only country in the world where any significant portion of the lower class is right-wing is the USA. The working class is socialist (or at least social democratic) everywhere else.

In twelve years of being a "Factory bum" working in manufacturing and construction, I've met exactly two (that's "2", as in a pair...) Socialists who weren't taking a paycheck directly from an AFL-CIO office anywhere near where the work is being done.

In two years of college, I've encountered more Socialists/Left-wing types who've never lifted a hammer or turned a wrench (or done work-that-gets-you-dirty-and-tired) than I can properly remember or count.

The very-wealthy are right wing because of their intellectual stances. The lower classes (and yes, we have them too.) are right-wing, because they can't (for the most part) afford to get the special-exemptions to heavy taxes used to finance the lifestyles of the lazy, the Incompetent, the tax-fattened hyenae that infest Government from top to bottom.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. It sounds like I pissed you off which wasn't my intention.

Taeo, there's nothing wrong with being a middle class socialist. Most of what we call the "middle class" is actually made up of wage earners - in other words, proletarians. The "middle class", objectively speaking, doesn't exist. It's simply the most well-off portion of the proletariat.

It's funny, Swimmingpool, I didn't know you were mainland chinese.
Here in the U.S., most of your Leftys (the local brand, still to the right of most of europe) are Middle-to-upper-Class, basically the same "Rich" they all want to soak.

Most working-class people here are to the right-side-of-the-aisle when they aren't utterly apathetic about politics.
China? Are differences in political opinion even allowed there? ;)

No I live in Ireland and the working class areas of the country consistently elect socialist representatives.

Your perceptions about "liberal blueblood elites" are well fuelled by the media, but are contradicted by the statistics. For example, in the 2004 election, 63% of those earning under $50,000 per year voted for Kerry (not socialist, but you've got to settle for him). I imagine that that percentage would be even higher if some of the poor were not baited by the abortion issue into voting Republican.

I find it hard to believe that most working class people in America are against shifting the income tax burden to the rich and against trade unions. You sure?

Excuse me? Which mixed-up country do you live in? As far as I know, the only country in the world where any significant portion of the lower class is right-wing is the USA. The working class is socialist (or at least social democratic) everywhere else.
I think Cadillac does live in the USA.

Whao.... SHOOTING the illegal immigrants? Yes, your ideas are far more radical than mine... In fact, your ideas are far more radical than, well many peoples. So I guess from your perspective we are all kind of mainstream. BTW, cause I'm curious, what kind of right winger? National Socialist? Fascist? Theocrat?

Oh, and Racist jokes made to be funny, not hitleriffic, are A-okay in my book.

IC: National Socialism, while an efficient system, is far too autocratic and anti-semitic for my liking, fascism falls under the same branch and I have no interest in theocracy, while a clever method to subdue your people with, I am an agnostic, thus preaching the word of a deity (or deities) would be hypocritical in the extreme.

However, I am glad to know someone is tolerant, you are the kind of liberal I like, the ones who actually have the courtesy to show the respect to those with different beliefs.

And about illegal immigrants, in England, we are slowly but surely running out of room, we need that room for ourselves (not the "white" people of England, all the people of England) and we can't have illegal immigrants swarming in on fishing boats. If you want to emigrate to England: do it LEGALLY or don't do it at all."


There's not much I can reply to this apart from. Why do you not live in Texas with a swastika tatooed on your forehead, shooting squirrels for kicks?

~~V


OoC: You think I'm a hick? A Nazi? Good god, you really are ignorant, aren't you, all your reply shows is a lack of tolerance towards other peoples beliefs which says alot about you being alot closer to Nazism than I will ever be

Ah, Irish... that's cool.

Most working-folks here are pissed at the Unions, because the Labour Movement's sold out so completely to the Government Employees. I've held Teamsters, IAM, and a few other Union cards, and in most cases, there's a huge difference between the rank-and-file, and the leadership politically. (remember, it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes, that really determines an election. Stalin's little tactic is alive and well in American Labour.)
The Unions in the U.S. have neutered themselves politically and are no more than a fundraising arm of the Democratic Party now-this isn't media hyperbole, this is a sad fact-there are a small number of "alternate unions" that occasionally try to challenge the AFL-CIO's monopoly on Labour politics, but they're either even-more-socialist (thus gaining no traction), or, they're crushed by the money-might of the Nationals.

The purpose of Unionizing is to protect the workers from exploitation. This is a fundamental here in the states, and one that's been ignored by the last couple generations of Lawyer-Leaders. The result is Union money being sent to candidates who, once-in-office, proceed to dismantle the very industries that supplied the jobs that made the unions who helped to elect them possible.

Environmentalism, Unilateral Free-trade-with-the-third-world (GATT), and a Union-friendly economy don't mix. One pushes industries out, the next gives them a place to go to, and the third? The third relies on Labour being economically valuable enough for things like Strikes to matter.

Blue-Collar workers don't have to fear automation, or improvement of processes, they have to fear outsourcing to places where raw bodies can be thrown at a problem for less than a day's wages.

That's what's happening, and it's happening with the goddamned American Unions' approval and support in many cases. In other cases, the Unions have partisaned themselves right into irrelevance, yet they still take a cut of the workers' wages to help finance the very bastards that are screwing them.

I used to be a Union Activist, Swimmingpool, I'd still be one, if the goddamned Unions were still doing what they're supposed to be doing, and working for the interests of the membership instead of the Leadership's privelages. Seeing inside the workings opens your eyes, it's kind of like being the Liberal who got mugged.

Psh.

There are more rich right wingers who did fuck-all to get where they are.

And yeah, we all know that the poor need vouchers for public schools and a lack of health care. :rolleyes: That's going to benefit them so much. Not to mention fewer homeless shelters and less affordable housing. Yep, that's what the poor need, they need to lack somewhere to live, the ability to get an education and the ability to see a doctor.
Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth. :(

No one takes you seriously if you're a leftwing activist and you arn't poor. A socialist middle class person? Don't be ridiculous.

But these days, the middle class are in the majority, so why amongst some people is it still seen as a crime to be vaguely well off?

As a British Socialist Lower-Middle Class teenager, this means quite a lot to me. I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

It's rather Mao-ist, the punishment of those seen as bourgeois. But being Middle Class doesn't automatically mean you're a torie, or taht you can't understand the concepts or the situations.

I'd like to get soem peoples opinions on this. Is it like this in other countries?

Do I need to explain the point I'm attempting to make more clearly?

Thank you.

~~V

I think part of it is the idea of "class" in the first place, even the ones trying to oppose "class" define themselves by it...

A military vet who is upset with war policy, is "Frowned" because he's not "supposed" to do that.

Middle-Class socialists are seen as not supposed to "Favor" this by the Maoists and Leninists.. (for some reason, those who are "well-off" have no part in the "revolution").

Thomas Paine, after hundreds of discourses in Paris on liberty and freedom, and natural rights is "hit upon" by the Revolutionaries for his opposition to their mindless slaughter of the aristocrats... (Why? Because he would dare to be of absolute principle upon where he stands).

The problem is, they take "Liberalism" just as Lenin took "Marxism" and how Neo-Cons take "Capitalism"... They only think "their class" belongs in the argument, and anyone outside of that "Class" is the enemy, because they want a "Class" war against the other "classes".... One must wonder their obession for class... (Especially amongst so-called leftist ideas of class elimination).. Appearantly this "elimination" is actual a form of genocide, as opposed to actual viable social revolution....

I pity all of them.

Okay a few things. Liberalism supports the middle classes and not the working classes. Don't touch it with a pole.

Next, don't worry about being from a middle class background, some of the greatest communists have been. It's not what class you're from, it's what class you're fighting for.

Also, the middle class is not the largest class. People these days are often encouraged to think they are middle class even if they aren't in an attempt to win them over from socialist groups to mainstream politics.

Finally, the working classes are frequently discouraged from thinking about politics so dont be suprised if you find a lot of middle class/ lower middle class socialists in any group you choose to join.

Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth. :(
Then what where you saying, as it is those things that the middle class left are trying to so 'arrogantly' provide?

To answer the thread's question:

It's a matter of characterization. I can only answer here, not being all that fluent in the class politics of europe and acknowledging that it would be different from country to country, county to county, town to town.

The reality here is that the working class and the poor don't have the time or luxury to be political. They have the sixty hours they work to get by and the time to hope that their family remembers them without resentment and any time left over is going to be used to relax, not go to rallies or write letters to congressmen or organize protests or circulate petitions. To paraphrase John Stewart, the lawn needs mowing-they don't have the time.

Both sides use this to thier advantage. Either way, thier lives are a struggle and shit compared to the upperclass. All you have to do is convince them that it's the other sides fault that their lives suck and if you just elect us it'll all get better.

Now-the uppermiddle class right deriding the uppermiddle class left-that makes perfect sense if you look at it. I mean aside from the fact that they are opponents. The UM right derides the concept of 'handouts' and chastizes those who would want a 'free ride.' "You just want my money cause you don't have it." But, what can they say to someone who has the money who realizes that the only reason they have that much money is because of the society that they live in creating a system that supports them and that society should not be judged on how much they have or how many 'bad people' they endorse the shooting of, but rather how we treat and provide for the least of its members? You can't say they just want your money, they have thier own. So you have to characterize them as 'niave' and deride them for having the audacity to want to help others without having to shoot someone to do it, call such a notion "arrogance." Tell the poor that 'they are trying to tell you how to live,' but don't you dare be specific, because then the bare lie will shine through.

The rich left put the rich right on the spot. They are willing to give back without shooting anyone or insisting that they pray to your god. It's either look selfish or lash out and hope no one notices that it's greed and short-sightedness.

Excuse me? Which mixed-up country do you live in? As far as I know, the only country in the world where any significant portion of the lower class is right-wing is the USA. The working class is socialist (or at least social democratic) everywhere else.

Erm... What? Do you not remember the unions back before the fall of the steel industry? Most working class people in America are Socialist, to a point. Especially said working classes in Pittsburgh/Monongahela area.

Did you know that Pittsburgh hasn't had a Republican mayor in over seventy years? And, did you know that the town of Homestead, Pennsylvania (where the famous Homestead Steelworks was located) is over 90% Democrat, and has been for over thirty years?

And then there's Allentown/Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Most of the steelworkers and workers in related industries voted (and continue to) vote Democrat. It's like this for most working class towns in America, unless you're in the "Deep South", where you get false "blue collar" idiots like Jeff Foxworthy.

Methinks you should look into this "significant portion of the working class is right-wing" stuff a little more thoroughly.

OoC: You think I'm a hick? A Nazi? Good god, you really are ignorant, aren't you, all your reply shows is a lack of tolerance towards other peoples beliefs which says alot about you being alot closer to Nazism than I will ever be[/QUOTE]

I wasn't serious. And I'm sorry if I don't tolerate the belief that we should be going around shooting people. And you may not actually be a Nazi, but you're certainly getting there.

And their's no way anyone can tolerate everyones beliefs, I mean, most people don't think it's acceptable to believe that all women deserve to die? If you tolearated that belief , you'd let them kill those women.

Tolerance has a limit. If everyone tolerated everything everyone else believed what would be the point of voting? Capaigning? Debating?

Most of the left-wing people I have known personally were very well off and highly educated types who were either arrogant in their assumption that "lower class" types desperately needed their protection, or who felt guilty because they realized in their heart of hearts that their wealth was handed to them with little effort on their part ... or both.
Hence the term "liberal elitist," that arrogant, smarther-than-thou type - I know too many of those types too, living in an *extremely* well-off section of NJ (co-incidentially a blue state).

*sigh* I wish there was a stronger sense of classic liberalism/libertarianism in the world.....

And their's no way anyone can tolerate everyones beliefs, I mean, most people don't think it's acceptable to believe that all women deserve to die? If you tolearated that belief , you'd let them kill those women.
Yeah, Dogmatic Toleration is rather contradictory in nature.

Tolerance has a limit. If everyone tolerated everything everyone else believed what would be the point of voting? Capaigning? Debating?
Hence why I like Prudential Toleration.....

IC:
And about illegal immigrants, in England, we are slowly but surely running out of room, we need that room for ourselves (not the "white" people of England, all the people of England) and we can't have illegal immigrants swarming in on fishing boats.



You might not realise it, but arguing in favour of lebensraum somewhat undermines your "I'm not a Nazi" statement.

Not all of the United Kingdom is "full up" despite what the BNP lobby are trying to tell us. I live in Scotland and I find it bewildering the people here who will try and argue that immigration will destroy us all. In fact, we have an aging population, and a declining population, so we need MORE immigration if anything. The idea that boats and lorries full of foreigners are queueing up to cross our borders (steal our jobs, rape our women, spit upon our beliefs, burn our churches, etc.) if we even consider having a relaxed attitude towards immigration is ridiculous.

While you say "not the white people of England", it's good to know that you at least think that racism is bad, but generally when people refer to the "English" they are talking about a group of white people (maybe the odd few darker faces here and there, but not TOO many, good God no...). The idea of English blood and ancestry doesn't lend itself very much to multiculturalism. If it's a matter of learning the language, any immigrant can learn that. If it's a matter of religion, then I'm afraid that millions of atheists who thought they lived in a secular society will be kicked out too. If it's a matter of physically where you were born, then what are we to do with people who happen to have been born on holiday? Or in their rich parents' second home in the Algarve?

And their's no way anyone can tolerate everyones beliefs, I mean, most people don't think it's acceptable to believe that all women deserve to die? If you tolearated that belief , you'd let them kill those women.
Bad Logic. I tolerate the belief, but not the action.

Hence the term "liberal elitist," that arrogant, smarther-than-thou type - I know too many of those types too, living in an *extremely* well-off section of NJ (co-incidentially a blue state).

*sigh* I wish there was a stronger sense of classic liberalism/libertarianism in the world.....
Be patient. Those sort of things have a way of cycling back around. :)

On the class/political standpoint issue, I think its important to look at factors like education and the media. If someone's so poorly educated that they think they will get an unbiased, reasonable version of the news from the Sun, the Record, the Daily Mail, etc. then they're almost certainly going to gravitate to the right, despite it not being in the best interests of the working class. The reason being that most left-wingers are described by such "newspapers" as revolutionary violent anarchists, who selfishly wish to do nothing and be paid for it for the rest of their lives.

As no corporation wants to lend its vast resources of capital to something with an even slightly anti-corporate outlook, it's a very effective propaganda system.

As no corporation wants to lend its vast resources of capital to something with an even slightly anti-corporate outlook, it's a very effective propaganda system.
Defeintely. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on media manipulation? The media is more capable of putting out good right-wing propaganda than any government.

Defeintely. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on media manipulation? The media is more capable of putting out good right-wing propaganda than any government.
Noam Chomsky! Jeeze! :rolleyes:

Defeintely. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on media manipulation? The media is more capable of putting out good right-wing propaganda than any government.

I haven't read very much Chomsky, unfortunately. What I have read has tended to just be "bits" from a couple of his books which were really interesting, but I don't know enough to talk intelligently about what he's written.

I am from a wealthy middle class background, but I am quite socially liberal.

I was discusted at Michael Howard's tory campaign in the election. He was taking everything out on asylum seekers and travellers, and was not focusing on real issues that we face as a nation. I am a believer in tolerance of all cultures, so long as they don't infrigne on another person's rights. I have to live in this country with people of other cultures, and I would see a big difference between me and the working classes, but obviously couldn't deport them for the fact that most of them were born here.

Michael Howard was also in favour of building more prisons. While I believe that criminals should be punished I also believe that it is necessary to address the root causes of crime (eg. lack of education, prospects, poor parenting etc.). A look back at history should tell you that some of the biggest reductions in crime were brought about due to the introduction of effective social programs, eg. free education. free healthcare, and social security. I wonder what sort of a society we would be in now if the government in the 1870s decided to spend the money on more prisons instead of on the introduction of free education.

You will find that many of the people who vote tory nowdays are from the less educated or lower middle classes, where they tend not to think things through but rather jump to gut reactions in the belief that the answer to every problem is to get a heavier blunt object. Most educated middle class people I know either vote Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

I personally am a supporter of Blair's Labour government.

My Compass score:

Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

IC: National Socialism, while an efficient system, is far too autocratic and anti-semitic for my liking, fascism falls under the same branch and I have no interest in theocracy, while a clever method to subdue your people with, I am an agnostic, thus preaching the word of a deity (or deities) would be hypocritical in the extreme.

However, I am glad to know someone is tolerant, you are the kind of liberal I like, the ones who actually have the courtesy to show the respect to those with different beliefs.

And about illegal immigrants, in England, we are slowly but surely running out of room, we need that room for ourselves (not the "white" people of England, all the people of England) and we can't have illegal immigrants swarming in on fishing boats. If you want to emigrate to England: do it LEGALLY or don't do it at all."





OoC: You think I'm a hick? A Nazi? Good god, you really are ignorant, aren't you, all your reply shows is a lack of tolerance towards other peoples beliefs which says alot about you being alot closer to Nazism than I will ever be


dont know quite which version of england you live in. in my england, or specifically in halifax in yorkshire, thier is plenty of room. and if we did somehow run out of room, we could just build upwards. immigrants dont "swarm" here, anyway. anyway out of interest are you one of the "people" who thinks their is somehow a limited number of jobs and that immigrants steal them? but then argues that all immigrants just live off the state?
and national socialism wasnt efficient at all. most of the ministries overlapped with party organisations, and the party organisations overlapped too, so schools, for example, had vast amounts of contradictory orders because the education minster, propaganda, ss and several other groups all thought it theri responsibility. it was hideously inefficient in reality. and as for shooting immigrants, dont be an imbecile.

and you are being intolerant of that persons intolerance towards your intolerance of immigrants, arent you?

edit bit: i got -8.52 economically, and -8.82 socially for my political compass score.

No one takes you seriously if you're a leftwing activist and you arn't poor. A socialist middle class person? Don't be ridiculous.

But these days, the middle class are in the majority, so why amongst some people is it still seen as a crime to be vaguely well off?

As a British Socialist Lower-Middle Class teenager, this means quite a lot to me. I don't wnat to be scorned because my parents don't struggle to get by, yet I dare to be leftwing. My opinion is no less valid because of it.

It's rather Mao-ist, the punishment of those seen as bourgeois. But being Middle Class doesn't automatically mean you're a torie, or taht you can't understand the concepts or the situations.

I'd like to get soem peoples opinions on this. Is it like this in other countries?

Do I need to explain the point I'm attempting to make more clearly?

Thank you.

~~V

Because revolutions that destroy dictatorial regimes tend to come from middle class intellectuals. If the militant party in power gets the working class to stop listening to intellectuals then they're pretty safe. If working people respect knowledge and learning then they are likely to listen to those who know that they're being screwed. That's why Hitler was so vehemently anti-intellectual.

Read anything written by the South American revolutionaries. Their leadership was mostly poets, proffesors and other intellectuals. The only reason they tend to get overthrown so much is that the US likes to go back there and set up military dictatorships.

Noam Chomsky! Jeeze!
Believe it or not, I even like to read things that I don't always agree with. :rolleyes: