NationStates Jolt Archive

sounds like an essay question I know but I figure this will get a nice shouting match going and will be interesting to horrendously generalize whole nations opinions on this.

me trying to sound intelligent:

The sociaty of the 21st century is enormously different to the one we had during the 17th century or even the 1990's with unparalleled vigor we have seen free movement between income groups and the creation of a society aimed more at meritocracy and freedom from exploitation than ever before. (an example of this will be the new E.U rules for a 40 hour maximum working week)

However despite the boom inequality is also on the rise with minorities such as gypsy's left behind still unable to integrate. Current immigration issues are also causing a stir with friction in cultural attitudes creating an underclass with almost no social mobility. what say you then is our sociaty still plagued by class?

tl;dr

I think class conflict is not irrelevant however it seems to of become more a struggle to make sure that groups are not left behind whilst maintaining the ability for one to succeed and fall based on their own merits

No. Just leave this subject alone. Now.

No. Just leave this subject alone. Now.

but I want to pit the hardcore socialists against the hardcore conservatives :(

but I want to pit the hardcore socialists against the hardcore conservatives :(

*sighs* Okay, Capitalism is wrong and if Private enterprise really was outlawed, then no one would be any richer than anyone else and we could all stand in a circle and sing kumbaya all day. Secret police could kill racists and that problem would be solved, too.

There. Happy?

Yes, we must crush Band Class mercilessly.

Class war in what sense? What classes in particular? If you're referring to Marx's notion of class war, I think some of his ideas no longer apply.

We live in a world where the proletariat is incredibly weak/small in the West. The West is now mainly service economies, and the exploited peoples of 3rd World Countries (though there are the absurdly wealthy in these countries, and "proletariats" in non-3rd World countries). There, the labor is cheaper, and the people have little opportunity to protest. At the same time, these people, regardless of discontent, don't have the power to combat the international system, in part because the local regimes tend to be so oppressive. Basically, I don't think a Marxian class war can happen at this point. Almost everyone in the West is an owner of their own production, or at least is inundated enough with wealth or consumer goods to not care for Revolution. Really, it tends to be the educated elitists that push for revolution in the name of the "poor and oppressed". But frankly, when you're trying to get food to survive, Revolution doesn't mean shit.

This is not to say that there won't be internal conflicts or problems based on economics, but I don't think a major shift is possible in the way of one class dominating another.

ermmm...

blah blah blah seizing means of production blah blah, waffle waffle proletariat waffle waffle.

It's as relevant as you want to make it. If you want to base your whole life around the idea it exists - go you! (I'm thinking John Prescott)

EDIT: It appears I was beaten to the waffle front

Well Socialism= epicfail
and without andras here for us to troll, what's the point of this discussion?

Well Socialism= epicfail
and without andras here for us to troll, what's the point of this discussion?

I COULD play the Troll, but I'm REALLY lazy. Sorry.

I COULD play the Troll, but I'm REALLY lazy. Sorry.

It just wouldn't be the same. Because he was commie to the core, very stuborn and was so easy to get him to go on a rant it was laughable.

I almost miss him.

Yay class warfare! Phys Ed vs. Home Ec! :D

It just wouldn't be the same. Because he was commie to the core, very stuborn and was so easy to get him to go on a rant it was laughable.

I almost miss him.

Ooooo, ya touched a nerve. You don't think I am?! My name is Dondolastan!

Not a great typist, though.

The discussion of anything with somekind of connection to socialism isn't the same without Andaras.

Yay class warfare! Phys Ed vs. Home Ec! :D

Pfft. Physics will crush you all. Three words: Frickin' Laser Beams.

The discussion of anything with somekind of connection to socialism isn't the same without Andaras.

Ya. It was so easy to troll him.

To answer the op:

Class today is an obsolete concept. When there is no actual barrier to accruing wealth save one's capability and commitment, plus or minus a certain level of luck, the old concept of there being a privileged or monied class, or in Marxist terms "owners of the facilites of production", ceases to be relevant.

In addition, Marx and Engel's concept of continuous exploitation of the Proletariat has proven to be in itself in error. Instead, what occurred was a watershed in economic thinking, when it was realized that the larger the consumer base, and the greater the buying power of that base, the greater the capacity for wealth generation by selling to that base. Simply put, exploitation of the workers is in fact counterproductive in the medium to long term; if, instead, they are permitted a reasonable wage sufficient to allow them a comfortable living, they then become consumers of your products, eading to far greater profits.

Finally, "left behind" groups tend to be one of two types: those which have not yet integrated, and those not willing to integrate. Integration of new migrants takes an average of three generations, and can take more, especially if the migrants are visibly different, either physically or by dress code, from the host populace. Attempts to integrate them more quickly are usually counterproductive, and often encourage such traits as ghettoization and feelings of community isolation, both causing a prolongation of the problem.

Those not willing to integrate, on the other hand, are unlikely to ever do so of their own accord. These are almost invariably cultural groups that see themselves as oppressed, superior, different and/or any of the above. For these groups, integration is viewed as destruction; to be part of the larger set, the subset must be destroyed. Whether this is true or not is really irrelevant, as the perception is close enough to it's own reality. The only aspect that can be dealt with is the purely economical - special projects and systems can be emplaced to assist these groups on a group-by-group basis. If you are not willing to do this, they will likely form a kind of permanent underclass, as their society acts as a preventer of wealth.

there is certainly class conflict. im not what is exactly meant by "class warfare"--is it some kind of technical marxist term?

but what is good for the working class is not necessarily good for the upper class. conflict of interest at least.

Yes. Service workers are no less a member of the proletariat than a worker in a factory. Greater affluence among the workers doesn't at all buy off an impulse towards class conflict. Even the relatively affluent can rise up to rebellion.

The workers and students of the 60s New Left were far more affluent than their parent's generation. But they were no less inclined to join socialist movements in the US and Western Europe. And real income for people in the United States has been stagnant ever since. From a purely material perspective, there are probably more factors that would drive a person to a militant class conflict position now than there were then.

I could go on a long rant here.
But seeing as I have been flying under the radar unnoticed,
I have no wish to incur the wrath of .."Them"..

*looks around*
Where IS AP when you need him the most? ,)

Ya. It was so easy to troll him.

I only got here when he was at the end of his lifespan. Which is sad.

None of Marx's ideas were ever relevant.

Class today is an obsolete concept. When there is no actual barrier to accruing wealth save one's capability and commitment, plus or minus a certain level of luck, the old concept of there being a privileged or monied class, or in Marxist terms "owners of the facilites of production", ceases to be relevant.
So not true.

Its interesting that the rich-poor gap is getting even bigger.

I would like to see a classwar, it would get me psyched, but I don't see it happening, especially when the people that are getting exploited are blissfully unaware of the fact.

Really, the middle class always start the revolution, and they are the first to betray it when they don't like the early results. People are selfish.

To answer the op:

Class today is an obsolete concept. When there is no actual barrier to accruing wealth save one's capability and commitment, plus or minus a certain level of luck, the old concept of there being a privileged or monied class, or in Marxist terms "owners of the facilites of production", ceases to be relevant.

In addition, Marx and Engel's concept of continuous exploitation of the Proletariat has proven to be in itself in error. Instead, what occurred was a watershed in economic thinking, when it was realized that the larger the consumer base, and the greater the buying power of that base, the greater the capacity for wealth generation by selling to that base. Simply put, exploitation of the workers is in fact counterproductive in the medium to long term; if, instead, they are permitted a reasonable wage sufficient to allow them a comfortable living, they then become consumers of your products, eading to far greater profits.

Finally, "left behind" groups tend to be one of two types: those which have not yet integrated, and those not willing to integrate. Integration of new migrants takes an average of three generations, and can take more, especially if the migrants are visibly different, either physically or by dress code, from the host populace. Attempts to integrate them more quickly are usually counterproductive, and often encourage such traits as ghettoization and feelings of community isolation, both causing a prolongation of the problem.

Those not willing to integrate, on the other hand, are unlikely to ever do so of their own accord. These are almost invariably cultural groups that see themselves as oppressed, superior, different and/or any of the above. For these groups, integration is viewed as destruction; to be part of the larger set, the subset must be destroyed. Whether this is true or not is really irrelevant, as the perception is close enough to it's own reality. The only aspect that can be dealt with is the purely economical - special projects and systems can be emplaced to assist these groups on a group-by-group basis. If you are not willing to do this, they will likely form a kind of permanent underclass, as their society acts as a preventer of wealth.

I would disagree. People are being exploited across the world right now, and it's not because they refuse to integrate, but because the system doesn't want them to. If they are the invisible hands of capitalism producing shit that makes us happy, most people are fine with that. Not every corporation exports its atrocities, but a fair enough number do for your argument above to be true. There is a 3rd group, and those are the people that the West doesn't give a shit about. I mean imagine how horrible it would be if they got fair wages and we had to pay more for everything? Most people can easily ignore ongoing inequality as long as its not happening in front of them and it benefits their lives.

And the people in such situations have little opportunity. Some make it out and live better lives, but many don't. The lack of money means people must work to survive. The work creates a lack of time. And a lack of time means less enjoyment and less time for education. Less education means less paying work. For many, their kids don't even get to have an education because they need to work. It's a cycle that won't be fixed in 3 generations naturally, but could be fixed in one or two if some real change were to occur.

Yes. Service workers are no less a member of the proletariat than a worker in a factory. Greater affluence among the workers doesn't at all buy off an impulse towards class conflict. Even the relatively affluent can rise up to rebellion.

The workers and students of the 60s New Left were far more affluent than their parent's generation. But they were no less inclined to join socialist movements in the US and Western Europe. And real income for people in the United States has been stagnant ever since. From a purely material perspective, there are probably more factors that would drive a person to a militant class conflict position now than there were then.

Not true. The "workers and students" of the New Left didn't have the power to completely revolutionize Western society as a whole. They did some positive changes, and that is without a doubt admirable and worthy of respect, but they weren't the kind of revolution that Marx talks about. But then, no one really knows what kind of revolution Marx really wanted.

But in the end, the New Left of the 60s only awake a rabid, but dormant conservatism/reactionary front. The fact that the Republicans have basically dominated this country for almost 30 years up until about now, is rather telling. Even Clinton kind of had that "Southern charm", and when it comes to economic policy, was only marginally different from the Republicans.

And like I said earlier, just because a few intellectuals are raging about on the evils of capitalism, it doesn't mean anything will actually change when so many people are content enough with their work and mindless hours spent in front of a computer/television screen.

The rich-poor grap is increasing, and the children of the small group of super-rich at the top have extraordinarily higher opportunites and easier lives than those from poor families. The impact of the social class you are born into still has a dramatic impact on life chances and life experience. Class war, though? No. Communist countries became a destructive monster parallelled only by Nazism, and as a consequence Marxism has by association lost any legitimacy as a serious ideology, removing talk of class from most discourse outside of left-wing social science. In advanced capitalist economies, the poor have been bought off with welfare benefits, feeling that they now have some stake in the existing system. As globalization erodes these benefits in the 'race to the bottom' in wages and service provision, and the rich-poor gap continues to soar, large-scale class conflict may possibly re-emerge, though it is always difficult to talk in definites about what the future may hold.

My God. I just made a serious post.

So not true.

Elucidate. A mere opposition is not an argument.

Class today is an obsolete concept.

except for having shit-tons of predictive and explanatory power and all...

except for having shit-tons of predictive and explanatory power and all...
yes but the classic class structure no longer applies well. we need a new analysis that reflects current conditions in the west.

yes but the classic class structure no longer applies well. we need a new analysis that reflects current conditions in the west.

I'm having a few problems on the Zombie Marx project. I keep getting interupted by Zombie Hitler. It'll be another few months I'm afraid before he's back up and about.

Elucidate. A mere opposition is not an argument.

Other people have provided my argument for me. But yours was completely wrong, so I felt the need to offer such an opinion.

yes but the classic class structure no longer applies well. we need a new analysis that reflects current conditions in the west.

well, broadly speaking the marxist analysis is still pretty good. especially if you bring on the fine tunings that have been developed academically but haven't made it into the popular consciousness.

I read this book for my Anthro101 class freshman year, Paul Fussel's Class. It might have been the greatest academic book ever written - it was essentually a couple hundred pages of this guy Fussel detailing what was low class (purple clothing and bowling balls in your living room), what was middle class (Egyptian art and short drive ways), and what was upper class (crew neck sweaters and old Fords). It was absolutely hilarious. Definitely recommend it.

Class today is an obsolete concept. When there is no actual barrier to accruing wealth save one's capability and commitment, plus or minus a certain level of luck, the old concept of there being a privileged or monied class, or in Marxist terms "owners of the facilites of production", ceases to be relevant.
So we don't live in a world with unequal opportunity, no minority owns the majority of productive means, nor do the majority of humans have to sell their labour to make a living?

Good to know.

Simply put, exploitation of the workers is in fact counterproductive in the medium to long term; if, instead, they are permitted a reasonable wage sufficient to allow them a comfortable living, they then become consumers of your products, eading to far greater profits.
I agree that 21st century capitalism is markedly different from the 19th century industrial capitalism Marx critiques, but being "permitted" to earn a "reasonable wage sufficient to allow.., a comfortable living" is hardly an end of exploitation.

Especially when we consider that a vast amount (the majority?) of waged workers in the world do not earn a reasonable wage.


None of Marx's ideas were ever relevant.
Pish and nonsense.

Even those who entirely disagree wth Marx's analysis (and I myself by no means fully agree with ol' Karl) must recognise the relevancy of his critique of 19th century industrial capitalism and, moreover, that his thoughts and legacy are perhaps the most influential of all 20th century political theory.

It's not theft when you steal from work.

It's commandeering supplies needed for class warfare.

yes we must crush all those people with more money than me. then they must give their money's to me..
i suppose i'm more of an aggressive bank than a socialist, ho speaking of banks did you guys hear of another one going into administration?
(ha got ya, i'm only joking i have no idea what the banks are doing, maybe investing in the funeral directors business or something)

"Class war" is a uniquely socialist and communist concept anyway, I thought?

Within a contemporary British milieu, I suspect few could argue for the absence of the traditional "class structure"; it has, however, mutated from an economic to a cultural heirachy, and, to my mind, is more of a divisive force than ever before.

I think that there is a definite bias towards people with less money even today -- however, people can more easily move upward than they could in the past via education and smart investments -- aka "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps".

well, broadly speaking the marxist analysis is still pretty good. especially if you bring on the fine tunings that have been developed academically but haven't made it into the popular consciousness.
are there still real marxists around? people who think that his (bullshit) predictions about how things will play out in the future make sense?

class analysis definitely has a place in current thought. all you have to do is look at the house republicans jumping on the opportunity to crush the auto workers union via the auto industry bailout to see that class warfare is alive and well.

but the whole proletariat getting together to overthrow the government and establish some kind of socialist/communist paradise is just stupid. its not going to happen and wouldnt be a good idea if it were to happen.

Lou Dobbs on CNN has been running a show for over a year now called "The War on the Middle Class." Although I dislike Lou Dobbs and his show for utilizing this topic as a springboard for anti-immigration and other regressive, republican policies, he certainly hit the nail on the head with the title of the show.

To me, the war on the middle class has been an economic war, which started with the Bush tax policies benefitting only the affluent, and has ended with the nationalization of the debts of the banks and financial institutions, with the middle class footing the bill.

I think that this situation is going to be corrected in the near future, but it has been a "class war" in the economic sense indeed -- with the majority of the americans (in the middle class) losing their shirts and homes in the process of subsidizing the top 1-3% as well as the banking, financial and corporate institutions (and Ponzi schemers like Madoff).

It is my wish that we could all live together without war of any kind.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/77498/?page=entire

While the concept of class has blurred slightly since Marx's day, it is still relevant, and the blurring has not especially been between lower and upper class, but rather middle and upper class, and the middle class more often views its interests as compatible with the upper class than the lower class anyway.

While the concept of class has blurred slightly since Marx's day, it is still relevant, and the blurring has not especially been between lower and upper class, but rather middle and upper class, and the middle class more often views its interests as compatible with the upper class than the lower class anyway.
Taken from the article at the website posted in the post prior to yours:

"Conservative policies have opened the wealth gap to Depression levels; put workers at the total mercy of their employers; and deprived the working and middle classes of access to education, home ownership, health care, capital, legal redress, and their expectations of a better future for their kids.

You can only get away with blaming this on gays and Mexicans for so long before people get wise to the game. And as the primaries are making clear: Americans are getting wise.

Our current plutocratic nobility may soon face the same stark choice its English, French, and Russian predecessors did. They can keep their heads and take proactive steps to close the gap between themselves and the common folk (choosing evolution over revolution, as JFK counsels above).

Or they can keep insisting stubbornly on their elite prerogatives, until that gap widens to the point where the revolution comes -- and they will lose their heads entirely.

Right now, all we're asking of our modern-day corporate courtiers is that they accept a tax cut repeal on people making over $200K a year, raise the minimum wage, give us decent health care and the right to unionize, and call a halt to their ridiculous "death tax" boondoggle.

In retrospect, their historic forebears might have counseled them to take this deal: their headless ghosts bear testimony to the idea that's it's better to give in and lose a little skin early than dig in and lose your whole hide later on."

Industrial labor, especially low-skill, has historically been prone to radicalization because of the low barriers to replacing any given worker and the heightened insecurity resulting from that and the mass of individuals interacting on the factory floor. Other fields, such as agriculture, service and (especially) information tend to have a lessened state of tension--although agriculture tends to lead towards its own sorts of radicalization, albeit one that is totally different from urban socialism.

Information tends to be the most robust, as the invested skills required to function are far too great, and grow over time, so there is significant incentive on the part of the employer to retain and train the individual. As for agriculture, much of the process is equally specialization heavy (although not all), and provides two percent of the population with a high skill, high personal investment career. Industrial style farming cannot develop a radical base as the populations involved are usually transitory migrant communities who go where the harvests are occurring, they do not have the opportunity to congeal into an active "class", and thus cannot inspire class conflict.

While not the case in western Europe, where industrial labor did actually break through the fifty percent point, in the US, industrial labor peaked during the Second World War with under forty percent of the population, and has since been overtaken by both service and information.

http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol5_No2/imgs/Image6.gif

Service, while displaying certain characteristics of industrial labor, especially the easily replaced worker, does not mass laborers into one small location, and thus inhibits radicalization. The population is too diffuse for the virus that is radicalization to take off.

Once we do talk about that amorphous entity that is class, we also need to realize that the laborer class, the proletariat so to say, is stratified up and down, and is a decidedly non-unified entity. So long as the non-industrial segments of the labor force are dominant, internal revolution is not possible.

Vaguely. TADA!

None of Marx's ideas were ever relevant.....

"Confidently said young Luke'

But think about the striking workers being beaten up by hired thugs or police.....Where? In China, Russia, the Phillipines or in your own country.

Think about the shambling alcoholic that will beinvisible to your eyes unless you choose to notice him

Think about the single parent trying to live on a basic wage while bringing up the kids.

Think about the indigineous in your own country, often doing it hard.

Think about the hospitals, schools and libraries what your governmnet would cheerfully neglect if the people working for them and committed citizen didn't constantly monitor.

Oh yes, class exists. Historical materialism, one of Marx's theories that each economic model carries within it the seeds of the economic paradigm that will supersede it also has yet to be disproven. Capitalism did supersede feudalism. Socialism (of a sort) did supersede Capitalism - in the sense that the welfare state, universal health care and education etc replaced a 19th century economic model rooted in The Industrial Revolution where workers worked 12 hour shifts and died from TB in early adulthood. Our lifestyles would appear like those of the upper classes to their eyes.
True, the proletariat does not own or control the means of production. Perhaps, however, this is a work in progress. A managerial class has emerged that controls much of that but the ownership is still in the hands of government or corporations that are owned by a small group of shareholders.

While Capitalism has proven quite resilient and has been able to accommodate many demands of the socialists while being essentially capitalist, the class war is still being fought.

What is out of date is Marx's belief that a Communist party can act as the vehicle of change. The structure and nature of Communist parties prevent revolutionary change from taking place because the party elite invariably succumbs to the temptations of power and wealth....... Putin and the Chinese Communist Party being wonderful examples of this.

Real change is mainly "bottom up" and not top down. Those who build viable co-operatives and collectives and can slowly get them to expand to challenge the corporations are the ones who most successfully wage the class war that may ultimately triumph."

Here endeth the Anarcho-Syndicalist sermon.

Vaguely. TADA!

and so it was Yootopia ended the great debate, truely we are honoured by your presence.
:tongue:

Service, while displaying certain characteristics of industrial labor, especially the easily replaced worker, does not mass laborers into one small location, and thus inhibits radicalization. The population is too diffuse for the virus that is radicalization to take off.

Once we do talk about that amorphous entity that is class, we also need to realize that the laborer class, the proletariat so to say, is stratified up and down, and is a decidedly non-unified entity. So long as the non-industrial segments of the labor force are dominant, internal revolution is not possible.
You are right, however any movement starts with a voice before unification. If (and this is a big if) someone were to step up and start bitching, someone with the charisma and money to do so in a way that appeals to the working classes, radicalization would start and you would see the people begin to break down those barriers themselves.
And I do have to say, even though the industrial segment is the least, that is always the group most able and willing to do violence. If someone in an it office gets busted for bullshit people rumor, in a mill that will cause action.

no war is relevant. the kind of world we all have to live in, is.

'class' is an affliction of the mind. to have infighting between economic casts, one first has to establish them. this to my thinking is a very bad idea.

of course there ARE those who see themselves, do to accumulation of SYMBOLIC value, as somehow 'above' the rest of us. personally i see anyone who doesn't learn how to wipe their own ass, because they can hire someone else to do it for them, as inherently BELOW the rest of us. perhaps that's just me.

I like George Orwell's take on this. This is from "Homage to Catalonia":
"I have no particular love for the idealized 'worker' as he appears in the bourgeois Communist's mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

I think when people repudiate Marx's ideas, they are mostly thinking about that one big one.

You know, the whole demise of the capitalist society.

I think when people repudiate Marx's ideas, they are mostly thinking about that one big one.

You know, the whole demise of the capitalist society.
Problem is (for Marx or his detractors, depending on how you see it) he doesn't make any firm prediction as to capitalism's end, and indeed notes that it is a system that can recover from serious downturns, and problems with workers.

me trying to sound intelligent:

The sociaty of the 21st century is enormously different to the one we had during the 17th century or even the 1990's with unparalleled vigor we have seen free movement between income groups and the creation of a society aimed more at meritocracy and freedom from exploitation than ever before. (an example of this will be the new E.U rules for a 40 hour maximum working week)

Learning how to spell "society", or how to use punctuation, could help sounding intelligent.


Anyway:
there's no big difference between '90s society and '00s society, at least in Europe and USA. The trend leading to the current structuration of society started about with Reagan and Thatcher (sharp rise of the income divide).

Yes, our society are still strongly class-based, and the class divides have only become stronger. After WW2 the West experienced a strong movement between classes (childs of the lower classes becoming mid- and upper-class through higher level of education). Today, this movement has stopped, and the mid-classes are being pushed back into the lower classes.

As for agriculture, much of the process is equally specialization heavy (although not all), and provides two percent of the population with a high skill, high personal investment career. Industrial style farming cannot develop a radical base as the populations involved are usually transitory migrant communities who go where the harvests are occurring, they do not have the opportunity to congeal into an active "class", and thus cannot inspire class conflict.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Organizing

It isn't difficult to organize migrant workers, though it is more difficult to keep them in the organization than workers who stay in one place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle

# Labor (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.

# Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).


Can some define the Middle class for me. Whether in your country or where ever? Point at one. If I lined up people and told you there backgrounds could you tell me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle

# Labor (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.

# Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).


Can some define the Middle class for me. Whether in your country or where ever? Point at one. If I lined up people and told you there backgrounds could you tell me?

Culturally or economically? There are definitions, within Britain for the economic "middle class", however, as cultural entity, is far more nebulous, nuanced, varied, and rarely coincides with the economic definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle

# Labor (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.

# Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).


Can some define the Middle class for me. Whether in your country or where ever? Point at one. If I lined up people and told you there backgrounds could you tell me?
The idea of the middle class is a very difficult thing to pin down, and there have been a number of approaches to measuring this. Look up sociology in Wikipedia, then measurements for class.
Even defining wealth can be a very difficult task too.
If you look up stratification as well that could help you.

Well said both Mad hatters in jeans and The blessed Chris. If you can't even tell who one is then how can I make "war" against them. I think class warfare / struggle is on the way out if not already gone.

Well said both Mad hatters in jeans and The blessed Chris. If you can't even tell who one is then how can I make "war" against them. I think class warfare / struggle is on the way out if not already gone.

Well ol Karl Marx said, the Middle classes would shrink (he wasn't really concerned with them), and the lower classes would rise up and replace the Upper classes. At the time of writing Europe was in a fair bit of trouble, and to be fair working conditions were atrocious. Now his ideas aren't directly useful at least in the UK, as it's just so dated piece of theory.

Furthermore he made assumptions that people are predetermined in their classes, (at his time, maybe but not now) that the lower classes just take this lying down, which is not true. People are not static pieces on a chessboard they move and think and make their own decisions.

At least that's what i can recall from studying Sociology.

Learning how to spell "society", or how to use punctuation, could help sounding intelligent.


Anyway:
there's no big difference between '90s society and '00s society, at least in Europe and USA. The trend leading to the current structuration of society started about with Reagan and Thatcher (sharp rise of the income divide).

Yes, our society are still strongly class-based, and the class divides have only become stronger. After WW2 the West experienced a strong movement between classes (childs of the lower classes becoming mid- and upper-class through higher level of education). Today, this movement has stopped, and the mid-classes are being pushed back into the lower classes.

Particularly this point

Today, this movement has stopped, and the mid-classes are being pushed back into the lower classes.

I think some of that is true. I think a lot of the "Middle Class" assuming I am one problem are "bad luck" for lack of a better word. The "man" was not keeping them down it was belief in the system. That happened to turn out in the end after a long, long good run, poorly.

Particularly this point

Today, this movement has stopped, and the mid-classes are being pushed back into the lower classes.

I think some of that is true. I think a lot of the "Middle Class" assuming I am one problem are "bad luck" for lack of a better word. The "man" was not keeping them down it was belief in the system. That happened to turn out in the end after a long, long good run, poorly.

I couldn't comment upon the economic and cultural conditions in the US, but if anything, the lower classes are being isolated in the UK, from both their upper and middle class counterparts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Organizing

It isn't difficult to organize migrant workers, though it is more difficult to keep them in the organization than workers who stay in one place.

Did I say anything else? Organizing, from my point of view, is a long-term process. Not merely saying "You're in a union, congratulations".

And, of all the groups out there, the Wobblies are probably amongst the least relevant.

I don't think anyone is championing the lower classes problems or causes in the USA really, maybe this new guy we will see. I don't know what it is like in the U.K. but do you feel like the upper classes are conspiring against them? I think the upper calls care solely about themselves over here occasionally even bending down to scoop one of us up.

You are right, however any movement starts with a voice before unification. If (and this is a big if) someone were to step up and start bitching, someone with the charisma and money to do so in a way that appeals to the working classes, radicalization would start and you would see the people begin to break down those barriers themselves.

Now you're starting to sound like a Leninist...

But, no, a centralized radical is not going to galvanize the non-industrial segments of the population for a whole host of reasons, but the central one being that people respond to the conditions I described because they are in close contact with others who are experiencing similar privations.

I'd be stunned if a vocal complainer even got air time, American media especially seeks to not offend, so it hews as close to the center-line of politics as it can.


And I do have to say, even though the industrial segment is the least, that is always the group most able and willing to do violence. If someone in an it office gets busted for bullshit people rumor, in a mill that will cause action.

Sounds very...lumpenproletaerish.

I couldn't comment upon the economic and cultural conditions in the US, but if anything, the lower classes are being isolated in the UK, from both their upper and middle class counterparts.
I, speaking as a firmly middle-class white kid from a privileged background, would entirely agree.