At last we agree on something, Alice. Indeed, if we say that the only
definition that is valid is our own personal definitions we have
degenerated into a vagueness that makes not only analysis and
application of theory impossible, but simple discussion of the matter
impossible. One might just as well say that they know that they are
working class because they feel it in their heart. And that, by the way,
is a very common frustration of mine. I can be talking to someone who
starts spouting something nonsensical and when I ask for clarification I
am told, I feel it in my heart. I suppose that is another way of saying,
it is a completely personal subjective impression for me. That is a
signal to end the discussion because it does not recognize objective
reality. So far, I have not run into that too much concerning what is
the working class, but if people did start to say that the working class
is what I feel in my heart then how could I possibly discuss anything
having to do with class dynamics with them?
On 8/27/2016 4:37 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
If we do not, can not, will not agree on some sort of common definition, at least a basic one, then all further conversation and discussion is pointless and impossible, because we won’t even remotely be talking about the same thing.
So many things in your ad hoc definition need their own definitions.
What is necessity?
What constitutes living as opposed to existing or surviving?
Is survival a viable reward for the working class?
What constitutes work?
How much freedom will your definition allow in choosing what kind of work one will do?
A surgeon works. Is he working class? He has to work to live and to pay back all those student loans.
But I don’t think he’d consider himself working class.
On Aug 27, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Well, the answer is that we each should hold our own personal definition. My definition is someone who *must* work to provide for himself (or herself), as opposed to someone who does not need towork, but perhaps does anyway; nor someone who doesn't work and still survives.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:03 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
Hi all,
No doubt, trying to define what is the working class is not going to be easy. One could argue that it means earning less than a certain income, let's say $40,000.00. The flaw there is that one could be earning such income from investments and not working at all. Also, picking a number for the income is problematic at best.
Others might say that it means doing some sort of physical labor. But some folks like plumbers and electricians earn a pretty good living doing physical labor.
Still others might argue that it is based on one's education level. But we all know folks who are relatively well educated who don't make much money and we know other less educated types who earn more money. By the way, I hesitate to use the word earn because it implies that all who get money deserve what they get and that is certainly not true in these days of injustice and tremendous income inequality.
Perhaps the best way to look at this is to take the approach that former SCOTUS justice Potter took in trying to define what is obscenity. He said that he couldn't define it specifically but that he knew what it was when he saw it.
Bob Hachey
