Alice:
The simple (or maybe not simple) definition of the term "working class"
is one of the many reasons, in my opinion, that Marxism (as originally
proposed) was and is destined to be a practical failure.
Richerd
On 8/28/2016 10:55 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
but middle class and working class are not mutually exclusive. And we haven’t even touched on the blue collar/white collar thing…many working class people, working class being defined by what they do for a living primarily, are members of the middle class, and, conversely, many middle class people, determined by their life style, home ownership, etc. are also working class by virtue of what they do for a living.
And I don’t agree that when people define themselves as middle class that they are necessarily looking down on anybody. Certain individuals in every class, every profession, every educational and/or economic level,
are bent that way and always require someone they can look down on. But that’s an individual trait that is found across the board. It has been my experience that most middle class people see themselves as exactly that: in the middle, not rich, not poor, but somewhere in between. On Aug 28, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
That's true. My point is that when the average person talks about this
subject, he's not becoming involved in theoretical constructs. He may not be
bragging, however. He may just assume that if he owns his own house, two
cars, and a few TV's, he's not working class. That's because he's been
affected by the TV commercials he's been watching since he was born. They've
taught him that if he owns certain material goods, lives in the suburbs, and
has a job that pays enough for him to maintain his life style, he's middle
class. That's most people's definition of middle class here. It may not be
an accurate definition, but it's the one they hold.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:33 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
Well, the way you have described how the average person on Long Island uses
the term middle class they think they all know what it means because it
means nothing. As you have described it they all call themselves middle
class as a way to brag that they are not one of the people they have to look
down on to think of themselves as middle class.
Essentially, it means nothing, but they all think it means themselves.
On 8/27/2016 10:07 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Doing an analysis of class and its function in society is what you'reexists at all.
talking about. It's important as one way of understanding human beings
and how they function. But in every day useage, in normal, day to day
conversation, most of us aren't attempting to get involved in all
those complexities. When people here on Long Island describe a family
as middle class, just about everyone on Long Island thinkss they know
what the general definition is. But among all those people who agree
on the general definition, there are divisions based on amount of
education, ethnicity, race, income level, and the kinds of work people
do. There's nothing scientific or analytic about it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 9:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
Well, income, wealth and resources are not really that different. It
is the context that makes them different, that is, what they are being
used for and how they are being distributed at any given time. The
reason that dividing classes into low, middle and high income or low,
middle and high wealth has no use is that it completely ignores the
dynamics of the class society. In a way it actually denies that class
If you regard class as just collections of people with a lot ofdigging a mile under the ground for coal to create more money for the guy in
wealth, a little bit of wealth and an amount of wealth somewhere in
between you are completely ignoring how wealth is accumulated, how it
is distributed and how to remedy the situation. It ignores that there
is an employing class that exploits the employed class. It ignores the
struggle between these class for supremacy. Actually it just ignores
the complexity of society in general. By this view if someone is in
the low income category then all that person has to do is to just make
more money, perhaps invest in a Wall Street bank. I think that view is
a part of bourgeois ideology and I started to say bourgeois
liberalism, but it is more an aspect of all the bourgeois ideologies.
That is, to preserve the class structure just deny that there is any
class structure and convince the exploited that all they have to do is
to work harder and make more money just like their bosses do. That is
an idea promoted not only by liberals, but by the very most right-wing
bourgeois ideologists. We are all equal under the law and so we are
all equal. It is just as illegal for a rich person to sleep under a
bridge as it is for a poor person to sleep under a bridge. When a rich
person runs a red light he is fined the very same amount as a poor
person who runs a red light. The treatment is equal because there are
no classes and there is no such thing as privilege. After all, it's
just that some people have more money than other people and sitting in
a penthouse office transferring millions of dollars around from bank
to bank is really hard labor, almost as hard as paving the highways or as
that penthouse office to shuffle around.
If the simplistic view that there are only high, middle and low income
people around without regard to how the various people interacting
with other of various ranks and privileges is true then there is no
need to analyze and if there is any usefulness to this then the
usefulness is for the members of the ruling class who will be more
secure in their positions if everyone believes this.
On 8/27/2016 6:24 AM, Frank Ventura wrote:
Not at all useful, as income, wealth, and resources are three verydifferent things.
Frankin relation to that which is acquired by others. But I really don't
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 9:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
Okay, it means that. Low income means that one does not acquire much
money
see how that is very useful.
On 8/26/2016 9:27 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
That's because when I do that, I'm consciously omitting definitions
and all of the complications that are involved in those definitions.
Low income means just that. It says nothing about the kind of work
an individual does, his education, or anything else. But it tells
you that in a society like our's, where more and more functions are
being privatized, that person will have a really hard time.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 9:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
I don't see how it is of much use at all to describe people in terms
of upper, middle and lower income. That says nothing about their
role in the economy or their place in the dynamics of society. It
would be similar to attending medical school and only learning that
the human body consists of two parts, meat and bones.
On 8/26/2016 10:13 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I find it most useful in 2016 America, when trying to describeword.
people in economic terms, to talk about low income, middle income, etc.
Class, seems to me, to be a word that encompasses much more than
income and can be misleading. But, unfortunately, the phrase will
not disappear from this list because it is tied to an intellectual
framework to which people are loyal. It's like asking people to
stop referring to God, because they mean such different things by
the same
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman Humel
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 8:26 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] what is the working class?
the subject line says it.as I read all these messages about the
working class, I begin to suspect everyone has his/her own
definition of it, and that, of course determines all the rest.
And, it also often seems that the definitions shift and drift
depending on the particular point being made at any given time.
Thoughts?
