Often, on this list, I, or someone else, have described an individual and in
that process, used the term, "middle class", not because I was doing any
kind of economic or sociological analysis, but because I was attempting to
describe a particular life style or set of attitudes. I've been roundly
scolded for the use of that term as being inaccurate and lectured about
theories of class. So, I ought to be able to describe characters in a book
or real people without being told someone else's analysis of their social
class and attitudes and in the same way, none of us should be labeled by
class and with a set of attitudes either.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
I think you are confusing fiction with reality, but the point is still made.
When you say that class analysis is unhelpful when you are talking about
real people could you actually mean that it is unhelpful when talking about
individual people? In that case you are right. Class analysis is a tool for
working with large economic issues, not individuals. The phrase comparing
apples to oranges comes to mind. The study of zoology is also pretty much
unhelpful when you are dealing with your personal fido too.
On 8/28/2016 10:14 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
There's an author, Jay McInerney,who wrote a trilogy, Brightnessrather than Corrine. So does it even make any sense to try to classify them
Falls, The Good Life, and just recently, Bright Precious Days. These
books are about a couple living in Manhattan first in the eighties,
then right after the attack on the World Trade Center, and finally,
during the 2008 crash. These are beautifully written books and they
point out how really unhelpful, class analysis can be when you're
talking about the lives of real people. The husband, Russell, comes
from the mid west from what most people would describe as a middle
class background. But he attended Brown where he became friends with
people who came from very wealthy backgrounds. He became an editor at
a New York publishing firm. The wife, Corrine, comes from an old New
England family, wealthy in the past, much less so now. She attended a
well known private scool for girls and then, Brown. When they marry
and live in New York, they mingle with some very wealthy people,
partly because Corrine's best friend from private school married and
extremely wealthy man and includes Corrine in social events, partly
because Russell's job as editor, brings him into contactd with wealthy
people and business socializing makes these contacts necessary. But
the couple doesn't have all that much money. They rent their apartment
which is rent controlled. They send their children to public school.
Corrine works in order to supplement her husband's income. But their
tastes and their social habits and vacations, all of their life style
are those of the very wealthy. And in the last book, which begins
during the Obama Clinton primary campaign, all of these very wealthy
people are Democrats who ar squabbling about which of the two
candidates to support. Corrine, by the way, first works as a stock
broker, then as an unsuccessfulscreen writer, and then for a poverty
organization which feeds the poor in the city. And it is Russell, who
comes from the more modest background, who has aspirations for wealth,
far.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice ;
Dampman Humel
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:46 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working class?
But doctors are not considered working class, neither in capitalist
society nor in the socialist and communist societies that have existed so
Working class is not as rigidly simple as those who apply labor tofalse assumptions and/or flawed logic and saying I am/we are working class,
nature to produce something. I think it does also include less
measurable or tangible, things such as education, income or economic
level, cultural affinities, behavior, life style, dress, food, And I
think both the Marxist, the capitalist, and the socialist and
communist societies that have existed so far all include such things,
too. The whole anti-intellectual actions seen on both sides
historically is an example of that. You grew up the son of a doctor?
You are going to work in a factory to learn to give up your bourgeois
ways. My son, the doctor is a far cry from my son, the factory worker
in most contemporary society. It's not a feeling in the heart, it's
not entirely subjective, but assuming the actions of the person do
somehow fit with the words he uses to define himself, then I do think
that where one places one's self has some validity. What I get a
little suspicious about, though, is how one person or a committee or
other determining body insists on critiqueing another, often based on
little rose or butterfly on her ankle or on her tush, but.
If someone calls himself working class and frequents fancyish
restaurants a few times a week and blows $100 each time, is he working
class? And capitalist commerce has blurred the lines, too. Now, anyone
can buy diamonds at Sears, so although those diamonds are hardly the
quality found at Fortunoff's or Tiffany's, the working class now has
diamonds, too, and along with bread and circus, they're deceived into
thinking the upper class has admitted them to their ranks. And there's
that blurring of what Roger will accept as class definition and what
he rejects. But I think it's all part of the same puzzle. And I also
think that upper, middle, lower class has a seat at the table, too,
because it fleshes out this whole class thing. When is the last time
you saw a debutante in her white dress at her coming-out cotillion
with her upper class arms and shoulders covered in tattoos? Maybe a
All of this is part of an objective reality, too. The difficulty isclass.
how it fits together, and what the sort of ripple effect does with it.
A classless society? I'm not sure what that even is or would be. There
will always be differences, until we're all robots or zombies. And
even then. Maybe more to the point is that it shouldn't matter that
much, and it shouldn't be quite so existential. The shuffling money
around class certainly contributes to making class determine what the
lives of others will be, and that is all wrong.
On Aug 27, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doctors do useful labor. That is enough for them to be working
The fact that they have been granted certain privileges in capitalistworking
society does not change the fact that their labor is useful. Trading
stocks is not useful though.
On 8/27/2016 7:58 PM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Roger and Marx did have a good definition though. In fact
class does not exclude doctors, for example per se. They do labor of aor other
certain sort and do indeed alter nature in healing people through
science and skill.
Income in the capitalist schema doesn't matter to Marxists,
schooled socialists in definitional terms.working
In other words doctors would be considerred a part of the
class in a socialist schema.capitalist
They probably wouldn't make the average income they do in
society, but they would still be working class.class?
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel
<mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:49 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the working
class. Not at all.
I do not use the Marxist definition of working
definition of working class
On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alice, Roger and Carl use the Marxist
with Carlemail list with no
doing a bit of expanding. If we were on an
members whoworking class, we could
were dedicated to the classic theory of
talk aboutwe are, I'm trying to
all the complexities. Given that we're were
avoid theworking class?
whole question, entirely.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 5:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: what is the
class?
to expand on my own message and questions:
who gets to decide whether one is working
If that surgeon, using his own definition ofworking class, as
Frank wishesworking class, does a
and claims the right to do, sees himself as
thirdhe is not?
party, including me, have the right to say
How much does the life one lives, thechoices one makes to do with
the sameworking class
wages as the next person, factor into the
designation?he can into buying a
Does the factory worker who puts every penny
house inand his family move
the burbs cease to be working class when he
out of theirhe still works in the
cramped, substandard apartment even though
sameblows every paycheck at
factory at the same job at the same wage?
What about his buddy who earns the
same money laboring at the same job but
the localanswer, or are both answers,
bar? Is he more working class? Is one
yes or nosurely indicate quite
stereotyping and profiling?
If my questions indicate nothing else, they
clearlybe left to each
that this is a complex question that can't
person's personaldefinition.
preference or to some rigid, two-line
Where does that leave us? ?to have any kind of
That's what I mean when I say that in order
meaningfulthe working class
conversation that included anything about
Humel
On Aug 27, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Alice Dampman
<alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>permitted to earn a good
wrote:
so if you're working class, you're not
living?educational measuring
. And Bob's arbitrary income and/or
standardsanyone has investments
seem completely irrelevant. I really doubt
that theyreturn. There wouldn't be
live from that give them such a modest
such ano labor at all are
problem with that.but when those returns for
millionsmatter.
and millions, it's an entirely different
and Carl added the requirement that theworking class person must
beof suffering and
working to support the ruling class.
Many people seem to require a certain degree
hardship to qualify for the working class.must be directly applied
Roger quotes a definition that the labor
toown personal spin on it,
nature.
So it seems to me that everyone has their
and, it also seems to me that many spinsinclude a certain amount
ofself based at least in
exclusion of others and inclusion of the
part on<bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
those spins
On Aug 27, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Bob Hachey
wrote:working class is not
Hi all,
No doubt, trying to define what is the
going to beless than a
easy. One could argue that it means earning
certain income,one could be
let's say $40,000.00. The flaw there is that
earning suchall. Also,
income from investments and not working at
picking a number forsort of physical
the income is problematic at best.
Others might say that it means doing some
labor. But somepretty good
folks like plumbers and electricians earn a
living doingone's education
physical labor.
Still others might argue that it is based on
level. But weeducated who don't
all know folks who are relatively well
make much moneyearn more money.
and we know other less educated types who
By the way, Iimplies that all
hesitate to use the word earn because it
who get moneynot true in
deserve what they get and that is certainly
these days oftake the approach
injustice and tremendous income inequality.
Perhaps the best way to look at this is to
that formerdefine what is
SCOTUS justice Potter took in trying to
obscenity. He saidthat he knew
that he couldn't define it specifically but
what it was when he
saw it.
Bob Hachey
