Here's a quote from Daniel Bell, from about 1980, talking about class structures in a post-industrial society.
One Rule for the Rich: heir to TetraPak empire gets off possessing 52g of Coke!
- Thread starter lights.out.london
- Start date
revol68
what, fucking what?
So basically if you aren't from a council estate, from a single parent family and have A levels or equivalent, you are middle class?
I mean I'm not a fan of a crude two class analysis, and think the various stratifications and divisions within the working class can't be simply ignored or wished away by abstract appeals to "unity" but I thinkyou are bending the stick far too far the other way and end up with a take on class that is simply one of categorisation rather than one that looks at it's relation to capitalism and how it functions.
Also that Daneil Bell thing is really shit.
The working class isn't defined by it's poverty or it's standard of living at any given time, it's defined primarily through it's relationship to capital, which at the same time shouldn't be used to seek to homogenise it or gloss over fractures within it.
I mean I'm not a fan of a crude two class analysis, and think the various stratifications and divisions within the working class can't be simply ignored or wished away by abstract appeals to "unity" but I thinkyou are bending the stick far too far the other way and end up with a take on class that is simply one of categorisation rather than one that looks at it's relation to capitalism and how it functions.
Also that Daneil Bell thing is really shit.
The working class isn't defined by it's poverty or it's standard of living at any given time, it's defined primarily through it's relationship to capital, which at the same time shouldn't be used to seek to homogenise it or gloss over fractures within it.
Y'know I went to quite a lot of effort, for this time of night, to answer your post and this is what you reduce it down to? I'm saying that having a degree will, on a few levels, have an impact on my relationship to the productive base of the economy, as well as on a culutural and social level, that is one of the hallmarks of being middle class.
Coming from a fairly middle class family with two parents also plays into this, coz to be honest if I didn't have that upbringing I'm not sure I'd have ever got to uni, or A-levels. It certainly wasn't my innate intelligence, hardworking ethic or being erudite that got me there, as a quick browse through my posting history or a chat with butchersapron will confirm.
Quick point, this isn't "my" take on capitalism it's just a brief run through some general trends that I thought might be helpful to discussion, it's not like thought up all that shit myself.
Yes I agree, I did my dissertation on criticising him for being a great big dirty liberal 6-nations fan as it happens, but I mention it because that's the template that all the politicians, New Labour and Tory, have basically been working around for the last 30+ years. So if you want to know why so many people are going to uni, it's because policy makers have been anticapting this kind of society, and planning the education system around the needs of capital in that form.
Yeah I know that, I'm just trying to make a point that even though you define working class by it's relation to the productive base, that still doesn't tell you the whole story, does it? Like Wayne Rooney is by this standard working class whereas my self-employed cowboy builder friends who I'm working with are technically petit bourgeosis, even though one earns 100x the other. Nevermind.
revol68
what, fucking what?
But this is it, you're line of argument is circular, you have defined your family as middle class because it was a stable two parent family with a decent standard of living. I would simply say that you came from a decent off working class family and that your proximity to people from less comfortable backgrounds doesn't make you middle class but rather reinforces the fact you are ultimately just from a fairly ordinary working class family. The idea that a decent standard of living and security makes you middle class is to miss the fact that these things were fought for and gained by sizable sections of the working class and getting them doesn't make people middle class, it doesn't change their fundamental relationship to capital or indeed it's relationship to them, something obvious by the generalised assault on working class conditions since the 70's,
The fact that you are stone broke at the moment (like myself) only underlines the fact you are working class, if you weren't you'd probably have more to fall back on than simply family support ie a few groceries, the lend of the odd twenty quid etc
If however you're getting an allowance whilst interning in London...
no shit, sherlock. Nice strawman though. Shame nobody has actually stated that the two are comparable. Or I certainly haven't.
i'm genuinely interested in you elaborating on this. How is 'wanking on' about ethical consumption an exclusively liberal position?
love detective
there's no love too small
revol's absolutely spot on in relation to all this
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
As diverting as the Dead Woman Shoes talk is.. there's a piece on addiction etc. by Nick Barton CEO of Action on Addiction in the Grauniad. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...using-legacy-charities-celebrated?INTCMP=SRCH
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Well, they'd include things such as: how was the money made initially? how much was passed on? what did the recipients do with it?
One might debate about exactly where lines should be drawn, but lines there most defihitely are. Unless you want to make the absurd argument that there is no difference between someone inheriting two grand from their folks and giving it to their favourite charity, and someone inheriting two hundred million from their thief of a parent and then sticking it all straight up there nose.
they're not simply 'rich' tho are they? They are the super-mega-rich, the one percent of the one percent of the one percent. And they've got there, how? Because their grandfather had one idea. They are the epitome of the failings of capitalism. And that a notable socialite dies all alone, well, its simply fitting, isnt it? A deserved end. 'Ha ha' may be a little OTT, but it's the chickens coming home to roost, and that never did make me sad.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
And who decides who decides? Sounds like setting up some sort of parliamentary fucksticks where people talk and talk and fail to come up with a conclusion or at least one where everyone agrees.. how much is too much? what is an acceptable way to inherit? where does the money get allocated to? how much is going to be spent deciding and who pays for it?
As for putting the questions in the past tense 'what did the recipients do with it?'.. well it'll be a little bit too late then, because they'd have spent it..
More to the point, it's no-ones business how I get my money or how I give it away.. who wants to live in a world like that? Like I said, there's better targets in life (better as in more immediate) than people killing themselves slowly..
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
oh really?
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
No it's not.. work, inheritance, luck, lottery.. no-ones business.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's not true. It is everyone's business how you get your money. I think there is a case to be made that it is largely nobody else's business how you spend your money. But of course, you are taxed on your income, so it really is everyone else's business. And I'm guessing you've never applied for means-tested benefits and had to submit bank statements together with explanations for any large sums going in.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
Last month I did..
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Right, well it was someone else's business, then, wasn't it? And if you put a deposit down on a house now, you have to say where the money came from - in a bid to stop money-laundering: that's a case in point in which it is other people's business how you spend your money.
Money involves social relations and your position wrt others. Of course it isn't your own private business. In a socially just society, within certain parameters, you'll be left alone; above those parameters, you would appear to be taking more than your fair share.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
Not the point I was making and not the point Belboid was making either. He's talking about money in a specific context - inherited. So am I. I'm amswering your assumption that I've never had to show where my money comes from.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well the specific context - inherited - is a very good example of where the origin of your money is clearly everyone else's business. You haven't even earned it!
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
But inherited money is accounted for..
Belboid was saying Rausing was/is a parasite because they inherited money. On that basis anyone who inherits is a parasite.. so he says there could be a debate about where lines could be drawn setting limits on how much people could inherit..
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yeah, I agree with that. Don't you?
If a person inherits money and then just lives off it without attempting to work, of course they are a parasite. How could they not be?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
So presumably you live and work in a social vacuum, unconnected to anyone else?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Not true. We were talking about where the money came from in the first place - as well as about inheritance. Hence your utterly reactionary statement that its no ones business, completely and wholly wrong. And even if it was just inheritance, its still everyone elses business, have you not heard of inheritance tax?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I'd rather they lived off their inherited money and did nothing, than use their inherited money to make more by exploiting labour.
love detective
there's no love too small
proper old school upper class
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They're still parasites, though. You can imagine them doing worse things, that's all.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
You agree with all of that? You think there it's possible to draw up a figure above which something has to happen to the money?
It's between a person who inherits and the person they inherited from.. and why the person who gave them the money gave it to them. If you inherit at birth at what stage do they turn around and say 'No'?
It's between a person who inherits and the person they inherited from.. and why the person who gave them the money gave it to them. If you inherit at birth at what stage do they turn around and say 'No'?
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
The thread's about Rausing, addiction and latterly your response to her death.. I've said an addict is an addict and it isn't for anyone to judge. I've already said the money is accounted for (or should be) when it's inherited. You're the one saying there should be a debate about the sums involved.. that's what I was asking about.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I'd rather the Tetrapak inheritee wasted the inheritance on coke, yes.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Yes, and you didnt seem to understand the answer. Or just didnt like it.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about people being allowed to do their own thing without people being judgemental. A response to 'ha ha. good'
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You were talking about you, look -
"More to the point, it's no-ones business how I get my money or how I give it away"
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
I haven't said I haven't liked anything other than 'ha ha. good'. Otherwise I'm just asking your opinion.
Similar threads
