Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[Humberto]

As things stand currently in this country, it has become a kind of asset-stripping mentality among the ruling-class, so extreme is the merciless prerogative of the rich to deepen inequality by greedily grabbing anything they can. They only want more and their politics is that this is a virtue and a good thing to try and obtain.

To oppose this is deemed 'left-wing' (and it is), so in opposition to this they steal, abuse and ruin anything if it is profitable for them. And if many people suffer/die due to their actions they tell themselves they owe us nothing, and rather that we owe them (arse-backwards, you see?), and that this is an unfair circumstance on them. Moves towards equality and justice are to them self-evidently backwards. And if they don't pay their taxes - "so what?", they say.

And more and more, with this embedded privilege they can buy whatever they want and seek to destroy anything that stands in the way of that. Thus they can buy and create consent and undermine opposition: in the media, Westminster and in reinforcing their oppressive systems of coercion.

So, unless this is recognised and opposed upon principles of justice and in the material interests of the majority, we are losing out constantly against a deliberate effort to take the gains that were bequeathed to us by past struggles. Struggles and gains which stemmed from conscious solidarity backed by class-based analysis for the advancement of working-class interests.

 

[Edie]

At the risk of over-simplifying: do you need to sell your labour power to survive (at less than its worth - the difference being profit that goes to capitalists)? Or do you own sufficient capital to survive without working (which effectively means exploiting the labour of others i.e. trousering that unearned profit).



I'd say the difference between having to work and not is pretty significant!

Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by level.

 

[hitmouse]

None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.

Probably a conversation for another time, but the conversation about what makes one a wanky reformist vs a proper well hard sorted revolutionary is worth having imo. I think there is still potentially an actual difference in approaches, how we do or don't put our energy into certain institutions, but worth trying to define what that actually means in practice.

We already know we disagree with each other but I think this is the opposite of what would be most productive: offering clear radical reforms with easily understandable reasons. Many people have an appetite for radical reforms, they have none at all for 'This is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction without know what's there'.

See, this is where I think we really actually disagree, much more than anything you've said previously. I'm only interested in clear radical reforms if anyone can offer me a path to actually get them, and I've yet to see a convincing explanation of that. Whereas, August 2011 in the UK, summer 2020 in the US... they seem much more like "this is shit, let's go vaguely in that direction" than "clear radical reforms".

 

[Athos]

Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by level.

Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.

The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%. Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power.

But it needn't be that way. The 99% hold the power to change it, if everyone understood that and was united.

A big part of what this thread's been about is getting the 99% to recognise that common interest. And how the 1% has prevented that by further dividing the 99%, including by obfuscating the true nature of class. By concentrating on relatively superficial cultural differences rather than that that fundamental material similarity - the need to sell labour power to survive.

Meet Christmas, by the way.

 

[Ming]

The thing I desperately want to throw into this mix is the psychological element.

What makes a Tory? Why are they so venal and so self interested? Uninterested in other peoples well being.

It’s empathy. Or what we define by that word in our language.

Which can be a problem if there is reduced communication between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the amygdala.

I pretty convinced we don’t have any free will. We‘re just an electrochemical system experiencing itself subjectively.

On that basis Tories have a mental health condition. A pathological one.

They have less or no empathy.

 

[A380]

None of what you say actually makes you a wanky reformist tbh . Organising now , make lives better now is a healthy position to have imo.

It's my actions that make we a wanky reformist, not what I say...

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.

The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%. Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power.

But it needn't be that way. The 99% hold the power to change it, if everyone understood that and was united.

A big part of what this thread's been about is getting the 99% to recognise that common interest. And how the 1% has prevented that by further dividing the 99%, including by obfuscating the true nature of class. By concentrating on relatively superficial cultural differences rather than that that fundamental material similarity - the need to sell labour power to survive.

Meet Christmas, by the way.

Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.

My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo. They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work?

No everyone doesn't have to work and yes I have met people who don't.

One example was somebody who inherited many millions of pounds in the late 1990s, bought and converted an industrial property near St Paul's and later sent their children to public school.

Another was a titled person staying at their French holiday home, turning out some pretty good townscapes of the local town and castle.

They maybe few and far between but that is sort of the point.

Something they did share with me was their absolute reliance on the goods and services produced by the work (paid and unpaid) of a vast number of other people. Something which separated us was their lack of any material interest in changing the economic status quo.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. It's a combination of the habits of being a postie (early mornings) and the impact of covid (no Christmas Eve drinking) that finds me awake and posting at 6 o'clock this yuletide morning.

 

[redsquirrel]

The thing I desperately want to throw into this mix is the psychological element.

What makes a Tory? Why are they so venal and so self interested? Uninterested in other peoples well being.

It’s empathy. Or what we define by that word in our language.

Which can be a problem if there is reduced communication between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the amygdala.

I pretty convinced we don’t have any free will. We‘re just an electrochemical system experiencing itself subjectively.

On that basis Tories have a mental health condition. A pathological one.

They have less or no empathy.

Not only does none of this have anything to do with class it is actually a pretty nasty biological determinism.

About the only relevance to the discussion is that it illustrates the why putting class at the forefront is so important. Otherwise this sort of tin foil hat stuff can become more prevalent.

 

[Ming]

Not only does none of this have anything to do with class it is actually a pretty nasty biological determinism.

About the only relevance to the the discussion is that it illustrates the why putting class at the forefront is so important. Otherwise this sort of tin foil hat stuff can become more prevalent.

I think you‘re wrong. There are devils in the details and angels on the head of a pin.

We’ve unfortunately been spat out (without our permission) into this mortal coil.

The rights and wrongs of this are open to discussion obviously.

My most proud thing in my life is not having children though. The cycle stops with me.

 

[brogdale]

Everyone has to work. Have you ever met anyone, under any circumstances that hasn’t had to work? The rich just have a massive leg up and inheritance, the middle class a house deposit and social capital head start, and the working class have to make do on their own merit alone or stay at the getting by

Almost a case study in the challenge posed by false consciousness.

 

[ska invita]

Almost a case study in the challenge posed by false consciousness.

For a challenge have a look at India......
Massive wealth inequality
Despite a growing middle class (or a wealthier working class) the vast majority are 'poor' and archetypal proletarian/working class often experiencing harsh living conditions
Regularly have the largest general strikes in human history
Have a well-supported and visible Communist Party (M-L)
........then look at the election results.

 

[Edie]

Some people don't have to work; they're relatively few in number - let's call them the 1%.

The way the world currently works (i.e. capitalism) is to advance the interests of the 1%, rather than the interests of the other 99%. Because, under the current system they appear to hold the levers of power.

But it needn't be that way. The 99% hold the power to change it, if everyone understood that and was united.

A big part of what this thread's been about is getting the 99% to recognise that common interest. And how the 1% has prevented that by further dividing the 99%, including by obfuscating the true nature of class. By concentrating on relatively superficial cultural differences rather than that that fundamental material similarity - the need to sell labour power to survive.

Meet Christmas, by the way.

Merry Christmas Athos

For a challenge have a look at India......
Massive wealth inequality
Despite a growing middle class (or a wealthier working class) the vast majority are 'poor' and archetypal proletarian/working class often experiencing harsh living conditions
Regularly have the largest general strikes in human history
Have a well-supported and visible Communist Party (M-L)
........then look at the election results.

Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism

 

[ska invita]

Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism

Religious nationalist autocracy seems to be the flavour of the month

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism

Except of course for all of those living in the country, who are members and supporters of the various India based communist, socialist and anti-capitalist parties, unions, associations and organisations.

Your very broad brush approach isn't doing you any favours here.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Edie]

Anyway you don’t “recognise a common interest” by dividing people into pfwc and middle class down families, then arsing about going on about hugely outdated structural analysis of Marx. It’s pretty much 2023. Let’s start from here.

Capitalism, as local democracy as possible (why I voted Brexit), and progressive taxation to squash Health & wealth inequalities. Look at Denmark where Manter is rn. They’ve got it right. That’s as good as it gets I reckon. You’ve got to reward the talented and driven, but protect the vulnerable (not the lazy and career unemployed).

I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.

 

[Elpenor]

Religious nationalist autocracy seems to be the flavour of the month

Hmm isn’t there a quote about religion and opium

 

[Athos]

Anyway you don’t “recognise a common interest” by dividing people into pfwc and middle class down families, then arsing about going on about hugely outdated structural analysis of Marx. It’s pretty much 2023. Let’s start from here.

Capitalism, as local democracy as possible (why I voted Brexit), and progressive taxation to squash Health & wealth inequalities. Look at Denmark where Manter is rn. They’ve got it right. That’s as good as it gets I reckon. You’ve got to reward the talented and driven, but protect the vulnerable (not the lazy and career unemployed).

I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.

It's easy to say Marx's analysis is out of date, but quite hard to say specifically how - what he said that doesn't still hold true.

You're right that less free-market capitalism can temper some of the harms, in the short term. And I doubt many here would argue against higher, more progressive taxation to minimise inequality. But there's no reason to think it's the best solution - that it is effectively the end point of economic development, and there nothing better.

The reason to care about the 1% isn't that they're happier than anyone else; it's because, by monopolising so much of the wealth, they effectively keep others poor.

 

[Athos]

Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.

My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo. They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.

There's some truth in that. But you have to wonder how much of it is because they're convinced that this is as good as it gets. And whether or not that's true.

 

[Edie]

There's some truth in that. But you have to wonder how much of it is because they're convinced that this is as good as it gets. And whether or not that's true.

That’s a fair enough point. There probably is a better structure we’ve not thought about yet and we should be open minded. But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young. We’re social animals who live in a balance of cooperation and competition at the end of the day. Utopia doesn’t exist.

 

[brogdale]

I don’t gaf about the top 1% who don’t work. They’re no happier than us you know I met one last weekend. Happiness has very little to do with the extreme of wealth. But you do need to prevent poverty, as that’s very stressful and miserable.

This really misses the point that a number of posters have patiently outlined and seems to contradict what you said a few posts ago about there being no people who don't have to work.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Merry Christmas Athos


Almost like the Indians don’t know what’s good for them and want the advancement of capitalism and not the oppression and poverty of communism

a somewhat reductive position

Like most of mine on this thread

 

[Athos]

But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young.

That's not an inevitability. We make it more likely by behaving as if it is. Let's at least strive for something better.

 

[Edie]

This really misses the point that a number of posters have patiently outlined and seems to contradict what you said a few posts ago about there being no people who don't have to work.

Should I leave you to it, because I don’t want to derail further if you’re all enjoying that discussion about Marx. Just got no interest in it personally. HC broggers xx

 

[brogdale]

Should I leave you to it, because I don’t want to derail further if you’re all enjoying that discussion about Marx. Just got no interest in it personally. HC broggers xx

To my mind your posting demonstrates otherwise; you seem genuinely engaged with the topic of class. But, as with everything U75, we're all free to post or not.

Have a good day

 

[bellaozzydog]

But there will always be the powerful who are well resourced and the vulnerable who live miserable lives and die young. We’re social animals who live in a balance of cooperation and competition at the end of the day. Utopia doesn’t exist.

Surely we should expect the basic metrics of a successful society to improve

Life expectancy declining in many English communities even before pandemic | Imperial News | Imperial College London

ENGLISH LIFESPANS - A substantial number of English communities experienced a decline in life expectancy from 2010-2019, Imperial College London researchers have found.

www.imperial.ac.uk

 

[Supine]

Surely we should expect the basic metrics of a successful society to improve

Life expectancy declining in many English communities even before pandemic | Imperial News | Imperial College London

ENGLISH LIFESPANS - A substantial number of English communities experienced a decline in life expectancy from 2010-2019, Imperial College London researchers have found.

www.imperial.ac.uk

Although the flip side to that is life expectancy has increased massively for a few hundred years under a capitalist system.

 

[Pickman's model]

Although the flip side to that is life expectancy has increased massively for a few hundred years under a capitalist system.

Ah the auld what goes up must come down argument

 

[Edie]

To my mind your posting demonstrates otherwise; you seem genuinely engaged with the topic of class. But, as with everything U75, we're all free to post or not.

Have a good day

Oh no really interested for sure, just didn’t want to derail a details thread. Personally I’d be happy with a 95% top rate tax once you reach £150k. I earn £50k (plus locums which boost my take home by up to a grand a month) and I’m super wealthy, we want for nothing. Literally cannot see why any one person would want or need more in the UK, let alone a joint income at that level. Making a million would be fun for the challenge but wouldn’t materially change my life from here on in, I don’t think it does for anyone. As far as I can see your room sizes just increase and you get more holidays and drive ridiculous cars but so fucking what

 

[hitmouse]

Thank you for the explanation in clear and straightforward language.

My first thought is that a fairly large percentage of the 99% have no interest in changing the status quo. They live comfortable lives paid for by their interesting and satisfying jobs, and with help from their parents who are also comfortable.

How large a percentage, and what jobs do they work in? And are these people, for instance, as comfortable as they were twelve months or five years ago, or are they less comfortable? If they are becoming less comfortable, then what other conclusions might we draw from that?