working class, what does it mean?

[Aldebaran]

You accept on the one hand that human beings are restricted access to the abundance of human wealth, and that this restriction is (in effect) passed down through families.

There is nothing to accept about it. It is the result of human nature. Unless you for some reason think you can change that, you need to understand it just is.

n the other, you completely baselessly claim that class does not exist.

It is no more than a word invented to make artificial an existing situation that is as natural as human nature, with the sole aim to artificially create envy and division.

The point doesn't have to be that working class people can starve to death - all it needs to be is that they are denied access to human resources which (on a basic human 'classless' level) they have as much 'right' to (whatever that means) as anyone else.

They have as much right as the second lion in my example had the right to catch the same prey. Still he was first and nothing can change that fact.

Then, class exists.

There is no "class" but in your mind. If yo have something someone else can't have that same at the same time. The mere fact of you having it first causes that situation, that is all there is to it.
In your line of reasoning you are guilty of "class creation" every time you breath in air the other can't breath in at the same time.

PS - 'AI LIV HERE AI NO MOR THAN U!!' has always been, and always will be, a pretty lame-arse excuse for a rebuttal.

Hint1: Attempts to be funny should be funny to be funny.
Hint2: Attempts to challenge me always end in tears for the challenger.

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Boo Hoo?

There is nothing to accept about it. It is the result of human nature.

So ultimately, your argument comes down to an unfounded proposition on some ethereal 'human nature' - as of course it has to. The fact that hundreds of human societies have operated and continue to operate without even a concept of private ownership is, to you, irrelevent I am sure.

I'll tell you one thing though, that isn't my human nature - and if it ain't mine, then it ain't 'nature'. If you personally feel the innate, animal desire to keep all your possessions to yourself, to accumulate personal wealth and never to share it with anyone, then that just reaffirms what I'm sure we've all already figured out which is that your a bit of a prick.

It is no more than a word invented to make artificial an existing situation that is as natural as human nature, with the sole aim to artificially create envy and division.

There's no 'natural' difference between someone born to a poor family and someone born to a rich family - just material differences in the amenities and lifestyle from the world in which they live. One has nothing, the other has everything. Why is that? You're trying to tell someone who has nothing that their lack of property, the fact they must work from the age of 12 and can recieve nought but a preliminary education, that they never have a cat's chance in hell of raising themselves from their situation, that their perception of 'class' is all some mental delusion? You're not only deluded yourself, you're a fucking twat. A tool. Your God (who I presume you use to justify the inequalities between mankind - in the knowledge that this life is something other than the 'true' existence waiting beyond) does not exist. He is a fairy-tale conjured up to control the poor - to fill their heads with nonsense so that they respect their position in the lower order, living in the dirt and cleaning rich people's shoes.

Class is real, it is tangible - you have conceded every original point you made in your refutation of 'class', yet still repeat your tried and tired mantra. It's not convincing anyone.

PS - I'm fucking hilarious

 

[Aldebaran]

So ultimately, your argument comes down to an unfounded proposition on some ethereal 'human nature' - as of course it has to. The fact that hundreds of human societies have operated and continue to operate without even a concept of private ownership is, to you, irrelevent I am sure.

No, it comes down to demonstrate the artificiality of the term "class", a term is invented to make divisions look artificial while they are not, for the simple reason that they are the result of how societal structure developped.
Societies with the "no private ownership" concept are hardly comparable with the concept of the capitalist consumerist economy (ever seen the movie 'the Gods must be crazy"?)

I'll tell you one thing though, that isn't my human nature - and if it ain't mine, then it ain't 'nature'. If you personally feel the innate, animal desire to keep all your possessions to yourself, to accumulate personal wealth and never to share it with anyone, then that just reaffirms what I'm sure we've all already figured out which is that your a bit of a prick.

You really should re-read my posts. They contain quite the opposite of all you make up here. And go on making up as follows

There's no 'natural' difference between someone born to a poor family and someone born to a rich family - just material differences in the amenities and lifestyle from the world in which they live.

All of which I posted in this very thread.

One has nothing, the other has everything. Why is that?

Answer to be found in my posts (resumé: incident of birth)

You're trying to tell someone who has nothing that their lack of property, the fact they must work from the age of 12 and can recieve nought but a preliminary education, that they never have a cat's chance in hell of raising themselves from their situation, that their perception of 'class' is all some mental delusion?

All of which is already answered in my posts.
Hint: You are the one who keeps using the excuse word "class". I am the one who said that does not exist but in your mind.

You're not only deluded yourself, you're a fucking twat. A tool. Your God (who I presume you use to justify the inequalities between mankind - in the knowledge that this life is something other than the 'true' existence waiting beyond) does not exist. He is a fairy-tale conjured up to control the poor - to fill their heads with nonsense so that they respect their position in the lower order, living in the dirt and cleaning rich people's shoes.

mm... Resorting to the tactic of an other poster, bringing God and religion in a discussion that has nothing to do with God and religion, just to create an argument? More futile attempt to comes across as having one can never be given (and your proclaimed "insight" in said God and religion is that of a child indoctrinated by nonsense and not yet able to discern it for what it is).

Class is real, it is tangible - you have conceded every original point you made in your refutation of 'class', yet still repeat your tried and tired mantra. It's not convincing anyone.

Like I said repeatedly, it is only "real" for those who support its existence, for whatever personal reason. If you believe you are of a certain "class" because of whatever invented "reason" then you are, in your mind.
I suppose giving yourself the label "working class" makes you comfortable because it serves as underscoring certain ideas and judgements attached to the mindset created by it.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: What is the "class" of a newborn child in your ideology?

salaam.

 

[nightbreed]

"I suppose giving yourself the label "working class" makes you comfortable because it serves as underscoring certain ideas and judgements attached to the mindset created by it. "

What the hell does that mean??

 

[Das Uberdog]

We all KNOW you're denying class exists - my point is (and I've made it before) that words are simply tools we use to describe phenomena which occur - class is a phenomena which occurs! You accept that class boundaries (in a capitalist society, that boundary is 'wealth') exist (though you refuse to call them such). You accept that a poor man will be physically stopped by the capitalist system from 'stealing' bread. You accept that due to money, most of the world's resources are kept for a select few of the world's population. By silence on my specific point about the matter, you implicitly accept that the system of wealth is self-perpetuating through lineage - that for most people, social mobility is all but impossible. Even in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world, social mobility is nigh-on-impossible for large bulks of the population.

This IS class. This IS the class system. Class is the word we have created to describe THIS system. It's not a delusion, it's something which actively prevents certain social orders from attaining power, attaining resources and living enlightened existances raised from the dirt of poverty.

You're not actually questioning whether class exists (whether or not you think you are is another matter entirely). All you're ACTUALLY saying is that it is natural, and 'good'. You are wrong.

What is the "class" of a newborn child in your ideology?

I have no ideology - I have only rationality - Marxism (broadly defined) represents my analysis of the world, though I deviate from it in many areas. wrt a newborn child - their class is a product of their circumstance. Do you think that all new-born children have access to the same worldly opportunities as eachother? That is class, it is beyond their making. It is not something over which they have any control.

The real delusion is failing to see the class system - which is where your original 'comparisons' with class fall down. Nationality, religion, racism:- these serve to blur class boundaries through exactly the same kind of delusion you are exemplifying.

Let me remind you of your main points through this debate:

The question is why entertaining and even cultivating the very awareness that there inevitably "should" be a class difference. By doing so you seem wanting to deprive one group, the "upper" class, from its usefulness and even its right to exist all while the other group, the "workers" is told they can exist without the former. Doesn't that sound strange to you in the light of their obvious - because inherent - interdependence?
To put it simple:
*If there is no capital, there is no workplace there is no need for workers.
*If there are no workers, there can even be no construction of the very workplace there can't be gathered capital to pay for its very construction for its workings, for the workers.

Which you repeated here:

I don't give any view of how individuals look at themselves.
Marx had an utopist's view on the ideal society (haven't we all). I don't believe in “all power to the Worker” for the simple – obvious - reason that both investor and worker are interdependent if any of them wants to profit – hence make a living – out of anything. Hence the artificiality of any “class” divisions. There is no other class than the class of humanity.

And here...

How on earth can you claim that your boss “steals” your labor if you get paid for it?
You object to an investor making profit while you need his investments to have a job.
You freely call any profit made by your investor “stealing” yet if a firm goes bankrupt, employees are very quick to claim that “no investments were made in time” all while they claim investors can't make a living accordingly to their investment in them and and their paid labor.

And a tangental point here:

You actually believe that investment is something recent and "working clas" is something equally recent and that for the thousands of years of recorded human history, nobody invested in anything and nobody worked in the service of anyone and nobody made profit as natural consequence of these interactions.

These issues, which made up the only rational analysis of class from your perspective, have been shown to be wrong. The rest of your arguments are framed around your prejudices, that;

a) human nature is inherantly selfish
b) that exploitation is actually 'good' and 'natural'

Neither of which you will find it possible to actually justify.

I come at this from a blank perspective, analysing actual physical factors at play. You're the only one bring your values into play.

 

[Das Uberdog]

"I suppose giving yourself the label "working class" makes you comfortable because it serves as underscoring certain ideas and judgements attached to the mindset created by it. "

What the hell does that mean??

God knows (obviously...)

And to Aldo - if you'd actually read the thread you'd see I clearly don't consider myself working class.

 

[dennisr]

"I suppose giving yourself the label "working class" makes you comfortable because it serves as underscoring certain ideas and judgements attached to the mindset created by it. "

What the hell does that mean??

subtext " i'm an intellectual, you know"

 

[Aldebaran]

subtext " i'm an intellectual, you know"

Even better then that. You could call me all names you like.
And if it is true someone needs to be an intellectual to understand that simple sentence, I'm getting close to be driven direction madhouse.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

God knows (obviously...)

And to Aldo - if you'd actually read the thread you'd see I clearly don't consider myself working class.

So in reality you are an outsider acting as if you are an insider.

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

In reality I'm middle-class being very honest about being middle-class, yet siding against my class interest with the workers.

 

[Aldebaran]

In reality I'm middle-class being very honest about being middle-class, yet siding against my class interest with the workers.

Your drama about not being allowed to enter a hotel etc.. etc.. was merely caused by the deep empathy for what you actually don't know from the inside. Completely understandable

So what is "middle class" then?

(I'm now reading your long post and looks as if you make things up as you go, claiming that what was not intended - and not even written - is intended and written... for mysterious reasons only you can explain)

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

So you think I was actually trying to trick you into thinking I was some kind of beggar being kicked off the Central London pavement by coppers?

For your information I can't afford the Ritz - I know what it's like not to be able to buy caviar - just because I'm not of directly proley origin doesn't mean I can access the fruits of the truly wealthy.

(I'm now reading your long post and looks as if you make things up as you go, claiming that what was not intended - and not even written - is intended and written... for mysterious reasons only you can explain)

Errrr, wtf exactly? Are you now claiming that 'language' doesn't exist?

 

[Aldebaran]

So you think I was actually trying to trick you into thinking I was some kind of beggar being kicked off the Central London pavement by coppers?

No, it was a bit amusing to see someone who actually has access to modern communication methods claim he knows what a beggar goes through, etc.. etc...

For your information I can't afford the Ritz - I know what it's like not to be able to buy caviar - just because I'm not of directly proley origin doesn't mean I can access the fruits of the truly wealthy.

It is a mystery to me why such unimportant details matter so much to you.

Errrr, wtf exactly? Are you now claiming that 'language' doesn't exist?

mmm... Time to bring your long post into it

1. What you so persistently call "class division", acting as if it is an entirely new element in human history at that, can be traced in societies in repetitive patterns for as long as recorded human history exists.
2. You also confuse "recognition" with "acceptance".
3. A rich man shall equally be stopped from stealing by the law. Laws are not made by "capitalism". Laws prohibiting stealing exist for as long as organized human society exists. Any developed society should have a functioning social system wherein people do not "steal because hungry". If you don't have that in the UK, it goes (again) down in my estimation.
4. I do not believe in the mantra that because someone is not born rich, that someone can not escape from poverty. It is acceptance and repetition of this mantra that actually makes this idea of "class" division survive.
To name one prominent example: The USA has made of fighting this idea its main propaganda slogan. Although "The American Dream" is for a great deal propaganda, fortunes were and still are made by people who started with nothing. This happens everywhere in the world.

You're not actually questioning whether class exists (whether or not you think you are is another matter entirely). All you're ACTUALLY saying is that it is natural, and 'good'. You are wrong.

Where on earth you get that is a mystery. I merely paint the inevitable result of cause and effect.

wrt a newborn child - their class is a product of their circumstance. Do you think that all new-born children have access to the same worldly opportunities as eachother? That is class, it is beyond their making. It is not something over which they have any control.

Yet you already divide them into an artificial "class", deciding they shall not "escape" this classification. Why not? You can't predict a baby's life.

These issues, which made up the only rational analysis of class from your perspective, have been shown to be wrong. The rest of your arguments are framed around your prejudices, that;

a) human nature is inherently selfish
b) that exploitation is actually 'good' and 'natural'

Neither of which you will find it possible to actually justify.

Totally wrong reading, yet again.

a) Yes human nature is inherently selfish merely due to basic survival instinct.
b) I never even said anything that comes close to "exploitation is actually good and natural".
You make things up as you write them. (A vivid fantasy does not a good debater make.)

I come at this from a blank perspective, analysing actual physical factors at play. You're the only one bring your values into play.

Your perspective is that indoctrinated that for it to become "blanc" you need to fall in a coma.

By the way, what is "middle class" again?

salaam.

 

[tbaldwin]

In reality I'm middle-class being very honest about being middle-class, yet siding against my class interest with the workers.

Good post Das....And you know one day all the workers will love you for it.
Just as soon as they accept the re-education......

 

[Das Uberdog]

roflhahahhaaayeahlolol

What we have established:

tbaldwin isn't funny
Branflakes reufses to question his base prejudices and presumptions about society and will go so far as to blatantly contradict himself in trying not to actually question said prejudices and presumptions

All in all - cba no more. Pretty bored.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Das_Uberdog

While you may strongly disagree with someone in a debate, and find it frustrating that they persist in their own views despite your attempts to change them, it is not appropriate to insult them by changing their name when you quote them. It is also against the rules of the boards.

 

[Das Uberdog]

lol

 

[Aldebaran]

By the way, DU, what is "middle class"... again?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Das_Uberdog

While you may strongly disagree with someone in a debate, and find it frustrating that they persist in their own views despite your attempts to change them, it is not appropriate to insult them by changing their name when you quote them. It is also against the rules of the boards.

Would I be Christian I would let that fall under the "father forgive them because they don't know what they are doing" example of Jesus on the cross.
Since I am not Christian, I let it pass because it is so obvious the poster doesn't know what he is doing. *Somebody* needs to think about the children.


salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I know exactly what I'm doing, and it's no more childish than your obnoxious sense of self-superiority.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, yes. You are so correct that I'm booking my room in the madhouse right now.
Happy now?

What is "middle class"... again?

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Learn to read, then read the thread. Your answer is all there.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't read, I'm dyslexic and I don't know English.

Is the answer that you can't say what "middle class" is supposed to mean in a few words, while you need only a few to describe "working class" and their "situation"?
Can you then also explain what people "are" who don't fit in your idea about "working class" and "middle class" and how many of such divisions you support? Looks endless to me. Everyone who has one cent more than an other is an other "class".
By the way: Why is your outlook on the world and its societies so firmly based in materialism, and of the Capitalist Consumerism type at that?

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I haven't been having a discussion with you about the working or middle-classes - i've been having a conversation with you about the existence of class - a completely different kettle of fish.

wrt materialism - I have no reason to believe in anything which doesn't find its form in the material world. Neither do you, for that matter.

 

[Aldebaran]

I haven't been having a discussion with you about the working or middle-classes - i've been having a conversation with you about the existence of class - a completely different kettle of fish.

For me it does not exist but in the mind of people who like to entertain the idea that particular differences whihc occur as the result of cause and effect within society must be named "class" ion order to create the suggestion of artificial division.
Since you are the one to sustain the idea of artificilaity, you are the one who must explain to which gradations in divisions you then arrive.

wrt materialism - I have no reason to believe in anything which doesn't find its form in the material world. Neither do you, for that matter.

That is a nonsense answer and I hope for you that you know it.
By mere existence of self being forced to perceive a material world has nothing in common - but the perception of that world - with the capitalist consumerist materialism you take for all-important and all-overruling in human interaction.

salaam.

 

[Das Uberdog]

you are the one who must explain to which gradations in divisions you then arrive

a) I don't know why, it's still irrelevant within the context of our current discussion
b) please read the thread - you will find your answer repeated many times, in great detail, and with recourse to the works of both Trotsky and Marx - with some historically contextual information to boot

By mere existence of self being forced to perceive a material world has nothing in common - but the perception of that world - with the capitalist consumerist materialism you take for all-important and all-overruling in human interaction.

So, essentially your argument predictably boils down to a rejection of material existence, and thus, our 'percieved consciousness' of said existence. You know, if I'd been feeling particularly engaged I could have pointed that out to you a whole long while ago. No - it's not a nonsense answer - it's a rational answer. Which is why you reject it.

The reason both I and dennisr 'brought religion' into this discussion is because we both know that fundamentally, that is where your aversion to a class analysis of society lies. It's just about getting to the point.

Why, exactly, should I take anything to exist other than that which manifests itself in what I know of material existence? Material existence is (and always will be) my sole experience of 'reality' - outside of which no evidence nor reason can be found to justify anything. To reject material existence is to relegate your material life to nothingness and futility - unless you choose to manufacture your own fairy-tales to justify some idea of a higher purpose and higher plane of existence. You might as well just go sit in a corner and wait to die (like the peasants who are unable to work without capital).

You don't believe that varying access to the world's resources on the basis of what is essentially class consitutes anything other than an 'artificial' divide. I agree. That artificial divide is class, and it should be abolished.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist *resisting urge to insult*

...
..


...



.....


...
......


....

.....


It's hard.

 

[Aldebaran]

a) I don't know why, it's still irrelevant within the context of our current discussion
b) please read the thread - you will find your answer repeated many times, in great detail, and with recourse to the works of both Trotsky and Marx - with some historically contextual information to boot

a) It is utterly relevant. You are the one supporting "class divisions". Hence my question: Describe how you divide.
b) I don't ask what Marx or Trotsky said about it. I ask what you make of it. Don't you have own ideas on what you so vehemently defend?

So, essentially your argument predictably boils down to a rejection of material existence, and thus, our 'percieved consciousness' of said existence.

No, that is merely some injection of my philosophical ideas - due to my posting in a "philosophy- thread, and no, it is not incorporating the question if human consciousness would be part of his perception or if it is something else. A totally different subject.
Your explicit capitalist consumerism materialism is present in the whole of your argumentation. Why do you value money that much?

You know, if I'd been feeling particularly engaged I could have pointed that out to you a whole long while ago. No - it's not a nonsense answer - it's a rational answer. Which is why you reject it.

See above. You make yourself look strangely bewildered with this... and in a strange, defensive manner at that

The reason both I and dennisr 'brought religion' into this discussion is because we both know that fundamentally, that is where your aversion to a class analysis of society lies. It's just about getting to the point.

Correction: The only reason you brought it into this - and yet again, you don't seem to learn quickly from mistakes - is because you were clutching at straws to fabricate an argument. Not even having the insight that by doing so you would only find yourself standing on quicksand. You still don't know it.
I don't even have any aversion. No sentiment whatsoever comes into play here.

Why, exactly, should I take anything to exist other than that which manifests itself in what I know of material existence? Material existence is (and always will be) my sole experience of 'reality' - outside of which no evidence nor reason can be found to justify anything. To reject material existence is to relegate your material life to nothingness and futility - unless you choose to manufacture your own fairy-tales to justify some idea of a higher purpose and higher plane of existence. You might as well just go sit in a corner and wait to die (like the peasants who are unable to work without capital).

You are completely wrong but this is again a totally different discussion.

You don't believe that varying access to the world's resources on the basis of what is essentially class consitutes anything other than an 'artificial' divide. I agree. That artificial divide is class, and it should be abolished.

And still you got it wrong.
I say the terminology "class" is merely attempting to make it look artificial, while it is simply the natural result of cause and effect. (How many times must I repeat this?)

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist *resisting urge to insult*

Some of a disappointment. I would love to discover the destructive force of "middle class" insults.

salaam
*wonders what "class" Aldebaran is in DU's worldview. Maybe tomorrow all that shall be reveiled. Must take sleeping pill, so exited...*

 

[Fictionist]

I can't read, I'm dyslexic and I don't know English.

salaam.

Cough.


See post 210.

 

[Das Uberdog]

a) It is utterly relevant. You are the one supporting "class divisions". Hence my question: Describe how you divide.
b) I don't ask what Marx or Trotsky said about it. I ask what you make of it. Don't you have own ideas on what you so vehemently defend?



No, that is merely some injection of my philosophical ideas - due to my posting in a "philosophy- thread, and no, it is not incorporating the question if human consciousness would be part of his perception or if it is something else. A totally different subject.
Your explicit capitalist consumerism materialism is present in the whole of your argumentation. Why do you value money that much?



See above. You make yourself look strangely bewildered with this... and in a strange, defensive manner at that



Correction: The only reason you brought it into this - and yet again, you don't seem to learn quickly from mistakes - is because you were clutching at straws to fabricate an argument. Not even having the insight that by doing so you would only find yourself standing on quicksand. You still don't know it.
I don't even have any aversion. No sentiment whatsoever comes into play here.



You are completely wrong but this is again a totally different discussion.



And still you got it wrong.
I say the terminology "class" is merely attempting to make it look artificial, while it is simply the natural result of cause and effect. (How many times must I repeat this?)



Some of a disappointment. I would love to discover the destructive force of "middle class" insults.

salaam
*wonders what "class" Aldebaran is in DU's worldview. Maybe tomorrow all that shall be reveiled. Must take sleeping pill, so exited...*

*sigh*

I disagree a slight there though fictionist - it seems that infact Aldebaran's tactic is to state an arrogant presumption, reject any responses to it, insist that his position need not be defended (on account of its unique and powerful superiority) and repeat himself. Over and over. Then he directs questions towards you, and when you respond, rejects their validity and context towards the diiscussion - yet insists that his own line of questioning is evidently 'utterly' relevent.

The dyslexia thing is a purely tangental pile of wankery, not in the least the MAIN thrust of his non-argument.

Aldo - you're a waste of breath.

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran's tactic is to state an arrogant presumption, reject any responses to it, insist that his position need not be defended (on account of its unique and powerful superiority) and repeat himself. Over and over.

Looking in a mirror?
Remember I wished you good luck when you stated you were going to "tear me apart". You can't even bring yourself to reason one second outside the mantra of your doctrine.

Then he directs questions towards you, and when you respond, rejects their validity and context towards the diiscussion - yet insists that his own line of questioning is evidently 'utterly' relevent.

It is a simple fact that the lazy tactic of attempting to derail discussions does not work with me.
My questions are totally relevant. Seems to me you have no answer to them.

The dyslexia thing is a purely tangental pile of wankery, not in the least the MAIN thrust of his non-argument.

Do you now actually want to argue that the fact that I am dyslexic is the main trust of my argument? (I'm at the brink of feeling sorry now.)

Aldo - you're a waste of breath.

It still totally escapes you that I chose "Aldebaran" as my membername. Speaks all on its own volumes regarding your attention span which on tis turn sheds light on the lack of focus you demonstrate, inventing "arguments" at the spot while your fingers torture your poor (((keyboard))). You are convinced that is good enough to derail the discussion in order to escape answering my questions.
Like I said: Good luck. Obviously you need it.

salaam.