Is a discussion of class conflict something most folks would rather avoid?

[inthebrain]

I've always wondered this. Republicans discuss class and have no shame about proclaiming what side they on. Even if the side they've chosed contradicts their own class interest. In a sense they do discuss class but many of them have very little understanding where their place is in all of it.

Democrats are a really strange place to have this discussion. It seems like the few on this board that even bring it up have a very difficult time breaking through the din of all newsmaking during the day. Even when it is brought up it seems like it's mentioned as if it's the middle class as a class unto itself. Never that the middle class is a really group of people that serve a function as the buffer between rich and poor. Yet, as a people, their class interests have commonality with the poor and of the same class. Those people are more likely to wind up living in card boxes than winding up the next Bill Gates and Lee Iacoca (however he spells his name).

Then there are the anti immigrationalists. This is just don't understand. In order to make a fairer society and fairer world we need numbers. Those numbers have to consist of people you share common class interest with. The people that go this route almost seemed resigned to the idea that we are all animals fighting over scraps off the masters table. Not that we are the ones that built that table, the chairs, the roof, the floor and created the meal the master eats. The fewer animals the better.

Meanwhile a fair and just society where workers are treated with dignity and have full rights to a real democracy seems almost unrealistic to them. Despite the fact that there are more of us than those that broker power. Capital has no respect for borders why should the ideas of economic and social justice.

I don't get it. We all have the same goals and the more of us that get together to ensure a better quality of life for all, the better. Why cut people out?

Not only that, it is the power brokers that want us to cut eachother out so they maintain control and don't have to earn their share like the rest of us.

Why do we never have this discussion?

[tavalon]

1. In europe, they have no problem with class

Here, we were taught that ours is a classless system for we have no monarchy nor untouchables. It was drummed into our heads so much that we can't see what's plainly in front of our faces.

[tavalon]

3. And, it is to the ruling class's advantage that we remain ignorant of the classes

and the fact that so few of us are any higher than working class because we might just come after them.

[DJ13]

2. I actually think you're wrong... Republicans never want to talk about class

They are always trying to dismiss talks about class (and the widening gap between rich and poor) by proclaiming anyone who mentions it is dealing in "class warfare".

Its their shield against dealing with the subject.

[inthebrain]

6. Oh they talk about it....

I might say they don't really get it. Some of em do.

Their candidates talk about it and get it. They vocally proclaim they don't give a shit. Some of em pretend to but even they know that we know they are just pretending. Republicans fill the void of devil you know and really have no desire what so ever to gloss it over. They are like the Eric Cartmens in American public life; They know they are hated by the public at large and couldn't care less.

The voters themselves are a bit of a different story. Yeah, some of em fear talking about it and others that do are just to cynical to think anything can be seriously done about it.

It's complicated but they are very much resigned to being the animals in masters house and willing to cut out as many others animals as they can for a bigger share. They know it's there but accept it as the way of things. It can't be changed.

[patrice]

4. Anyone who has read Howard Zinn and/or Noam Chomsky understands this.

So it's kind of a given with many of us. You may hear these facts referred to in kind of a short-hand sort of way or it is assumed that when you're talking in support of something like Single Payer Health Care or Revoking the Reagan tax cuts or EFCA or Trust Busting, others will recognize your socio-economic under-pinnings without you having to enumerate them.

P.S. And for Educators, this is discussed in the works of John Dewey and Paolo Freire.

[BlooInBloo]

5. I have no problem with it. Except when white folks use it as part of their...

"there's no racism" bullshit.

But other than that, it's a fine topic.

[inthebrain]

7. Well, racism and class are intertwined....

We have a habit of just commenting on the symptoms. We do a poor job of recognizing the etiology and addressing it. That to me seems the most uncomfortable of territories.

We tend to blame ourselves but a lot of this has to do with the way the ruling class wants things. They like the faulty construct of race and would rather we attack eachother. Underneath lies the real construct of class while securing wealth and power for themselves. Divide and conquer.

Look at this way, it ain't working class folks that put gave bigots like Lou Dobbs a national television program.

And just why is it that there is no one on the national television that talks about class in American life and how it works. Even if there were you'd have to dig for it.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Anyone saying anything like "it's not race, it's class" is pretty much done, in my book.

EDIT: I understand perfectly that there is a certain sort of person who doesn't care for my book, of course.

[inthebrain]

9. Do you have any understanding of how racism and bigotry is used to secure those with wealth and -

power?

Or is it something you are not comfortable with?

Remember the old saying "children are not born racist they learn it from their parents"?

There is two things true with this statement.

1)People are not born racist.

2) Racism is learned.

So if racism is learned and people are not born with it, where did they learn it? It is not ALWAYS true that it is handed down from parents. And if so where did the parents learn it and their parents learn it (So on and so forth).

As Humans we are pattern finding thinkers but we are also social creatures as well. Finding patterns is how we survive and we naturally cast off false patterns that are not good for us and the false patterns the do no harm we still hold onto. Racism, Bigotry, and predjudice are not healthy or natural for us a species as it is dangerous to us. Cooperation is what's always been beneficial to our survival.

Hence it is learned and an enforce pattern of the social order by someone else. Who teaches that to us?

[BlooInBloo]

10. You're babbling. I suppose it's a semi-cute way to nibble at the edges, though.

[inthebrain]

11. Is Martin Luther King dead in your book?

He was also famus for saying that race and class are intertwined.

Not to mention that it is a false construct.

[BlooInBloo]

14. hahahaha!

You're not anywhere near smart enough to do this, dude.

[inthebrain]

18. You false bravado has now been shown to be pure avoidance.

Noble attempt though.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Ok, MLK.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[inthebrain]

13. I'd also like you cite where it is that I've said "racism doesn't exist"

Me thinks your too busy acting like a child rather than have a real discussion on the topic.

[BlooInBloo]

15. As soon as you cite where I said you said that. You first.

[inthebrain]

17. Oh right here

"as part of their "there's no racism" bullshit."

You're just trolling for attention now.

[BlooInBloo]

19. (facepalm)

[laugle]

35. Oh don't mind him, he's just goofing on you, but he's harmless...

I'll give you a short answer to the why; it's too complicated and gets too heated.

Same as immigration and race issues.

But, I did find your posts interesting........

[inthebrain]

21. Oh, and just what exactly am I nibbeling at the edges of?

This should be interesting to see if you can actually offer evidence of something.

Rather than hide behind your false bravado.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Tell me more about the mountaintop, MLK. Please.

[laugle]

36. Bloo........behave yourself..............

[Rockholm]

49. BARF.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. So, in order for the poor to have any clout, there have to be many more of us?

And by encouraging as much immigration as possible, we uh, avoid behaving like "animals fighting over scraps off the masters table"?

Do you really think about what you type? If you haven't noticed, the power brokers love the hell out of offshoring and unregulated immigration.

The problem is unequal distribution of wealth. The fix is going to look like punishment or "class warfare" to the ones that are currently winning, a solution which is permanently deferred so long as there's a hungrier person to do their bidding.

We have this discussion all the time... but it's still stupid.

[inthebrain]

16. Just so long as your willing to attack the immigrants

Makes it much easier for them to force you to concede your wages so you can have the privledge of workin for em. All in the name of America.

You really think putting up a wall at the border is really going to punish these people. Oh, and as far as alternatives go to this, just who do you think offered that one up?

Hahahahahaha!!!!!

The ruling classes that's who. The same people who own the network that allows Lou Dobbs to peddle his bullshit.

You think enforcing this border is a punishment to them? It's freakin gift and who better to give to em than the working classes they seek to exploit.

You honestly think they are gonna respect it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh, and nice straw man you've constructed. But I do get the sense you think you are of the same class as the ruling elite in this country. Wait till you get your wall and you'll really see what they think of you. What you've been advocating for has been advocated for generations and generations in this country. We have tighter immigration rule today than we did 60 or 70 years ago because the Amierican and Immigrant alike stood together in brotherhood on the picket lines together.

They tightened up and are still screwing everyone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Your "senses" don't serve you well.

And nothing that I've written should have given anyone with a passing familiarity in english the slightest inkling that I "think I'm of the same class as the ruling elite in this country".

As for the rest; gibberish. It has nothing to do with a wall.

[inthebrain]

34. What you makes you think it's going to work

The history of the capitalists in this country is nothing but exploitation and abuse of the working class.

And like I said, just where do you think the idea to build a fence came from?

Here's a hint; Not the working classes.

It is the the American Ruling class ie Capitalists, that came up with it. Of course those that endorse and have bought it think "Well they can't do anything to fuck us now". You're ring.

You haven't these snake oil salesmen, on the contrary, you're played right into their hands. They want nothing more than to divide the working classes.

What?

You think you're going to pass some laws and restrict these assholes from exploitin em elsewhere? Good luck with that. The people who're gonna enforce em serve the capitalist class. That's like having the foxes watch over the henhouse.

[terisan]

22. I think people who think of themselves as members of the middle class have a tendency to

look down upon some of the other self-identified members of the middle class or tend place people in categories such as "upper class", "working class" or "lower class" people. They see stereotypes rather than individuals.

I have built in my own mind a view of the US as a country on the road to democracy with a long way to travel. I don't see people in a burgeoning democracy as divided into lower, middle, and upper class. Indeed how would one make that classification---based on what? -- income, wealth, personal style, cultural assets, formal education, thought patterns, speech patterns, habits, ideologies?

I think part of the genius of democracy is that one should be able to choose to make a lot of money or not; to engage in formal education or not, to speak in the accents of Eliza Doolittle of the streets or the accents "great lady" she posed as----and be treated with dignity, respect, and a sense of equality, and an affirmation that one has the right to be heard and to participate and to not be ridiculed.

Our so-called Left is not a vibrant left--often its members see others as members of groups, and while professing to be helping "the poor" or the"working class" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are dismissive of individuals within those groups who dare to think for themselves and to share their beliefs and ideas with others. Many of the Democrats in positions of power are very rich, even super rich and are actually promoting their own "class" interests even while seeming to work for people less fortunate.

A true democracy is not a hierarchy and a democratic people have to overcome the hierarchal thinking that causes us to seek a place for ourselves in a pecking order.

At one point in my life I experimented with working in capacities way down in the social pecking order. I catalogued the daily indignities and found that the worst offenders were people highly educated and often self-proclaimed liberals and progressives-people who often point out the prejudices and shortcomings of others but have little insight into their own prejudices and therefore are unable to compensate for them. (I speak of myself here also-I am not immune to bouts of feeling superior).

How do we discuss class if we do not share a common definition of class categorizations and how do we achieve an egalitarian society if we assume that class categorizations are a given?

(Thanks for your thoughtful post).

[inthebrain]

24. Well, when we think and talk of class we are very easy and quick

To find things that make us unique to almost deny our goals that we have in common. Folks can be of different ethnicities, languages, occupations, etc and be of the same class. In other words looking at it terms of Mazlows heirarchy of needs.

Many of us struggle for the basic necasities in life. We work long hours and are not paid just compensation for the wealth we create for others. Not to mention society as whole. We are the ones that provide healthcare, Educations, build things, clean and serve. The list is endless.

For many of us the question is why do so few have so much while the rest of us are just scraping by? And even those that are the have a little mores than the have nots have commonalities in needs. They are not that far off.

So the common bind is need.

[terisan]

25. In a sense then we have 2 groups or classes-those in need and those with an excess of resources?

[inthebrain]

28. Pretty much

And then when you really boil it down to rights and those rights are allocated there are stark differences.

Take the right to "free speech". Who has there rights to free speech preserved and who doesn't? As a matter of fact, you'll find that where free speech is most vital to many is where it is most restrictive; The work place. How about the public square where mass assembly is met with lines of cops with billy clubs?

As they are threatening violence for those who "get out of line" whose "rights" are they really protecting?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. One of the most educational experiences of my life was working temp

Since my financial situation was dire and my secretarial skills rudimentary, I worked a lot of industrial temp jobs and low-level clerical jobs.

I don't know what the political affiliations of my supervisors or company owners were, but wherever I went, there was a definite pecking order: industrial workers, clerical workers, executives, and owners.

Just as a mundane example: The industrial workers started at 7:00AM, got 1 or 2 ten-minute coffee breaks, and 20-30 minutes for lunch. The clerical workers started at 8:30, got 2 fifteen-minute coffee breaks and an hour for lunch. The executives and owners came and went as they pleased. They always had an excuse why they came in at 10:00AM ("I was working at home") or took three hours for lunch ("I was discussing important matters with a client") or spent the afternoon at the water cooler ("I'm building relationships with my colleagues") or left early ("I have to attend my kid's soccer game").

The executives were paid many times what the industrial workers were and seemed to do nothing but push papers. Meanwhile, the industrial workers were on their feet all day, lifting heavy boxes, working with dangerous chemicals or machinery, and forced into compulsory overtime, and they caught hell if they were a minute late or took an extra minute on a break. They even caught hell if they missed a day due to illness or a family emergency. One penny pincher even required employees to clock out for breaks, and another (a national retail chain) always scheduled us for 15 minutes less than the time required to qualify for the next level of breaks. For example, the rules said that you got a half-hour break if you worked at least six hours, so unless the store anticipated a really busy day, I was scheduled for 5 hours, 45 minutes, with one 15-minute break the whole time. At eight hours, you qualified for an hour's worth of break, so guess what my usual schedule was on heavy days. Yup, 7 hours, 45 minutes.

Then there was the divide and conquer tactic. One of the industrial workers, usually the meanest, dumbest one, was selected as supervisor. This person's job was to walk around yelling "Faster! Faster!" or "Stop talking!" or "I don't care if you have a bad back! You can't sit down!" Note that none of these jobs required more than 0.001% of a person's brain, so there was no reason to prohibit talking, and there was no reason at all to prohibit sitting down. These were just ways to remind us who the peasants were.

[TBF]

38. You took 8 paragraphs and a "thanks for your thoughtful post" to tell the poor op "fuck you" -

that wasn't very nice. We can talk just fine without all of your fancy "definitions".

The reason we don't talk about class is that the owners are holding all the cards (not to mention they own the media). We should talk about it. Which side are you on? I'm a worker.

[leftstreet]

26. The people who need to have this discussion want to

The people who'd rather we DON'T have this discussion will do anything to shut it down.

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting post.

:hi:

[inthebrain]

27. Oh, I know that..

That's why I'm not responding to my friend anymore. It appears that sometimes the trolls are rewarded here by having conversations shut down.

I'm not getting into it with that guy anymore.

[anonymous171]

30. We would rather have discussions on Race and Gender.

That's how bad the avoidance is. Even in academic circles.

[Lilith Velkor]

31. Mmm hmm.

[Two Americas]

45. oh, is that it?

"It is class, not race (or gender)" has become the new camouflage for racist and sexist arguments.

It isn't an either/or, and racism and sexism are components of the class war. Saying that it isn't race, it is class, is akin to saying we won't take care of those who are not working because we support the workers.

It most certainly is about racism and sexism, because those are important tools that the ruling class uses to divide and conquer the working class.

Same enemy, same struggle, same dynamics, same purpose.

[rug]

32. I imagine it comes up from time to time on the unemployment line.

[blindpig]

37. If you start talking about class it's impossible to avoid Marx.

Can't have that.

Marx and Engels explained the nature of class conflict, it's origin and mechanism, better that anybody. Thus they have been demonized by capitalists and their dogs since the beginning. To even accept the existence of class in this country opens the door to them and their revolutionary prescription.

The incredible efforts of the ruling class over the past century plus to blind us to the reality of the situation is a sure sign of the threat they feel.

[leftstreet]

39. And unfortunately all too often the Intellectual Left likes to keep it that way

Pretenders to the ruling class most of them.

They bombard discussions of class conflict with their smarty-pants elitist non conversations, and send average stiffs away figuring Marx et al were all too clever to be understood by mere peons.

[inthebrain]

40. Who's "the intellectual left"?

[leftstreet]

41. Not you

:D

I was using it as a snarky term. Not leftists who happen to be intellectuals, but left literary intellectuals who cite and debate Marx Engels Bakunin like monks poring over ancient scrolls, and sigh heavily with veiled satisfaction when the worker bees (oh sigh) just 'don't get it.'

You don't do that.

:hi:

[inthebrain]

42. I know you're not talking about me. I just want evidence of who these people are..

The ones I've been exposed to don't talk like that.

Most of em speak in laymen's terms.

It's kinda difficuly to spruce up Marx and Engels so people can't understand it. Unless you're really putting in the effort I suppose.

[leftstreet]

43. Academics, think tanks, some editorialists

Alternate media people

I agree, most 'street leftists' I know speak in laymen's terms. (And to their credit, many of them have never read Marx.)

[inthebrain]

44. I think, in some of these instances, you're advancing a stereotype

Academics?

Not to attack you but I think you're taking a stereotype here and using it as evidence.

It's almost to say that workerbees are too stupid to understand this stuff from a college professor. It's almost like a double sided stereotype. It's also a bit of a misrepresentation of Marxism. People in academics do not controle the the means of production. Oh, and Marx and Engels did cite Academics, Science and lierature as vital to the advancement of any society. Their point is that stuff should be accessable to everyone for the betterment of the society and that we have a right to them. "Street Lefitists" as you would call them, are smart enough to understand that stuff as well.

According to Marx and Engels, it is the Bourgouisie that would have the proletariat believe that they are incapable of "getting it". There for the Bourgouisie will take great strides to ensure you can't have access to it. Unless it is the bullshit served up in THEIR schools. And the private schools run by the church are no fucking different.

BTW there are many points of Marxism that I strongly dissagree with. Generally I think his theories hit the nail on the head. His implementations are a little flawed though.

[leftstreet]

46. Oh , what you said...

"According to Marx and Engels, it is the Bourgouisie that would have the proletariat believe that they are incapable of "getting it". There for the Bourgouisie will take great strides to ensure you can't have access to it. Unless it is the bullshit served up in THEIR schools. And the private schools run by the church are no fucking different."

:thumbsup:

And I get your point. No, I wasn't trying to advance a stereotype but I can see how I represented it that way.

[Hekate]

47. It runs counter to what we have been taught to believe about who we are as Americans...

So yes, discussions of class make us very uncomfortable with a form of cognitive dissonance. That's why the "middle" class was stretched to include the near-poor and the just-about-rich.

Howard Zinn discusses class in his "People's History". A book by another author discusses high school education, with some commentary on the avoidance of discussing class, in "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Hekate

[H2O Man]

48. Great OP!

Thank you.

Sometimes people need to think in simple terms. We all know how foolish a person who makes, say, $40,000 a year is if he or she identifies themself as a republican, and honestly believe that a millionaire republican in Washington has more in common with them, than with a millionaire democrat in Washington.

The reverse question seems too obvious, but must be asked: does a person who makes $40,000 a year, and who identifies themself as a democrat, really think that the millionaire democrat in Washington has more in common with them, than with the millionaire republican?

[RepublicanElephant]

50. yes. nt