PDA

View Full Version : Proletarianism



Kerr
06-13-2005, 06:07 AM
How is this defined? How would you define it? I mean, I would have defined myself as middle class since I am neither rich nor poor. Yet, Noodles Is Gay goes on about her classics crap, and has her own gym, and is even going to Oxford University, and she calls herself Middle Class. Therefore, that would make me working class? Yet my parents own enough a year so that I am not entitled to EMA! (if you live in Britain and have heard of this new system for sixth formers where they get paid per week to go to school, you will understand the rules behind EMA and what it is). It is quite confusing.

Personally, I think the whole division between classes is just ridiculous anyway. I just wondered though, and out of interest, if anyone still follows the whole thing of judging people by class or judge the actions/everyday life of certain classes.

RXP
06-13-2005, 07:42 AM
Basically if you are well off enough not to get a 4k loan for uni or those EMA's, your middle class.

NiG is a typical middle classer - selfish.

I know many a middle class who are safe tho.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 07:44 AM
The proletariat simply don't own the means of production - generally speaking it's basically the working class. If you work for a wage and don't own the business or whatever you're proletariat. If you rely on your labour as your primary income generating source, you're proletariat. The 'masses' are proletariat.

Bourgeoisie own the means of production. Then there's the Petty Bourgeoisie, shop owners, small business basically. It's different than the whole upper middle and working class thing.

ETA: Analyzing class difference isn't fashionable anymore apparently, or so my lecturer told me.

There are differences however - go to a 'working class' pub, look around (and pay attention to atmosphere, clothes, behaviour, as well as the decore and layout of the pub itself), then go to a 'middle class' pub, look around. Having said that, who cares, but then I'm Australian, not English, and I know those things are more important over there (have relatives there, and visited for a couple of months).

Oh and there is an 'underclass' these days which is probably the people they are trying to encourage to go to school by paying them. They arn't working class.
Whoa, thanks. that explained a lot to me.
________
Buy Vapor Tower (http://www.vaporshop.com/vapor-tower-vaporizer.html)

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 08:26 AM
For a guy I've never heard of before, Ibid seems to know a lot about Marxist economics.

Ignoring class theory is to ignore the most useful analytical tool in the studies of politics and society.

There is no middle class. Simply because today's middle class, while it would technically (in most cases be working class), seems to have the mindset of the bourgeois, very interesting. I can go into much more detail, but I really don't care.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 09:49 AM
Yet, Noodles Is Gay goes on about her classics crap, and has her own gym, and is even going to Oxford University, and she calls herself Middle Class.

Oxford? No, Cambridge (I hope anyway, since they got rid of the whole donating system and now use a 'fair' system...damn Labour party.) In fact, to be perfectly frank, I haven't quite decided yet - Oxford is lovely but then again so is Cambridge.

I call myself middle-class (and damn PROUD of it too!) because that's what I'm called by people here, I wouldn't bother to define myself otherwise.

Classes must exist though to keep people in their place and prevent them from rising too far above their station - look at the 18/19th centuries; bloody fine back then.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 09:57 AM
Classes must exist though to keep people in their place and prevent them from rising too far above their station - look at the 18/19th centuries; bloody fine back then.
I'd almost say this line was written just to provoke a reaction out of me, cause not even the craziest liberals or Edmond Burkists would say something like this.

But I'm interested. 'To keep everyone in their place' and 'prevent them from rising too far above their station.'
What do you mean? Like some kind of caste system (hey, it worked so well for India)? Then who is to judge what a person's station is? And wouldn't you consider examples like Bill Gates, as rising too far above their station?

As for the 18th and 19th centuries, because of this social upheaval, nations had a tendency to kill in a bloody frenzy, the classes above them (the French revolution is a beautiful example of this.)

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 10:01 AM
A reaction from you? Not at all, in fact I was rather expecting RXP to 'attack' - not that I'm really particularly bothered.

It’s quite hard to explain; but basically if you’re working class you stay there. If you’re middle class you stay there – you marry someone of the same class and live your life in that way. I meant in the 18th and 19th centuries in England – the days of Oscar Wilde etc, if you look at that you will understand.

JohnnyNemesis
06-13-2005, 10:01 AM
I'm a poor minority who will be attending a very elite university this fall. I guess I should reconsider and maybe I shouldn't "rise above" anything, despite the fact that I've worked so much harder than most people who are already at that school, considering I had to compensate for the resources that just never hit the Bronx: caring teachers, decent schools, serious scholarship promotion, any kind of income at all, etc.

It's really easy for people who don't ever live any kind of social or class problem to be selfish. I'm born into a class, and so are most people. It has so little to do with anything we do sometimes.

I'm probably rambling because I'm exhausted right now. Hopefully I'll be able to clarify sometime.

JohnnyNemesis
06-13-2005, 10:02 AM
It’s quite hard to explain; but basically if you’re working class you stay there. If you’re middle class you stay there – you marry someone of the same class and live your life in that way.
Yeah, but how could that possibly be a good thing?

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 10:10 AM
It’s quite hard to explain; but basically if you’re working class you stay there. If you’re middle class you stay there – you marry someone of the same class and live your life in that way. I meant in the 18th and 19th centuries in England – the days of Oscar Wilde etc, if you look at that you will understand.
Of course I've looked at the 18th and 19th centuries. You do realize I've spent a good deal of time reading historic works from these periods.

What's fantastic about the 19th century working class, is they lived much in the same way that the people of the Marquilladores in South (and Latin) America do. And basically how anyone inside a 'Free Trade Zone' factory works and lives. The reason we created laws restricting the amount of works hours people could do, and minimum wage and all that. Was people tended to live a lot shorter back then, because of their crappy conditions. It wasn't ideallic at all, most of the 19th century consists of social uprisings, in every European country. Even the birth of the first socialist state because people got sick of this way of life.

It's the epitome of the class struggle. And the reason why this system doesn't work, at all. Because the masses can't take it, while the elite wishes they would.

But Johnny really somed it up with a 'how is that a good thing?' right there.

Kerr
06-13-2005, 12:22 PM
I call myself middle-class (and damn PROUD of it too!) because that's what I'm called by people here, I wouldn't bother to define myself otherwise.

I have never ever been referred to under ANY class. But apparently, class is still a categorising system still used a lot in Britain. It was discussed in a General Studies lesson at my school. It was some time ago, but I heard from somewhere the term Proletarian again, and that lesson immediately came flooding back.

RXP: I guess I am middle class, then. My dad is head of year at Grammer School, where he is a teacher, and when train journeys are paid for by him, the fees go up to £90, which I think is first class.

RXP
06-13-2005, 02:43 PM
It’s quite hard to explain; but basically if you’re working class you stay there. If you’re middle class you stay there – you marry someone of the same class and live your life in that way. I meant in the 18th and 19th centuries in England – the days of Oscar Wilde etc, if you look at that you will understand.

You will never get into Cambridge because you are so uneducated. You know nothing about English history in the period you cited. Absoultely nothing. google 'THe bloody code' and the 'Waltham Black Act' and edcuate your ignorant self.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 06:01 PM
I'm just bumping this because the jackson thread is attracting the attention of the General Chat masses, and it's nauseating.

AmieTripodi
06-14-2005, 04:23 AM
I think it's worth mentioning that monetarily, class is a relatively simple concept. Culturally, however, is a different story altogether. Cultural class matters mostly in the higher levels of economic class. For example.....new money vs old money, etc. Back in the day you could be dirt poor but have a title and that would give you social status otherwise denied to you under normal circumstances. I know this doesn't have much to do with what you guys are specifically talking about, but it's related somewhat.....just food for thought.

Kerr
06-14-2005, 04:47 AM
I think it's worth mentioning that monetarily, class is a relatively simple concept. Culturally, however, is a different story altogether. Cultural class matters mostly in the higher levels of economic class. For example.....new money vs old money, etc. Back in the day you could be dirt poor but have a title and that would give you social status otherwise denied to you under normal circumstances. I know this doesn't have much to do with what you guys are specifically talking about, but it's related somewhat.....just food for thought.
And an interesting one too.

Anyone who is "poor" can still get "street" status nowadays.