Deborah Orr: the poor are stupid

[DotCommunist]

I would say it is an attack on the poor by saying they are stupid and/or an attack on the stupid by saying they are poor.

It does not have to be an attack on the working classes, unless by inference you accept that they are poor or stupid, which I doubt you would.

Incidentally I know two left wing university professors, both profess vociferously to being working class, they are certainly not poor, they may have working class roots but can they in their positions be working class?

*sigh* here we go AGAIN

 

[northernhord]

I would say it is an attack on the poor by saying they are stupid and/or an attack on the stupid by saying they are poor.

It does not have to be an attack on the working classes, unless by inference you accept that they are poor or stupid, which I doubt you would.

Incidentally I know two left wing university professors, both profess vociferously to being working class, they are certainly not poor, they may have working class roots but can they in their positions be working class?

The poor are working class and vice versa, just because someone from my background has got themselves a doctorate and worked their way up the dept at some Uni doesnt mean they aint working class, Uni lecturers dont earn loads when you think about the amount of graft they put in.

 

[Fruitloop]

All poor people are working class technically speaking, since if they owned any means of production or had professional skills of value to capital then it's very unlikely they'd be poor.

Capitalists cannot be poor by definition.

 

[El Jefe]

Capitalists cannot be poor by definition.

Not being pedantic, but I'm genuinely confused.

if you were a successful business owner in a market that suddenly collapsed, and you lost your business, had massive debts, yadda yadda yadda, would you by definition become working class?

 

[_angel_]

She's a terrible writer. I had to work really hard to get to the end of that without dropping off.

Maybe she could be replaced with a more talented and less monied writer. (Ie me )

 

[northernhord]

Not being pedantic, but I'm genuinely confused.

if you were a successful business owner in a market that suddenly collapsed, and you lost your business, had massive debts, yadda yadda yadda, would you by definition become working class?

Economically and in terms of being powerless they would be percieved as being working class

 

[weltweit]

Economically and in terms of being powerless they would be percieved as being working class

So my university professors are middle class.

 

[Fruitloop]

Not being pedantic, but I'm genuinely confused.

if you were a successful business owner in a market that suddenly collapsed, and you lost your business, had massive debts, yadda yadda yadda, would you by definition become working class?

Yeah in the technical sense in which there are only two fundamental classes, the people that own the means of production and the people that sell their labour for money. Although to be honest in your example the plummy voice and fancy education would probably get you a nice cushy middle-class job - the chances of you ending up living in an estate and working on a garage forecourt are pretty remote.

 

[DotCommunist]

So my university professors are middle class.

Well yes, economically speaking. They may retain values, habits and attitudes from their working class roots, but monetarily they would be termed as middle class

 

[teuchter]

I don't really see why everyone is getting their knickers in such a twist about this article. Well, I do, actually, of course - they see the words "poor" and "intellectual capacity" somewhere near each other and then the red mist descends as the taboo is broken, as she herself points out.

Or perhaps they have read the title of the thread but not the article.

The premise of the argument is that poor people are poor because they are stupid. I'd say that's an attack on working classes, no?

I don't think that's an entirely fair summary of what she is saying. She is saying there is a correlation, and that this correlation can lead to dangerous generalisations:

it is not considered comme il faut to venture that these things also suggest that perhaps there really is a loose but genuine correlation between being poor and being actually less intellectually capable.

Of course, like all generalisations, this one is dangerous. Plenty of people are bright but poor, and the right agrees with the left on this, even if it signals its agreement with an unremitting focus on grammar schools. Plenty of people are rich and stupid as well, which presumably is why they cannot see that their focus on grammar schools is a focus on helping the most capable the most, and therefore the least capable the least.

Seems reasonable to me. Why the outrage?

 

[chainsaw cat]

I am sure some of the poor are stupid but equally some of the rich are not exactly IQ winners either, what it certainly takes to make a lot of money is determination, energy and drive, it does not necessarily take great intellect.

What it usually takes is, in fact, having a lot of money in the first place that someone just gives to you.

 

[brasicritique]

The economic 'crisis' and the ideological advances are two prongs of the same assault on the working class.

very true

 

[bluestreak]

Seems reasonable to me. Why the outrage?

I think you may be missing the gist of her argument. that some rich people are thick and that some poor people are thick is completely undisputed, but really what is she actually saying? Basically she's saying it's about time that we accepted that people are mostly poor and fat and generally lumpen is because they're thick.

However, the reason most people are poor and fat and indeed ill educated is because they were born into the wrong social class, in a system that dooms them from the beginning. even if they do succeed by the standards of their peers, they are unlikely to succeed by the standards of those from other social classes. Social mobility is at an all time low, thanks to the last 30 years of government, and it's not the poor who are to blame for their own mobility, education standards, and indeed the choices they they are given by society.

 

[brasicritique]

where does the orr think GMTV or talentless media fuckwits fit in to the equation ? i mean the GMTV mob not the brightest bunch are they

what we saw under thathcer was pull up the ladder, but what we are seeing from people who think they are leftwing/liberals throw the had grenade down


last saturday toynbee was saying thats it! social mobility is over! to bad! get used to it it was a blip of the 1950s60s. remeber to Vote labour still!

What we are witnessing is the begining of a fundamnetal shift within society and the left have diappeared up there own arse

can someone post that link to where orr got chased away please?

 

[Fruitloop]

Alas, it has been consigned to oblivion.

 

[brasicritique]

oh well thanks for telling me fruitloop still isuppose its for the best tho oblivion is to good for people like her IMO

 

[Fruitloop]

oh well thanks for telling me fruitloop still isuppose its for the best tho oblivion is to good for people like her IMO

no probs.

last saturday toynbee was saying thats it! social mobility is over! to bad! get used to it it was a blip of the 1950s60s. remeber to Vote labour still!

Wow, that sounds particularly loathsome. Did she say 'the poor are always with us'?

 

[DotCommunist]

no probs.



Wow, that sounds particularly loathsome. Did she say 'the poor are always with us'?

anyone saying that in seriousness should be superglued to a tramp, by law

 

[brasicritique]

Wow, that sounds particularly loathsome. Did she say 'the poor are always with us'?

dont tell me your also getting confused over what jesus said and done treelover did the same thing on another thread with the cake and the five thousand i feel i should warn you both that taking the lords name in vain will see you suffer eternal damnation

 

[ViolentPanda]

All poor people are working class technically speaking, since if they owned any means of production or had professional skills of value to capital then it's very unlikely they'd be poor.

Capitalists cannot be poor by definition.

Unless they're very poor at being Capitalists, like.

 

[brasicritique]

anyone saying that in seriousness should be superglued to a tramp, by law

why should the tramp me made to suffer having toynbe glued to ther back

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I read the article as saying that:

1. we live in a society where intellectual ability is increasingly the form of commodified labour preferred by capital;

2. we live in a society where a notion of individual choice is given great value across much of the political spectrum.

Furthermore taken together these two factors produce a very difficult situation for people of less than average intellectual ability.

Where the article falls flat on its face for me is that having identified two genuine difficulties, it doesn't go on to propose an obvious solution; namely to attack the idea of the desirability of a meritocracy, in particular an intellectual meritocracy. What Orr fails to say is that people, strong or weak, clever or dim, fast or slow are deserving of having their needs met simply by dint of being people.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[weltweit]

Unless they're very poor at being Capitalists, like.

I currently consider myself a failed capitalist !

 

[ViolentPanda]

anyone saying that in seriousness should be superglued to a tramp, by law

Bit unkind to tramps, that.

 

[Spion]

Capitalists cannot be poor by definition.

Not true. Capitalist, as does working class/proletarian, indicates a *relation* to the means of production not someone's income level.

It's theoretically possible for a small scale productive-property owner to have a lower income than a proletarian

 

[weltweit]

... Where the article falls flat on its face for me is that having identified two genuine difficulties, it doesn't go on to propose an obvious solution; namely to attack the idea of the desirability of a meritocracy, in particular an intellectual meritocracy. What Orr fails to say is that people, strong or weak, clever or dim, fast or slow are deserving of having their needs met simply by dint of being people. ...

I am confused now, I thought a meritocracy was desirable by people like you louis ?

Or another question, what constitutes fairness and equality in contemporary Britain?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I am confused now, I thought a meritocracy was desirable by people like you louis ?

Or another question, what constitutes fairness and equality in contemporary Britain?

Why do you think I would be in favour of an intellectual meritocracy? And who are people like me?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Fruitloop]

Not true. Capitalist, as does working class/proletarian, indicates a *relation* to the means of production not someone's income level.

It's theoretically possible for a small scale productive-property owner to have a lower income than a proletarian

Cash-poor perhaps, but if they own means of production worth more than a brass razoo then they are not poor in the sense that proletatians are poor. Ditto 'genteel poverty' where people live like paupers in ramshackle stately homes worth millions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

why should the tramp me made to suffer having toynbe glued to ther back

I can imagine her haranguing the poor old dosser for having a can of Special "You could have bought a nourishing egg and cress sandwich with the money you spent on that beer, my good man!".

 

[weltweit]

Why do you think I would be in favour of an intellectual meritocracy? And who are people like me? ...

People like you only means I have read your opinions on a couple of threads now.

So you are not in favour of a meritocracy.

I am not sure I am either, I mean why should someone perhaps born with a higher IQ than mine suddenly be worth so much more in salary terms?