So, Class

[embree]

Those statements are practically identical in meaning

 

[Wolveryeti]

Fridgemagnet: Cultural signifiers are confused with socio-economic role
DotCommunist: Economic role is confused with social role

 

[FridgeMagnet]

DotCommunist: Economic role is confused with social role

except that's not what was said

you got my bit fairly right I suppose

 

[Wolveryeti]

Either way, no word of a lie, I'd love to know what the technical definition of class is, according to anyone on this thread.

(preferably all at once)

 

[DotCommunist]

You want an abstract noun defined without providing the context for that definition?

Great.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Ok. How you'd distinguish 'working class' from 'middle class'.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

liking oi

 

[DotCommunist]

context free, abstract definitions? Nah, I'm not playing. I can't play because you want solid absolutes for a fluid system. If you want absolutes you might try Catholicism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Either way, no word of a lie, I'd love to know what the technical definition of class is, according to anyone on this thread.

(preferably all at once)

No such thing.

Words don't work like that. In any discussion like this, there is certainly a need to define your terms so that you are all discussing the same thing. Indeed, the different meanings people attach to words, unaware that others are using them differently, are a fundamental source of disagreement. But there is no 'technical' 'god-given' definition of anything.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I don't need absolutes, just some indication how you might go about doing the distinctions, or maybe the 'technical' definition which Fridgemagnet assures us it has, as it's so fucking obvious and I'm such a huge idiot to not be able to see the dividing lines.

If class is, as you say, context-based then it depends what you deem the context to be - i.e. it is arbitrary to some extent.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If class is, as you say, context-based then it depends what you deem the context to be - i.e. it is arbitrary.

Logic fail.

Clarifying the context is quite the opposite of using a word arbitrarily. It is using it precisely.

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't need absolutes, just some indication how you might go about doing the distinctions, or maybe the 'technical' definition which Fridgemagnet assures us it has, as it's so fucking obvious and I'm such a huge idiot to not be able to see the dividing lines.

If class is, as you say, context-based then it depends what you deem the context to be - i.e. it is arbitrary to some extent.

the existence of a hierarchy of economic circumstances is far from arbitrary

 

[Blagsta]

According to you, perhaps. Who's to say that, for instance, going to university is an irrelevant cultural signifier whereas shareholding is not?

Because you don't understand what is meant by "class" in this context!

 

[Blagsta]

Take this thread then. We have already discovered clear water between you and Fridgemagnet in your explanations of how people get class boundaries wrong (suggesting you disagree over what those boundaries actually are).





Perhaps it would be enlightening one way or the other if everyone on this thread divulged what their method of determining class is...

Errr....they say the same thing you numpty!

 

[Wolveryeti]

Logic fail.

Clarifying the context is quite the opposite of using a word arbitrarily. It is using it precisely.

I fear there is some disconnect in what we are both taking 'arbitrary' to mean. I mean it in the sense of 'individually determined'... 'not subject to consensus'. This is why I don't see the notion of class having any value. It is just a blank canvas that people project their hates and fears onto.

 

[Blagsta]

I fear there is some disconnect in what we are both taking 'arbitrary' to mean. I mean it in the sense of 'individually determined'... 'not subject to consensus'. This is why I don't see the notion of class having any value. It is just a blank canvas that people project their hates and fears onto.

Let's try this a different way - why do you think everyone on this thread is disagreeing with you? What do you think we mean by "class"?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Honestly, though, look, you don't care, do you? You just want to have a pop at the lefties or something because you think they're just whining about nothing and there's no problem.

 

[DotCommunist]

Honestly, though, look, you don't care, do you? You just want to have a pop at the lefties or something because you think they're just whining about nothing and there's no problem.

no, I'm sure the poster is genuinely interested in analysing our society and attempting to deal with the vast inequalities contained therein

 

[Wolveryeti]

You mischaracterise me. I do like having pops at lefties but I also like having pops at their right wing counterparts. And I genuinely see the notion of seeing things in class terms as stupid.

 

[Blagsta]

You mischaracterise me. I do like having pops at lefties but I also like having pops at their right wing counterparts. And I genuinely see the notion of defining things in class terms as stupid.

What do you think lefties mean when they talk about class?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Because, really, we're all the same, there's no difference between us really, we can all do the same stuff?

Am I close?

 

[Wolveryeti]

What do you think lefties mean when they talk about class?

Inequality, social injustice... I just think they'd do better to call a spade a spade and do away with this class bollocks.

 

[DotCommunist]

You mischaracterise me. I do like having pops at lefties but I also like having pops at their right wing counterparts. And I genuinely see the notion of seeing things in class terms as stupid.

how can you then explain how their are people who are poor, people who are moderately wealthy and people who are super-rich? Is it all just a vast hallucination?

 

[Blagsta]

Inequality, social injustice... I just think they'd do better to call a spade a spade.

In other words you don't have a clue.

 

[DotCommunist]

Inequality, social injustice... I just think they'd do better to call a spade a spade and do away with this class bollocks.

yeah, call a spade a spade, thats bound to be better than analysis of the structure of society. FFS.

 

[embree]

Inequality, social injustice... I just think they'd do better to call a spade a spade and do away with this class bollocks.

And in those first two phrases lie the reason why class analysis is important. Playing the definitions game is an interesting diversion but it doesn't take away in the slightest from the fact that inequality and social injustice are inherent to the class system

 

[gorski]

 

[Wolveryeti]

how can you then explain how their are people who are poor, people who are moderately wealthy and people who are super-rich? Is it all just a vast hallucination?

I'm sure I could do a damn sight better than some shithead approach involving aggregating them into groups based on what income bracket they fall in, if that's what you're asking - yes. It's something that calls for proper study involving not just wealth but happiness, and involving more analysis of individuals and their geography, not aggregates.

yeah, call a spade a spade, thats bound to be better than analysis of the structure of society. FFS.

Only fuckwits see the need to impose simplistic patterns on complicated things. Emphasising the idea that we live in a quasi-caste system strengthens existing divisions and creates new ones where previously there were none. Moreover the socio-economic muddying of the waters with respect to definition distracts attention from what's important onto what's not.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm sure I could do a damn sight better than some shithead approach involving aggregating them into groups based on what income bracket they fall in, if that's what you're asking - yes. It's something that calls for proper study involving not just wealth but happiness, and involving more analysis of individuals and their geography, not aggregates.

no, marx never existed

Only fuckwits see the need to impose simplistic patterns on complicated things. Emphasising the idea that we live in a quasi-caste system strengthens existing divisions and creates new ones where previously there were none. Moreover the socio-economic muddying of the waters with respect to definition distracts attention from what's important onto what's not.

analysis is not emphasis, no matter how hard you wish to paint it as emphasis.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm sure I could do a damn sight better than some shithead approach involving aggregating them into groups based on what income bracket they fall in, if that's what you're asking - yes. It's something that calls for proper study involving not just wealth but happiness, and involving more analysis of individuals and their geography, not aggregates.



Only fuckwits see the need to impose simplistic patterns on complicated things. Emphasising the idea that we live in a quasi-caste system strengthens existing divisions and creates new ones where previously there were none. Moreover the socio-economic muddying of the waters with respect to definition distracts attention from what's important onto what's not.

this is just you saying "I think this is what you all mean by class and it's rubbish"