What do you think about class, class differences, the effect of class on politics and the place of class in political rhetoric? Is it something that people should focus on, and if so, how much? Should political leaders account for class when building organisations? Should class impact strategy?

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

You don't have to answer the questions in the title, they are only there to help with thinking. I am just looking for new takes on the class issue.

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]TrabWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think class is hugely important, especially in American society where you see an accumulation of wealth at the top growing by the year and sped up thanks to covid, while the people at the bottom struggle to make rent. Unlike Marxists and Commies though I don't just want to help our people struggling at the bottom finically, I also want to help them spiritually, morally and in all ways which truly benefit the community

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think another interesting quirk of this more neoliberal or "leftist" perspective is seeing economic development and social welfare as just another way to "boost consumer spending" and fuel infinite growth. Personally, I always thought of social welfare as just a means to an end and an indispensable foundation for the higher spiritual, moral and cultural development of a given community.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

neither party really mentions class but they do always talk about the middle class. The middle class is a buffer between the rich and the poor and keeps the poor from guillotining the rich. The rich would like to get rid of it if they could but they have to be careful about getting too greedy or they might regret it. I just want to be middle class, I don't need yachts and mansions just a small house and a car and I'm happy. I know even if I work my ass off I'll never be rich. Not real rich. Having a few million dollars is still middle class these days.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Inequality will always exist because some humans are less intelligent than others. However, I also believe that means the 1% have a moral responsibility to not screw over the 99%.

Paying fair wages, child labor laws, respect for the environment etc, are a must.

[–]Oingo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Free healthcare in exchange for military service is also a must imo.

Protecting each other is the fundamental element of folk.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However, I also believe that means the 1% have a moral responsibility to not screw over the 99%.

We want that to be a valid perspective because we're in the 99%, but how would it look from the 1% perspective?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Japan seems to be a good example of it done right (no pun intended).

The Japanese 1% are nationalistic, and aren't afraid of putting their own country first instead of foreigners. They also donate a lot of money towards natural disasters that hit their island.

There's also this story that made me cry when I first read it. Nintendo's former CEO would rather slash his own salary than fire any of his employees.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/arts/nintendo-ceo-take-50-percent-675228/

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That would be the result of Japanese 1% being ethnically Japanese, and therefore having a direct genetic connection with the Japanese people.

In many of our western countries, the 1% are not necessarily part of 'us'.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Japan is not all that different from most other liberal economies and societies.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're talking about the other Western liberal economies, the 1% exist to replace their native populations with cheap mixed race workers for an ever growing GDP.

Japan's elite aren't perfect, but at least they're not spending billions of dollars telling the Japanese people how evil their skin color is, or tearing down historic statues and monuments.

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is something that depends entirely on the degree of atomisation in a given society. In a zero-sum, every man for himself type of environment, the logical thing to do for the 1% would be to ruthlessly exploit the 99%. The issue is that it is very difficult to have anything resembling a functional society that way. If the two groups share a sense of social belonging and justice, then long term arrangements can be reached that are much more mutually beneficial and sustainable.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've just come from seeing someone mentioning "the ruling class" on dot win being called a communist...

Anyway, I think there are a number of perspectives the 1% could hold that wouldn't necessitate a zero-sum situation to see the 99% as a resource to be exploited.

Some of those could result from awareness of the 5+ billion excess people on the planet. In which case, a large percentage of the 99% could be seen as the enemies of mankind. Somewhat similar to 118 people in a 27 person life raft.

Another perspective might be that people get what they deserve, as the natural consequence of their choices and behaviors.

If the two groups share a sense of social belonging and justice

I would be fairly shocked if that were the case.

then long term arrangements can be reached that are much more mutually beneficial and sustainable.

We're not in a sustainable situation on this planet, and our species is heading towards bankruptcy. Either our average lifestyles need to drastically lower, or a very large number of people need to gtfo.

People who spend their days laboring to earn money are less likely to spend their time thinking about those kinds of things. But this is just about possible different perspectives, not whether the 1% might be a major cause of our problems.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The 1% has historically been entirely capable of helping the poor and has in many cases in the past. Look at Henry Ford, for example. The problem is greed and the intoxicating nature of birthright power. Except unlike a nobleman or monarch, they have no responsibilities or lifelong duties (or at least, they don't see themslves as having such).

[–]DisgustResponse 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Leftists love to screech, "It's not race, it's class!" but my intuition tells me that class is just another delineation of blood, like castes.

Does anyone know whether working-class whites are racially distinctive from managerial-class whites, per region?

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Caste and class have been drifting apart ever since the advent of modernity as a result of liberalisation, but there is a caste element to class too. One of the clearer historical examples would be Britain. The Normans were a separate ethnicity from their Anglo-Saxon subjects and I believe that to this day, people with Norman surnames are on average richer than those with Anglo-Saxon ones.

Personally, I would not read too much into this, though. The functions of the two highest castes have basically been completely abolished, so almost all of those people are either irrelevant, living middle class lifestyles or involved in bourgeois activities like investment banking etc. I believe I read an article some years back about a Bourbon heir who was managing an investment fund.

[–]DisgustResponse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just observing people, it's very easy to guess what sort of person someone is or what kind of job they have people's from their physiognomy, so I would assume that blood has something to do with it.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Although I haven't read it, I think Evola's book "Synthesis on the Doctrine of Race" is intended to be a detailed explanation of that type of thing. It was recently translated into English.

I have also found that there are a lot of people who do not "match" their physiognomy, so to speak, so I don't see it as a universally valid approach.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Class isn't hugely important, but in a capitalist society classes are more like castes. Ideally, as long as you have a job and that job is meaningful in some way, you should be paid a wage that allows you to raise a family. Almost everyone should be what would today be considered upper middle class, with a smaller group of higher class individuals that work harder/more important jobs and therefore get better pay. The only people of lower classes should be people that are doing things very wrong, and their kids should be able to raise their status through effort and natural ability rather than being stuck in forever-poverty because of some globalist, Jew controlled corporatocracy.

Class isn't something we should focus on, and it will obviously never be eliminated, but by implementing policies like Marriage Loans, state controlled banks (which are a prerequisite for the former), and more effecient and state-involved production of consumer goods, housing, etc. you can easily achieve what I described in the previous paragraph.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In other words, you would prefer a Huey Long style platform over the class-based socialist one?

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would say so, yeah. A Corporatist system would go hand in hand with such ideas.

[–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The key critique of Marx's concept of class is to be found in Mancur Olson's The Logic of Collective Action.

The wikipedia page plunges into the details.

The relevance to class conflict is that classes are big, so they struggle to solve their internal collective action problems. The capitalists ought to form a united front and refuse to sell the working classes the rope that they need to hang the capitalists. The capitalists sell each other out; err, they would like to, but the working class like their bet and their pipe and their pint. Some-one else will put money in the hat during the whip round to buy the rope. Every-one leaves it to every-body else to put money in the hat. Eventually Mister Nobody chips in no pounds no shillings and no pence.

To the extent that classes manage a little bit of organisation, they snipe at other classes mechanisms for solving the relevant collective action problems. This is an important subtext of Mancur Olson's book. The working class need the closed shop to help them organise trades unions. If the capitalists can achieve the minimum level of cooperation to get "Right to work" laws passed, they can "win" a round of class war. But the subtle sniping against mechanisms for solving collective action problems needs insights from 100 years after Marx to be understood.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's fake.