There are recognizable differences between generations, even if the edges are so fuzzy as to not be sensibly definable, and the whole concept is more of a social construct than a purely organic category. It's like race.
For instance, look at support for LGBT rights across generations.
If you read Marx German ideology he describes the framework of how previous generations did create material conditions (by altering previous material conditions), they and primarily their mode of production creates social relations, those inform the super structure which in some way influences the base.
The material conditions and the social relations of people in the imperial core is not only depending to their relation to the means of production and their class status, but also what kind of position they hold in the imperial global colonial extraction system, as well as the place within society they hold due to their class sub strata.
For boomers (who aren't LGBTQ, Neurodivergent, disabled by society, BIPoC, partially women etc.) in the imperial core (or the west like USA) they were not only labour aristocrats in the sense of Lenin that extraction from the colonial countries to the core gives the wages an increase, but they also had a quasi hegemony and relative economic power (even when visiting as tourist somewhere).
They also did use up plenty of resources, mainly channeled through actions of capitalists, companies, the state and turned away from organized social movements, due to their perceived "freedom" (and privilege). Their numbers did also mean that there was a new kind of material reality in which parliamentary logic dictated that to achieve power you ought to focus not only on capitalists, but also could please that part of population to do quite a bit of class warfare. Sure, this did hit boomers, too, but the term doesn't always mean ALL boomers.
I could write a bit more and be more precise, but I think the general gist can be understood. Generations can't ever experience the same material conditions as the social relations of society which are structured according to class, are also sub structured according to age and access to family capital/wealth/property etc.
Yes, but is that necessary when we already have an established framework for class analysis? Age can be a useful intersectional category, but I don't see that it has much use in this case.
It isn't just age, but the age you were born and how it influences the social relations of yours to others. Young people in the US are having a much worse time since the contradictions of capitalism and the restructuring of the social net etc. came home. There is use it in, also there is a strong sentiment for applying specific generations - which are also location bound - towards class analysis here. The hate against the rich boomers which did profit from the rising housing prices (which other groups have to pay the profits and debts for) is also an economic distinction, but it isn't just an economic distinction.
spoiler
Generations often have false consciousness which is influenced by their generation and shared experiences, intersecting with class positions. The feeling of superiority (which stemmed a bit from economic power and hegemony) of white boomers in the 70s/80s is one that you will more rarely find in millenials as example.
It is also a good shorthand "Ok, boomer" "when you worked without degree you could finance a house and a family of four with healthcare and holidays, since then the profits generated by porductivity gain didn't land in the hands of the working class" is succinct and clear.
Marx himself did also talk about somewhat akin to generations when he talked about people who experienced some revolts first hand or second hand and how that changed them and their outlook. You of course can say "I don't use generations" and it is good to take this stance at first to point to material conditions, especially when people try to do non-materialist talk, but I think there are uses. Not worth for me to do a struggle session about it, though.
You can reinterpret generations materially though.
if you're going to do that, why not just use material terms like bourgeoisie/proletariat? why let age/generations muddy the waters?
Death to America
There are recognizable differences between generations, even if the edges are so fuzzy as to not be sensibly definable, and the whole concept is more of a social construct than a purely organic category. It's like race.
For instance, look at support for LGBT rights across generations.
If you read Marx German ideology he describes the framework of how previous generations did create material conditions (by altering previous material conditions), they and primarily their mode of production creates social relations, those inform the super structure which in some way influences the base.
The material conditions and the social relations of people in the imperial core is not only depending to their relation to the means of production and their class status, but also what kind of position they hold in the imperial global colonial extraction system, as well as the place within society they hold due to their class sub strata.
For boomers (who aren't LGBTQ, Neurodivergent, disabled by society, BIPoC, partially women etc.) in the imperial core (or the west like USA) they were not only labour aristocrats in the sense of Lenin that extraction from the colonial countries to the core gives the wages an increase, but they also had a quasi hegemony and relative economic power (even when visiting as tourist somewhere).
They also did use up plenty of resources, mainly channeled through actions of capitalists, companies, the state and turned away from organized social movements, due to their perceived "freedom" (and privilege). Their numbers did also mean that there was a new kind of material reality in which parliamentary logic dictated that to achieve power you ought to focus not only on capitalists, but also could please that part of population to do quite a bit of class warfare. Sure, this did hit boomers, too, but the term doesn't always mean ALL boomers.
I could write a bit more and be more precise, but I think the general gist can be understood. Generations can't ever experience the same material conditions as the social relations of society which are structured according to class, are also sub structured according to age and access to family capital/wealth/property etc.
Yes, but is that necessary when we already have an established framework for class analysis? Age can be a useful intersectional category, but I don't see that it has much use in this case.
It isn't just age, but the age you were born and how it influences the social relations of yours to others. Young people in the US are having a much worse time since the contradictions of capitalism and the restructuring of the social net etc. came home. There is use it in, also there is a strong sentiment for applying specific generations - which are also location bound - towards class analysis here. The hate against the rich boomers which did profit from the rising housing prices (which other groups have to pay the profits and debts for) is also an economic distinction, but it isn't just an economic distinction.
spoiler
Generations often have false consciousness which is influenced by their generation and shared experiences, intersecting with class positions. The feeling of superiority (which stemmed a bit from economic power and hegemony) of white boomers in the 70s/80s is one that you will more rarely find in millenials as example.
It is also a good shorthand "Ok, boomer" "when you worked without degree you could finance a house and a family of four with healthcare and holidays, since then the profits generated by porductivity gain didn't land in the hands of the working class" is succinct and clear.
Marx himself did also talk about somewhat akin to generations when he talked about people who experienced some revolts first hand or second hand and how that changed them and their outlook. You of course can say "I don't use generations" and it is good to take this stance at first to point to material conditions, especially when people try to do non-materialist talk, but I think there are uses. Not worth for me to do a struggle session about it, though.