The "middle class" is one of the most insidious political concepts ever devised. I don't understand how people can complain about the "vanishing middle class" without realizing that, in order to have a middle, you have to have the obscenely wealthy and the abjectly poor. It's like, both things are considered moral failings, but instead of concluding that a class based society is just a gross and disgusting as a racist society, say, they fret over the existence of a middle ground. It's bananas
fuhreal dude, I've met some small businesses that absolute scum of the earth yet people use the phrase as if it implies some kind of worthiness. There's a special sweet spot for power hungry capitalists where they're big enough to have employees they can play god with, but not yet big enough to have an HR person/dept to tell them its probably not a good idea to hold to keep the waitresses tips to himself unless she agrees to fuck him. Most of those victims are precarious workers already without the means to hire a lawyer or even know they have other free courses of available. So they're able to do it again and again until he realizes how close he could be to spending big time in prison and stops, or he ends up spending big time in prison. These stories I feel like happen once a week and its always like "Owner of beloved quaint itallian restauarnt" and shit like that
I just want one of these motherfuckers to tell me what qualifies as middle class. Is it income? Is it homeownership? Is it net worth? Is it category of professions? Is it a lifestyle? Fucking tell me. Tell me if I'm in it or out of it. Y'all claim you stand for the middle class, well? What is it then? What exactly do you stand for?
They'll never fucking tell you what they mean when they say middle class, because if they did then people would be like "oh fuck these people they're going to let us all die."
If the term were to have any meaning at all, I'd peg it at homeownership myself - but with that as the benchmark it would lose all of its rhetorical power. I only have one friend who has managed to buy a house (i.e. take out a loan of hundreds of thousands of dollars). No one else I know is even close. We'll all be renters until we die, unless we end up in prison first.
It's only ever used as a euphemism, and it could mean basically anything depending on the context.
It also has rhetorical power: a "middle" implies a top and a bottom, and given that nobody likes to think of themselves as poor (shame) and given that if you openly admit to being rich, you're expected to share more, almost everyone claims to be middle class. A nice result of that classification is that it erases the concept of the working class, which at best becomes synonymous with the upper part of the lower class.
well if anything, we definitely know the middle class means white people
I mean, people should be angry, they were promised $2,000 checks immediately if Dems won in Georgia to "Some of you- based on your tax returns, will get $1400 at some point in the future."
This is another one of those "Democrats are fucking terrible at this."
I've never understood the "controlled opposition" bit. Is it supposed to be easier to convince people of this than to convince them that Democrats just suck at their jobs? Is the thinking that gross incompetence and garden-variety corruption aren't enough to get people mad? Is it just "I hate Democrats more than you, let me demonstrate"?
I'm not seeing the upside to pushing this, and the downside is that people will think you're a conspiracy crank.
I’m open to different ways of expressing the idea, but is the idea itself that controversial?
They’re an explicitly capitalist party who maintain hegemony in part by perpetuating the idea that capitalist goals are the same as working people’s. The false consciousness that they work to create (see the Resistance for an obvious example) serves only to siphon off dissatisfaction into nonrevolutionary channels.
Here's what your friendly neighborhood :LIB: would say to that:
They're capitalist, but that doesn't mean they're controlled opposition. Just look at all the places they oppose Republicans. Look at how efforts to end the War on Drugs are almost entirely led by Democrats. Look at how efforts to protect abortion access are 100% led by Democrats. Look at how many Democrats vs. Republicans opposed the Iraq War, and how party support differed for Trump's attacks on Iran during the Soleimani episode. How can you say they're controlled opposition when there are so many points of genuine, intense disagreement?
Do you honestly think Democrats are getting paid to lose, and that all this disagreement is just an act? Do their campaign workers -- who have jobs riding on this stuff -- know it's an act? Does your state-level candidate -- who has to go out and get a real job if he loses -- know it's an act?
It's just a far harder sell than "Democrats just suck at politics because their only real competition is cartoonishly evil."
Only Democrats could take a majority in the House and Senate while controlling the Executive branch and decide they need to fucking compromise. Democrats are that weird kid who shows up on board game night and decides to make up their own bizarre-ass rules that literally nobody else is playing by, and then they throw a tantrum when they lose and will not fucking shut up about how no one else would play by their weird-ass house rules, when it's not even their house.
The problem with Democrats is that they think they're playing a friendly board game when they're really in a knife fight. But again, that's just political incompetence, not some sort of controlled opposition theory.
Everyone I've told this to has been pretty receptive to the idea, especially over the stimulus bills.
The upside is it's true and it's pretty obvious when you point it out.
Who are you talking to? The libs I talk to have a hard time breaking free from "hey, this is the best Democrats can do," and would reject the controlled opposition line out of hand. The apolitical people I know might be more willing to agree with it, but it wouldn't make them politically active (which is the goal, at least in the short term).
And it's not true, or at least not so inarguably true that you can make a clear case for it to people who are highly skeptical. The closest you can get is the fact that many big donors give to both Republicans and Democrats, and (1) most people don't care about that, and (2) there are all sorts of plausible justifications for that which don't amount to "Democrats are controlled opposition."
Who are you talking to?
Mostly working class mexican and black people in my neighborhood. Some white people but they just moved in and I think they're libertarians.
The closest you can get is the fact that many big donors give to both Republicans and Democrats
you're thinking too hard about it. Yes that stuff is true, but you're also right people don't care about that shit (yet). Point out obvious contradictions like the stimulus check stuff first, it's immediate and speaks to the average person since we all need money. You have to walk before you can run. They need to distrust the Democrats plan of action first before flirting with the idea that they are a controlled opposition.
If it's working for the folks you're talking to, absolutely keep at it. I'd just be wary of it "working" in the sense that people agree with it and then do nothing -- the goal isn't just agreement, the goal is motivating people to take political action. One criticism I have of the controlled opposition line is that it can create the impression that everything is so hopelessly rigged it's not worth the effort to try and change it. "Here's what Democrats could be doing; they're just incompetent and unprincipled" seems more likely to feed into action.
They need to distrust the Democrats plan of action first before flirting with the idea that they are a controlled opposition.
If you've gotten them to distrust Democrats you've already won. That person is open to alternatives to mainstream Democrats (or to electoralism in general); there's no need to spend more time and effort going farther, and you don't want to undo the progress you've made by delving into conspiracy-adjacent stuff that isn't on much of a realistic footing.
I’d just be wary of it “working” in the sense that people agree with it and then do nothing
There isn't anything super large right now, but currently there is a group fighting against gentrification of my neighborhood. It's not a vanguard or anything, but people around me are getting nervous they won't be able to afford their houses and business anymore (don't laugh you gotta work with what you have)
there’s no need to spend more time and effort going farther, and you don’t want to undo the progress you’ve made by delving into conspiracy-adjacent stuff that isn’t on much of a realistic footing.
It all depends on what's going on around you my friend. You have to understand who you're talking to and I have to say the exit polling that said minority males were more likely to vote Trump is real. Latinos for Trump is real and too a lesser extent blacks for Trump too. I can't just shit on Democrats and stop there, it doesn't work.
As of right now America is a binary, you are either a democrat or republican. In my experience if you just shit on one party all that happens is they are more likely to vote the other one in. Doing that is a disservice to people who are just looking for answers.
currently there is a group fighting against gentrification of my neighborhood
Good shit.
I can’t just shit on Democrats and stop there, it doesn’t work.
I agree, but jumping from "you can't trust Democrats" to "Democrats are controlled opposition" is still just shitting on Democrats. The way to give people answers is talking about how non-electoral action can address their problems, or talking about how non-mainstream Democrats have policies that are way better than what the Democratic Party as a whole offers.
The way to give people answers is talking about how non-electoral action can address their problems, or talking about how non-mainstream Democrats have policies that are way better than what the Democratic Party as a whole offers.
Absolutely 1000% agree.
Mmm I wonder what happens when a middle class of people, who historically were helped by the system, begin to lose their quality of life as capital is funneled upwards 🤔...
and she had to pay for her son’s daycare to keep his spot despite the fact that he was at home with her at the beginning of the pandemic. She’s accrued around $4,000 in debt over the course of the pandemic and is currently two months late on daycare payments.
:agony-immense:
Literally Hitler 2024
Libs be like; "wahhh how did that happen?"
"During the pandemic, he lost his tenants for a few months when they could no longer afford rent..." damn, hate it when people just get lost like that.
I mean this kinda was a targeted attack on the middle class. They picked the lowest possible number that could be middle class and drew the line there. They want everyone to know stimulus checks are for the dirty poors and to hate them.
How effectively is consent being manufactured on this? Do people still remember they were promised immediate USD 2000 cheques, not means-tested USD 1400 cheques at some point in the future?
We're at step 2 already? When you think they will complete the process by scrapping any checks citing "lack of support"?
