I often find myself absolutely flabbergasted to almost a comic level when I ponder current ideologies, politics, philosophies and general belief and when I look to see what progressive type things are in motion I never see the all time historical main source and force for oppression and revolutions - CLASS.

I mean considering that those who espouse to be spearheading this progressive movement [the Leftists] trace their most fundamental and ultimate lineage to the massive class oppressions of the 18th century Industrializing Europe and specifically on writings of Karl Marx among others about observations of class inequity and slavery in capitalist, industrial England of 18th century.

What happened to the focus on class and class inequity?

Even our legislations for discrimination do not include "Class" as a category to deal with. WHAT? WHY? ANYONE?

MATTS/HEWEN/QUOTE..<..What happened..to the focus on class..and class inequity?>>

CLASSY pEOPLE LOST FOCUS

<<>.Even our legislations for discrimination
do not include "Class"..as a category to deal with. WHAT?>>

THOSE/LACKING..CLASS?
<<..WHY?..>>CLASS IS A THING LEARned[or earned]
not a thing bought.[or that comes without effort..[o*song*wu]

ANYONE?..yes i met a FEW..[AS4MYSELF.IVE..NOT-A/CLUE

<<..flabbergasted to almost a comic level..>>

THATS..a..CLASSY/TURN-OF..PHRASE

comedic..leveling..<<..when I ponder current ideologies,..politics, philosophies..and general belief..and when I look>>

i stopped looking/i have yet to find anyof them as labled
in fact all of them need leaders..because we hate leading others astraY[but there is a certain mindset/that prefers*it..that way.

self/leveling\class structure/labling..<<..to see what progressive type things..are in motion..>>

nothing new/under the sun
one leads/others..follow..[sheeple]..just think for me please

<<..I never see..\the all time/..historical main source
and force..for oppression..and revolutions - CLASS.>>

oh no its money influence folowing WHO YOU KNOW/AS MUCH AS WHO YOU GOT THE DIRT ON AND WHO CAN YOU TRUST*

<<..those who espouse to-be..spearheading this progressive movement [the Leftists].trace their most fundamental..and ultimate lineage to the massive class oppressions>>

NO THEYT DRIFTED ON THE FUC AND FLOW OF THEIR PLACE in time
things have changed far more by the web than the prinyted word...and printed money/that the upper class's..USED*to hoard..to create scarcity..but now are so plentyfull/to those who dun treason to get it\that a new thing will emerge

not the commie system that bailout out paper/promises..of wall street to murder mercantilism..in main street..the end result will be more fuedal[without the fueds/but all the obligation all the chivelry..and all the might of right done right.

only the dead..will be left out..
let/judgment day\be-in&the doing..it right/this time.

Can anyone at all provide some explanation to give logic to why these so-called "progressive" revolutionaries completely overlook class and now focus mostly on non-white ethnic immigrant peoples to their western nations and also the minorities like gays and sometimes woman.

BUT NEVER do they even hint to want to discuss issues that stem from class discrimination and inequality embedded in our world's social-political and cultural structures.

I predict [sadly] very little if no direct response and genuine attempts to answer this question.

But I will relish the day.

Anyone? Please?

Matthew,
The Truth About Karl Marx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg&feature=kp
The presenter asks the question "Would you buy a diet book written by a morbidly obese author?" Marx was a fraud, that's all you need to know about Marxism.
The "Left" of 2014 don't have an ideology, they don't have any ideas or principles, it's why so many of them are returning to Christianity, this is from an article I linked earlier:
"But modern Progressivism, like the USSR of the 1970s, is nothing more than a shell of lies. It is a plane on autopilot with rotting corpses strapped in the seats. In the government, the universities, the courts, and the media, progressives no longer make their case nor have a case to make. Instead, they lie. They lie about themselves, they lie about their opponents, they lie about what they know, they lie about what they don’t know, they lie about what’s in front of their faces, and they lie about their lies.

When confronted with facts, whether it’s rising numbers of people losing their health insurance, homicide correlating positively with black population and negatively with gun ownership, or the divergence of measured global temperatures from model projections, the modern progressive no longer seeks to incorporate the new knowledge into his views and reform them accordingly. Instead, he grows agitated, defames the character of whomever challenged him, and doubles the volume with which he chants official lies. He has no moral core of right and wrong by which he uses information, only a creed by which he decides which facts may be spoken and which must be screamed down. University professors, journalists, and Presidents no longer ask us to reason; they demand we repeat their lies as a show of faith and testament of our purity."

HEW-new/quote..<<..I predict [sadly] very little if no direct response and genuine attempts to answer this question.

But I will relish the day.

Anyone? Please?>>

let me try..to simplfy..rather than clarify

<<Can anyone at all provide some explanation..>>

<<..to give logic.to why these so-called "progressive" revolutionaries completely overlook class ..>>

they are unawre/such a thing existys
[let them eat cake]
we know what we know..some know recognbise class[others refute/yet others deney/yet the acts we do reveal if we know crass class..or not

<<>>and now focus mostly on non-white
ethnic immigrant peoples..to their western nations..>>

as i suspected/the core of the question..ISNT about class..at all
BUT LETS OVERLOOK THE 'CLASS AND GO THE RACE..OR OTHER DISGRACE

<<..and also the minorities
like gays and sometimes woman.>>

NOW THATS CLASS
GLASS HALF FULL=RACE=CLASS=CRASS

ITS FUNNY..MOnoRITIES ARE USUALLY
The elites....exclusive.[the upper class..few

[class=crass]

<<BUT NEVER do they even hint,,to want to discuss issues..that stem from class discrimination..>>

hiding behind race intimidation..[sex discrimination]
no wonder your looking for someone..'else'..to explain

<<>.and inequality embedded..
in our world's social-political and cultural structures.>>

actually..matt..the upper glasses are mostly black
if you attended their do's..youd find mnost are woman and black guys..the upp-comming elites..that run the colonisation/loot and plunder demonic autpocracy..the black wolves in black skins looting their own people to join the upp/er classweilling to sell every thing for pride and what they perceive press-teaze..

http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/materialism-and-misery-and-the-need-for-change/

elites class..are the pain in the sarse
looting and plundering by the oldschool tie lie.
they earn their time in hell..thats all i can tell/whO KNEW?

THE FRUITS of communistic capitalism and materialistic merchandising
when..the cash flow..dries up..societies survive the fall/some runaway..others stay.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-death-of-the-rust-belt-there-are-many-american-cities-that-were-once-truly-great-that-are-now-truly-frightening-to-visit/

despite all of the decay, there is still evidence that there was once something truly great about these communities. Will we be able to recapture that greatness before it is too late?

A lot of writers make economics really complicated, but the truth is that it does not have to be. For example, if you want your country to have a great economy it has got to produce wealth. And one of the primary ways to produce wealth is to make stuff.

Immediately after World War II, the United States had the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen and we outproduced the rest of the planet combined. Great manufacturing cities sprouted up all over America and the middle class thrived. It was truly a great time to be an American...but/thery had huge/pools of pension scemes/kooking for aaa grade investments/so the market reclasified..riskey..but underwritten..'bundled-securities'[we see its bitter/fruits]
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/materialism-and-misery-and-the-need-for-change/
we decided to start shipping in.cheaper products from overseas. ..got/rid..of death-duties/import-duties..unions and true statistics
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html
At first it didn’t create too much of a problem for our massive economy, but eventually the floodgates opened up and we lost tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions upon millions of good paying jobs.

Our labor pool was merged with the labor pool of countries such as communist China where it is legal to pay slave labor wages to manufacturing workers. Needless to say, our workers could not compete with that and our middle class started to shrink rapidly.
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html
Today,..there are many American cities that were once truly great that are now truly frightening to visit

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-death-of-the-rust-belt-there-are-many-american-cities-that-were-once-truly-great-that-are-now-truly-frightening-to-visit/#oZqmo3XfXMusj8PC.99

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

<<Marx was a fraud, that's all you need to know about Marxism>>
A closed mind there Jay.

Now to debunk Stefan Molyneux

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlpQPR9j7yU

Molyneux uses Paul Johnson as his source. a right wing nutter!

Jay
Have you read Marx or any philosophy about the issue?
I have and I realise that you have [like many people] mistakenly conflated two important and separate issues.
That is you conflate the quite obvious fact that in history and real world social-political circles the ideas that are “claimed” to be Marxist or derivative thereof are clearly frauds, inconsistent and quite infantile and silly.
However that does not necessarily mean [as you imply] that the actual writer Karl Marx himself and his theories were all totally fruitless and lies etc.

I know as I agree with you on one hand that real world interpetations of Marxist ideas has been off completely almost and have proven to be pathetic.
Yet on the other hand [from personally reading the man’s works in small measure] that Marx did have real, honest and genuine concerns and fears about the social and political universe in a capitalist environment [which he focused on but in my view ALL societies are guilty of same] where he saw massive abuse and oppression of poorer people who were beholden like slaves to the property owners that employed them. This he predicted could develop into extreme disparity.
I would argue that in China and India for 2 examples today, the dog eat dog and owners/workers systems has shown itself there at least to be true as Marx said [look at the extreme disparity].

I merely wish to make the point to the so-called progressive leftists that claim to be in tune with the Marxist ideals but yet who do not ever anymore discuss the issues and concerns around that class inequality issues Marx began the movement that the left now claim their lineage.
I merely ask the left: why no longer do you talk of class inequality? What is going on.

MathewS and Jottiikii, before I could attempt to answer your queries re class equality, I would like some examples of what you might see as 'class inequality' in Australian society in 2014?

Paul...Jason Unruhe..Seriously? He's a Maoist and apologist of the DPRK model of Socialism...you just googled "Rebuttal Stefan Molyneux" and posted the first video you saw without watching it didn't you?
Yes..but Marxian Socialism failed and left 120 million corpses in it's wake didn't it?
It failed because it's based on a lie, Marx was a fraud.
Marx spent his life in libraries or in bed, he had no valuable insights into the way the world actually works, lots of people have cults form around their literary works, there are no doubt vastly more Harry Potter fans in the world than there are Marxists....what's more probably 99% of J.K Rowling's followers have actually read her books, which can't be said of Marxists.

Jottiikii,
I've read and understood Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, if I hadn't I would have no frame of reference for my remarks.I'd made up my mind about Marx back when the Soviet Union was still clinging to life, the Stefan Molyneux video just makes things understandable to people who don't know anything about the man.
Race/Ethnicity/Gender/Sexuality is the new class system for most Leftists, they claim to be applying Marxist theory to those endeavours but as we know Marx (who was not a Marxist) didn't come up with those theories.
Jason Unruhe doesn't understand the premise of Molyneux's video, nobody cares what practical applications Marx' theories might have, the man was a bum who treated society and those around him as his own personal cash machine, is it any wonder his ideas have been seized upon by crooks and despots the world over?
Actually everyone interested in this thread should go and watch a few of Jason Unruhe's videos, he's about as intelligent a Leftist as you're likely to find on Youtube...or anywhere else.
Leftists, this is why we laugh at you:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgr5cilTJPILaRYS7f_TkVA

Spindoc,

obviously you have completely missed my points and arguments.
No doubt this is, as is common and expected, due to the complete misundetsanding in society about what is right and what is left, what is capitalist and what is communism.

My conceptual comprehension of the issues has sublimated those opposites that are in fact not fundamentally opposed as believed by 99% of world. I am actually against the leftist so-called progressive movements as I think they are fake, unfounded and based on fear and guilt that some leftists of the west have adopted with religious extremity.

Further I do not think the real world examples of apparent “communism” or “socialism” claimed to be on Marxist lines are in any way reflective of the Marxist ideals which are in fact based on a universal morality and existential human equality. Nothing in Russia or China or North Korea is remotely on Marxist ideals.
The left also misunderstand the Marx ideas and erroneously think this means they must be against free markets.

As for the so-called Right who mostly claim to be capitalists I also think they misunderstand both Marx and their own political-economic principles that evolved from mostly English political theorists centuries ago. That is to say the right have the misplaced view that the free market system as a thing in itself and on its own has the power to advance a society in always, yet this is not true as China and India show today [both are in my view the most capitalistic and selfish individualistic places in history]

And let me give some free advice – do not insert and conflate your own possibly misconceptions of a term [e.g. Marxism] with what you imagine another is thinking. You are wrong to claim I say that “North Korea has no human rights to speak of because they are a Marxist Totalitarian regime” but I never pinned the blame on Marxism nor would I even classify any of those nations [china, Russia and N. Korea] as being communist or Marxist even remotely.

. . . continued . .

Spindoc -

Also I notice you left out the examples of China and India which I would mostly blame for the cheap labour and oppression there.

As for my accusation that the west is mostly responsible for this oppression by our support of those oppressive markets – I obviously lay most of the responsibility for the oppression on the nations and cultures in which it occurs, however I wanted to press the Left and Right to realise that by the west’s support of those markets we greatly allow them to be. We could have gone to war 50 years ago rather than capitulate and give them our entire manufacturing industries.

Lastly you should refrain from mixing your own assumptions about things with my words which do not mean what you think. For instance you seem to think I said that Marxism is to blame for the oppression when I did never, and as I have said above and elsewhere I explain what I think about the real Marxist ideals and the falsely interpreted ones.

Please try to understand where my points and arguments are coming from and what strategy I use to attempt to communicate my points.

I primarily wish to bring attention to how the Leftists are frauds nd that they selfishly HOG the social position that is labelled "good and moral guys" when in fact [as I want to reveal thru my style of attack] they are vile and immoral, selfish people that are not serious about universal equality or rights YET they hog and occupy the forums that such things can be sprung from.

I realize that as everyone basically misunderstands ideas and thinks in terms of opposites, BUT I go above this and get to actual heart and premises of both right and left ideas and note the good and bad in both.

<<you(Paul1405) just googled "Rebuttal Stefan Molyneux" and posted the first video you saw without watching it didn't you?>>

Wrong Jay on two counts I watched the video it only run for about 25 minutes. Yes Jason Unruhe is a communist, so does that automatically excludes him from being correct? Unlike that load you posted which run for 40 minutes from a ultra right winger. Can Molyneux possibly be wrong? Puts himself up as an expert on everything.
Did you watch Moyneux 40 minutes of waffle? Or are you simply a cult member? Even claims to be an expert on Australia.

Paul,
Yes, exactly, Communists lie about everything because their whole world view is based on lies.
Marx was a fraud, he ruthlessly exploited people around him and so do his followers, sexual and financial exploitation of their members is a hallmark of Socialist groups. Remember Jim Jones, as just one example? Every Socialist organisation is a cult which exploits it's members.
There's no such thing as a "Right Winger" so no, no right wing cults, nobody calls themselves "Right Wing", there are no "Right Wing" schools of thought or political organisations, the only practical means of opposing both Capitalism and Socialism is honesty,personal integrity and truth in action.
Marx was a parasite and because of that nobody should take his writing seriously, would you buy a diet book written by a morbidly obese author?

Jay,

Jim Jones...The Peoples Temple...Jonestown Guyana...killed 912 people, 18th November 1978. You hold up Jim Jones as a failed socialist, the bloke was a nutter through and through. Who will you hold up next Charlie Manson! Let me see who I can find from the right to put up as a shining example of a failure, oh yes Adolf Hitler, a very inconvenient fellow for your side of politics. Jim Jones, indeed.
Moving on, your bloke, Molyneux, I found putting up with him for 40 minutes a pain, he is so tedious to listen to, he would turn anyone into a communist, just to pay him back for his ultra boring videos!
I'm not a holder to the concept of "right wing", "left wing" a bit abstract for me, certainly in an Australian political context. I find "conservative" and "progressive" far more of a relevance for the Australian political landscape as it presently exists.
Jay, I have asked this question of you before, without answer, and it has relevance in Australia. Can I have your opinion of one Dr Jim Saleam and his politics, Jim has his own political party The Australia First Party. Jim put himself up as a candidate for election even, How do you see the policies of AF fitting into the Australian environment? Would they be a good choice for the voters?

p/s "sexual and financial exploitation of their members is a hallmark of Socialist groups." Sounds more like the Catholic Church than The Greens

Ok, granted Jim Jones was a sexual deviant who used Marxism to hook people, but what looks worse, the fact that Jones was mad where Robert Mugabe,Pol Pot and Caeucescu were completely sane?
What's Jim Saleam got to do with anything? He's got the same identity crisis as a lot of second generation Lebanese Australians and he's a convicted criminal who lives on centrelink benefits and hangs around with drunks and no hopers.
What are his policies? AF seems to promote a sort of National Bolshevism or National Socialism...or something equally nutty and they're mixed up with those fruit loops who think that Egyptians were the first settlers to arrive here thousands of years ago, why are we even discussing them?
I don't agree with everything Stefan Molyneux says either and much of it I'm not interested in but as the old Russian joke goes "The Soviets were telling the truth about Capitalism but they lied to us about Socialism".
Capitalism isn't an alternative to Socialism, it's the other way around but Marxian Socialism has never been up to the task of making the world a better place.
The fact is that we're already generations beyond the Third Position, that question was settled by 1943, what's the fourth position Paul?
What's beyond capitalism, beyond socialism and beyond fascism?
That's what I'm interested in.

Where did the traditional Marxist pursuit of class
equality disappear to?

Marx wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the bulk
of the population comprised a porrly paid labour
force living in wretched conditions. However changes
in industrial societies since that time have thrown
doubt on Marx's concept of class.

One significant change is in the occupational structure
the middle-class has expanded rapidly, and a variety of
new jobs have emerged that do not seem to fit Marx's
concept. Many middle-class people, for example, work
not for capitalists, but rather for their fellow
citizens, perhaps as teachers, nurses, or civil servants.
Others don't work for anybody; they are self-employed.
Some blue-collar workers too are paid more than some
white-collar professionals. A plumber or a truck-driver
for example may sometimes earn more than an architect
or a high school principal.

Another important change since Marx's time is that most
industry is now run by large corporations, which are
owned by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of stock-
holders but are controlled by salaried managers.
As a result, the ownership and the control of the means of
production are no longer identical. True, corporate
managers and directors typically own stock in the
companies that employ them, but-especially in the case of
large companies - they rarely own a controlling interest.
It may be that a "new class" is appearing, consisting of
well-educated experts whose high social status is based
on knowledge, not ownership. It isn't clear where these
salaried executives, bureaucrats, scientists, and others
fit in Marx's concept of class.

Marx's views, like those of anyone else, were deeply
influenced by his social environment. Marx wrote in
England at a time when a large impoverished working-class
laboured for a handful of wealthy capitalists who owned
the factories and other means of production.
Marx did not forsee many of the changes that later occurred
in industrial societies, such as the growth of a large
middle-class. Marx's concepts today are no longer
relevant to the contemporary scene.

There are no real "leftists" anymore.

Political parties are little more than the Public Relations wing of various interest groups and sponsors.

What the rabid right calls "left" is actually about centrist, just slightly left of where the original Liberal Party was about 15 years ago.
The current conservative parties have absorbed most of the previous groups once regarded as extremists.

Even the Greens have conservative views on many social matters. Clive Palmer had his origins as an agent of the Bjelke-Petersen era, yet he is seen as "progressive" in some areas.

Since there is nobody to the right of the current Liberal Party, everybody who is not a supporter is regarded as "left".

Wobbles,
Yes, given that Marxism has only ever been a fringe tendency in Australia the "Left vs Right" has always been, shall we say Methodism seeking to rein in the worst excesses of otherwise devout Christian capitalists. The people who make up the rank and file of the Greens have more in common with the Salvation Army then they do any Marxian group and along with the Uniting Church and the Islamic councils the Sallies are actually the "New Left".

<<There are no real "leftists" anymore>>

Yep, what you get a lot of nowadays are fungi leftists … persons ranting against privilege whilst themselves living in some fashionable suburb on some big fat salary or pension-- they are often retired or practising teachers, lawyers …or librarians. In that way they are rather like the Dutch Elm Disease which can only survive in an Elm forest yet does its darndest to destroy the trees.

‘morning Jottiikii,

Just wondering why you offered a two post response to my non-existent post? Whilst I appreciate the recognition for just being “on your mind”, this is either a response for another poster or it is on the wrong thread?

Regards.

SPQR,
It's all faith based though, that's why we call it "The Cathedral",seriously, the "Left" is a space where Islam is seen as a progressive social movement.
Another way to describe politics in Australia would be: "Collectivist,anti science and anti intellectual", that description covers everyone from Cory Bernardi to Sarah Hanson Young.

Marxism is a elegant philosophy. Unfortunately it just doesn't work for humans. Following the collapse of all Marxist states after delivering only equality of poverty, Marxism has lost all credibility.

‘morning Matthew S,

You asked for an explanation for the loss of class consciousness in progressive ideology?

Whilst I think the “class” issue is a little too narrow for meaningful explanation, it does offer the opportunity for more generic analysis.

The social-democratic ideologies that have permeated industrialized democracies in the past 30 years are constantly changing. Apart from being notably unsuccessful in economic terms, they are trending towards causing alarm amongst traditional conservative communities.

As a result the “harder” ideologies of Marxism, Socialism and Communism, having initially found a convenient parasitic home in Green politics, are attempting to soften their image by adopting a more benign persona in the descriptor Progressives.

This perhaps explains why many of the original key mantra’s have been de-emphasized, but perhaps not completely abandoned. It is simply consequence of trying to change the growing negative perception created by greater public exposure.

As an example of this process we might cite the “black balloon” protests in relation to the growing concern about Islamic activity. There is nothing new that is now being publicly revealed about Islam, it’s just that there is much more public examination, awareness and consequently, concern.

This is precisely the same process as with the more progressive elements in our society.

The bad news for progressives is that their mantra is being exposed to increasing public scrutiny, their modus operandi, their militancy, rhetoric, reaction to criticism and their determination to hide behind the elitism generated by social and PC issues.

As these attributes are increasingly identified by their rhetoric and actions, the public will begin to recognize the progressive mantra in many of our institutions. Humanities academia, public education, much of our media, political elites, much of the public service, trade unions, NGO’s, the Greens and the ALP. Many in Australia will not like what they see.

By “knocking off” some of the sharp edges of their ideologies in order to fit the progressive mold, they risk becoming undifferentiated, easily identified and at risk of becoming marginalized.

Progressives belatedly recognize this, that’s why they are squawking so hard.

Marxism is not "an elegant philosophy". It's not that it's good in theory.

It's a garbled load of self-contradictions, as I will demonstrate by asking the author of the OP to define class.

Go ahead please.

They lost the plot by eliminating the "class" they were promoting.

After years of union thuggery, we got to the stage that the poorly educated, semi skilled process worker, in a motor vehicle factory, was earning double what the higher educated technician who maintained the vehicle at the dealers was earning.

We found the wharf laborer was earning 3 times what the people who made the products being loaded earn.

We have had to stop making cars, & invent ways of eliminating wharf laborers. We made the lower class too well off for them to remain a low class, then we had to eliminate them, as we could not afford the new high price they cost. There are dozens of examples of this, but that gives the idea.

Hence now the left have nothing but anger & lies to run with, but they have really made an art form of those.

Matthew S, you mentioned the downtrodden working class that existed in the 18th century. Well, that class has long since disappeared. A 'current' homeless person living on the street is in a much better position than those employment slaves from the 18th century. A homeless person, if they look for it, gets free meals, free emergency accommodation, free charity clothing, free counseling, free medical help, free employment search assistance etc.

So, because the downtrodden working class doesn't exist anymore, the leftists, feminazis, marxists and stupid Labor voters have to look elsewhere to garner new backward, inbred ideology.

You make a good point Lester1, modern living conditions coupled with the outstanding success of capitalism has totally eliminated any impoverished underclass. These days it's more a case of class envy, where the well off, meaning people with food in their stomachs and clothes on their backs, envy the mega rich.

These days, if someone is permanently penniless and permanently on the streets it's usually because of their drug habits. It's their CHOICE.

Real poverty doesn't exist anymore in a country like Australia. Today's so called poor are rich beyond imagination compared to the real poor that were living here 100 to 200 years ago. Modern, pampered people need a reality check, and to stop whinging about their circumstances. They need to get off their behinds and do something, instead of sitting back and collecting their myriad of entitlements. And after they collect their entitlements, they still moan about how hard life is for them. What a bunch of wussies.

The poor actually form a highly diverse group.
Many poor people work full time at unskilled
jobs that will never pay much - such as -
domestic cleaners, dishwashers, sweatshop
labourers, and so on.

Many live in areas of
chronic unemployment, such as depressed rural
regions or decaying urban neighbourhoods where
industries have either closed or are in decline.
Many have only recently become poor, and most
don't stay poor for long; each year about
one-third of the nation's poor families manage
to climb out of poverty, only to be replaced
by newcomers. Some of the poor, however, form
an "underclass" - a group of people who are trapped
in long-term poverty.

Their members are drawn from such groups as
drug addicts, alcoholics, illiterates, and the
mentally disordered. Some of these become
semi-permanent welfare receipients, and many are
homeless - sleeping for most of the year on park
benches, under bridges, and in abandoned cars and
buildings, and crowding into emergency shelters to
avoid freezing in winter.

Attitudes towards poverty lie in a pecular belief
that the poor are in poverty because they are idle
and prefer to live on "handouts." This view is
held even by people who do not know poor people,
who have never tried to raise a family on welfare
payments, and have not the vaguest idea what
poverty is really like. Opinion polls repeatedly
show large sections of the population favouring cuts
to welfare spending or favouring plans to "make welfare
recipients go to work."

These attitudes bear little resemblance to reality.
A very large percentage of welfare recipients are
aged people or disabled, most of the rest are
mothers with young children, and its only a very small
percentage who are
able-bodied men, most of them unskilled workers
in areas of high unemployment.

Why then do these myths about the poor abound?

cont'd ...

I think these photos are from the 1900 bubonic plague outbreak in Sydney:
http://goo.gl/03g7ht
http://goo.gl/y5Z4WH
http://goo.gl/LwGzY1
There's one glaring difference between socialism and capitalism, under capitalism most of these conditions afflicting the poor were alleviated in the 20th century if not eliminated altogether whereas in the same period of time under Marxist Socialism millions of people starved to death.
As noted above, Socialism is not suited to dealing with the problems faced (or caused) by human beings.

Foxy,
There's no need for more of your strawmen in this thread, we all understand that poverty is a complex problem it's just that some of us are willing to accept that social mobility goes in both directions, that nature doesn't do equality and that the most humane thing we can do for some people is to provide stability at whatever level they find themselves.

cont'd ...

The ideology that legitimates stratification in our
society holds that everyone has the same chance to get
ahead and that inequality provides rewards for
personal effort. Many people believe that the class system
"shows what people made of their opportunities."
If those who get ahead can claim credit for their success
then those who fall behind must, logically, be blamed
for their failures. The poor are therefore supposed to
need incentives to work, rather than help at the expense
of the taxpayer.

There are few complaints, however, about how this
country pays out far more in "handouts" to the non poor
than to the poor. A large majority of nonpoor receive
benefits in one form or another. This fact generally
escapes attention because these benefits take the indirect
form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions rather than
the direct form of cash payments. We are consistently
told that welfare is a terrible burden on the taypayer,
but we're not told about the comparison to the huge tax deductions that the wealthy are freely given.

Over the generations, the human population has constructed
classes in society after society. Like other stratification
systems, social class in our country arises out of
specific historical and social conditions. Since social
stratification is socially constructed it must, in principle,
be socially modifiable as well - provided only that
people are conscious of their own ability to change what
they have created. Whether they preserve, modify,
or change the system is ultimately up to the people
themselves.

Foxy,

The class system that Marx was referring to was the hereditary kings, dukes, earls etc and the land barons that passed wealth from generation to generation. Today, there are no hereditary titles in Aus that entitle one to privilege, and the only "class" system is between the successful entrepreneur and the salaried employee.

Any person with a good idea, determination, and perseverance can leapfrog from worker to boss. I know of more than one person that started out as a tradesman, and is now the owner of a successful business.

It is these entrepreneurs that create the small business jobs that labor appears to hate so much.

Dear Shadow Minister,

To Marx a class consisted of all those people who shared a common
relationship in the means of production. Those who owned
and therefore controlled the means of production - people
such as slaveholders, feudal landowners, or the
owners of property such as factories and capital - made up
the dominant class. Those who worked for them - slaves,
peasants, or industrial labourers - were the subordinate class.

The relationship between the classes involved not only
inequality but also exploitation, because the dominant class
at that time, took unfair advantage of the subordinate
one. This in Marx's view, is the essence of exploitation,
and the main source of conflict between the classes
throughout history. Marx did not forsee many of the changes
that later occurred in industrial society, such as the
growth of a large middle class.

In industrialised societies, there are usually three main
classes, a small and wealthy upper-class, a fairly
large middle-class of professionals and other white-collar
workers, and a large working-class of less skilled
blue-collar workers.

Of course changes in people's social statuses
do occur - as they exchange places with one
another at different levels of the hierarchy. This could be
due to job losses or to changes in the structure of the
economy. For example in times of economic recession
there is a general downward trend in mobility as incomes
shrink and workers are laid off. In times of economic
growth there is an upward trend as incomes rise and new
jobs and opportunities are created.
However, despite the trends, mobility
from one stratum to another is usually the exception, rather than
the rule. Most people you will find - remain throughout their lives
in the social class of their parents.

Foxy,

As Marx married a Baroness he was no stranger to the hereditary feudal class system.

The major difference between the class systems in 1850 and today is that in 1850 was no climbing out of the class system, where as today, the only barriers are intelligence, luck and opportunity. For example Nathan Tinkler was an electrician and became a billionaire.

It obviously the genetics of smart parents, involved parenting, and good schooling does give one a head start.

Yes, Nathan Tinkler was an electrician and he became a billionaire. Anyone can make it if they try. If a person is taking it easy on benefits then that's their CHOICE. Their drug lifestyle is also their choice. Other people choose to get ahead. A class system no longer exists. If you're well off that's your choice, if you are a drug addled welfare bludger/single mother that's your choice. It's all about choice, choice, choice.

Dear SM,

Not so sure what the wife of Karl Marx had to do with
their status in Great Britain. She apparently was a
regular costomer of the London pawnbrokers.

As for your suggestion that anyone can make it in
society. Not quite. You gforgot to mention that people,
afterall grow up to be unequal in talents, skills,
determination, perseverance, thrift, and so on. All of
these things will tend to achieve unequal rewards.

Yes there are a few success stories - however as we know
the upper class is a tiny one - containing the richer and
most powerful people in the country. Its most
prestigious members are an old aristocracy of birth
and wealth - for to be fully respectable in this country,
money like wine, must age a little. The names of families
in this group are familiar ones - the Baillieu family
springs to mind - and others whose
fourtunes were founded at least a couple of generations ago.
These people know each other personally, they attend the
same schools, and inter-marry. The less prestigious members -
are those with "new money" - the real estate developers,
miners, lottery winners, fast-food tycoons and others who
have struck it rich. Although these newcomers may have more
money, better houses, and larger automobiles, than possessors
of old money, they lack the right "breeding" to be accepted
into the very highest social circles.

People do not all have equal opportunity to rise to the top;
those already close to the heights have but a short way to
travel; those nearer the bottom face a longer and harder
journey.

I have been asked by some to define “class” . . .

. . . others wish me to provide some examples of “class oppression” in modern day Australia.

First, I will give an obvious definition of “class” IF same can provide me with a definition of the “bogan” or the “Housoe”.
In any case the non-manual labour class of people [generally middle to upper class – leaders] are usually never the first to openly think and speak in terms which create stark barriers between themselves and “those others” [blue collar workers].

As for examples of class oppression –
the main one and most extreme instance is in the changes in housing markets over the last 4 decades. That is to say, with the population increasing 4 or 5 times over the 30-40 years, coupled with the entire industries of low-skilled and manual labour factory jobs that the lower classes traditionally [centuries] have been employed in being 99% erased from our nation and given to more profitable [not for the poorer] Asian slave worker markets . . . . .
. . . . this has resulted in the average worker and family of 100,000 p.a. or less [who as a class also usually cannot rely upon inheritance from family] having their ability to purchase a house and land as near impossible. This means now the poorest 30-40% of our nation will forever be beholden to the kids of the wealthier classes who own ALL the land and houses – rent forever and pay off the second homes of rich kids.

Other examples are self evident by the existence of shows like “Bogan Hunters” and “Housoes” which mock and tease the poorest people in society – even laugh at how some have black teeth

to all those imbeciles out there who somehow have the bizarre blief that living standards, wealth etc for the poorest has improved drastically over thedecades . . .

First - just because we have more technical gadgets, flat screen tvs and mobile phones DOES NOT indicate that overall wealth and standards has gone up. How does it?

Second - 50 years ago the poorer class were mostly employed in low-skilled jobs and had the job stability to be able to have a family and purchase a home by age 40, as house/land prices were so much lower it is hard to fathom. Today the descendants of those people/class have extremely high rates of unemployment, underemployment, employment instability etc.; also due to many factors of which primarily the massive population increases [immigration] the prices of land/homes has gone up above the reach of most of that class. To make it all worse the wealthier business classes decided to take ALL their traditional low-sill jobs away and give them to Asia meaning that the entire universe of the poorer class changed 100% over 2-3 generations.

Tell me how on earth can ANYONE remotely think that this class has actually become wealthier and better off than 50 years ago?

Foxy,

I don't consider the social circles relevant.

The laws are not based on everyone having equal talents, etc, but equal opportunity. Everyone can complete school, go to uni, become doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc.

Those that are well off typically not only pass down some of their wealth, but genetics, work ethic and priorities that are the prime factors in their success. Smart hard working parents tend to raise smart well balanced children that also expect to work hard and aim high.

Indeed Shadow Minister -

. . . the type of 'equality' our culture in principle attempts to employ and to foster is NOT to make every individual of equal intelligence and ability and wealth . . .

. . . BUT . . . it is in fact the aspect of individual worth and recognition in world that is of the possible temporal mode rather than the actual temporal mode. tHAT is, we follow the philosophical writings on morality and society and freedoms as most of history's "greats" have written [although not well understood by most even the 'official experts" like academics] - which is to strive for the universal understanding, recognition and attempt to physically institute the "existential equality" - which is the very fact of each person's 'possibility' of being authentic and actualized as a being.

That means that [as Minister says] the type of 'equality' we seek to have is only about having as equal as possible the CHANCES afforded each individual so that they might use such to achieve great things.

As for those who cannot comprehend that in some cases a physical disadvantage [crippled] can be as much a hindrance to a person with certain social and family wealth disadvantages.

E.G. a kid born to drug addict parents has memories of being pushed around Cabramatta and constantly yelled at, left unfed and unclean to attend school [making them a lepper and social outcastwith no friends]. On top of that mess this kid develops intellectual skills less than most others and likely evolves a seriously unstable personality which often leads to prison and drugs.

Is that child when turn adult do you think going to have ANY chance to succeed?

Yes the abused person might actually CHOOSE to fight and get jailed or to drink heavily, BUT the state of mental mess in his realm surely makes CHOICE very dfferent practical senses than a well to do stable middle class preson