‘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 ...