Addressing that reply, it seems strange to me that a CEO making millions of dollars a year -- even excluding his (rarely her) non-wage bonuses -- would be considered a proletarian while I would not simply because of the non-corporate nature of my income. Or my income when I was working. I don't recall Marx addressing retirement income, which in his time didn't exist apart from individual savings.
There may have been old age pensions somewhere earlier, but the first I know of were established in the Second German Empire by Bismarck. Ditto for public health care. Technically speaking, I should think the highly paid CEO would be considered petite bourgeoise because s/he doesn't own the means of production. When we were young the upper middle class in the US was mostly small businesspeople (e.g. grocery store owners) and independent professionals (e.g. architects, lawyers and physicians). Nowadays it is mostly people with graduate school degree in fairly high-level non-mangerial jobs being paid salaries. It is a huge change.
But of course trying to cram the 21st-Century job market into a 19th-Century box is not likely to work well. We need a modern way of talking about class distinctions; but we also need to recognize the common interests of workers, not merely accept as dicta that they are distinct. It occurs to me that I saw the distinctions between labor unions of professionals and non-professionals; one size doesn't fit all. As a matter of philosophy, I prefer the principle of industrial unionism to craft unionism--the IWW and the CIO rather than the AFL, if you will.
Hallo dear friends! I have been running a mile a minute all week and I have one more day of it. Beginning Tuesday I'll have two gentle weeks and I am very much looking forward to that!!
Meanwhile, I am watching Hurricane Ophelia nearing Ireland (Ireland!!) as it will hit land there on Monday at 1pm. This is very rare.
"It must be cold and miserable standing in the shadow of someone greater and smarter, more loved and more admired. It must be infuriating to have risen on the wings of your derision of that person’s every decision, and even his very existence, and yet not be able to measure up — in either stratagem or efficacy — when you sit where that person once sat.
This is the existence of Donald Trump in the wake of President Barack Obama. Trump can’t hold a candle to Obama, so he’s taking a tiki torch to Obama’s legacy. Trump can’t get his bad ideas through Congress, but he can use the power of the presidency to sabotage or even sink Obama’s signature deeds.
In fact, if there is a defining feature of Trump as “president,” it is that he is in all ways the anti-Obama — not only on policy but also on matters of propriety and polish. While Obama was erudite, Trump is ignorant. Obama was civil, Trump is churlish. Obama was tactful, Trump is tacky.
There is a thing present in Obama and absent from Trump that no amount of money or power can alter: a sense of elegant intellectualism and taste."
Cat--reply on previous thread.
ReplyDeleteAlan
Addressing that reply, it seems strange to me that a CEO making millions of dollars a year -- even excluding his (rarely her) non-wage bonuses -- would be considered a proletarian while I would not simply because of the non-corporate nature of my income. Or my income when I was working. I don't recall Marx addressing retirement income, which in his time didn't exist apart from individual savings.
DeleteThere may have been old age pensions somewhere earlier, but the first I know of were established in the Second German Empire by Bismarck. Ditto for public health care. Technically speaking, I should think the highly paid CEO would be considered petite bourgeoise because s/he doesn't own the means of production. When we were young the upper middle class in the US was mostly small businesspeople (e.g. grocery store owners) and independent professionals (e.g. architects, lawyers and physicians). Nowadays it is mostly people with graduate school degree in fairly high-level non-mangerial jobs being paid salaries. It is a huge change.
DeleteAlan
But of course trying to cram the 21st-Century job market into a 19th-Century box is not likely to work well. We need a modern way of talking about class distinctions; but we also need to recognize the common interests of workers, not merely accept as dicta that they are distinct. It occurs to me that I saw the distinctions between labor unions of professionals and non-professionals; one size doesn't fit all. As a matter of philosophy, I prefer the principle of industrial unionism to craft unionism--the IWW and the CIO rather than the AFL, if you will.
DeleteAlan
Past as Prologue[Click] This must be the big fire near Santa Rosa that I recall.
ReplyDeleteDinosaur egg colors![Click] And other amazing things we can deduce…
How ancient lentils reveal the origins of social inequality[Click]
And now off my rear end and to work.
—Alan
Hallo dear friends! I have been running a mile a minute all week and I have one more day of it.
ReplyDeleteBeginning Tuesday I'll have two gentle weeks and I am very much looking forward to that!!
Meanwhile, I am watching Hurricane Ophelia nearing Ireland (Ireland!!) as it will hit land there on Monday at 1pm. This is very rare.
Or it WAS very rare... I will look it up; thanks for the news.
DeleteAlan
Twice ever! 1961 and today.
DeleteHow a girl who cannot speak got a unique voice
ReplyDelete[Click] No small thing for the recipient, surely.
--Alan
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/columnists/trump-spite-obama-legacy.html
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
"It must be cold and miserable standing in the shadow of someone greater and smarter, more loved and more admired. It must be infuriating to have risen on the wings of your derision of that person’s every decision, and even his very existence, and yet not be able to measure up — in either stratagem or efficacy — when you sit where that person once sat.
This is the existence of Donald Trump in the wake of President Barack Obama. Trump can’t hold a candle to Obama, so he’s taking a tiki torch to Obama’s legacy. Trump can’t get his bad ideas through Congress, but he can use the power of the presidency to sabotage or even sink Obama’s signature deeds.
In fact, if there is a defining feature of Trump as “president,” it is that he is in all ways the anti-Obama — not only on policy but also on matters of propriety and polish. While Obama was erudite, Trump is ignorant. Obama was civil, Trump is churlish. Obama was tactful, Trump is tacky.
There is a thing present in Obama and absent from Trump that no amount of money or power can alter: a sense of elegant intellectualism and taste."
Oh, I'd say there is more than one thing, Susan.
DeleteAlan