this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
57 points (95.2% liked)

chat

8438 readers
206 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know we have our Marxist definition and all that, but it seems to be a really pervasive brainworms, everywhere I go. Some people I've talked to think for instance, all scientists are silver spooned and never worked a day in their life because they don't do construction, or whatever.

How do you argue with people like this? Can you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think arguing isn't the best way forward. I think helping them think through their thoughts is a better approach.

Chances are good that what they're really trying to draw a distinction between is the working class and the professional managerial class, but without the proper framework Starbucks servers and postal workers get swept up in the mix.

In my experience it is also rhetorically helpful to establish common ground, that you also stand in position to the PMC.

I'll leave this Graeber quote that I posted last week as it's been rattling around in my brain since I read it:

The ultimate bad guys in contrast are the intelligentsia. Most working-class conservatives, for instance, don’t have much use for corporate executives, but they usually don’t feel especially passionate about their dislike for them. Their true hatred is directed at the “liberal elite” (this divides into various branches: the “Hollywood elite,” the “journalistic elite,” “university elite,” “fancy lawyers,” or “the medical establishment”)—that is, the sort of people who live in big coastal cities, watch public television or public radio, or even more, who might be involved in producing or appearing in same. It seems to me there are two perceptions that lie behind this resentment: (1) the perception that members of this elite see ordinary working people as a bunch of knuckle-dragging cavemen, and (2) the perception that these elites constitute an increasingly closed caste; one which the children of the working class would actually have far more difficulty breaking into than the class of actual capitalists.

It also seems to me that both these perceptions are largely accurate.

...

Conservative voters, I would suggest, tend to resent intellectuals more than they resent rich people, because they can imagine a scenario in which they or their children might become rich, but cannot possibly imagine one in which they could ever become a member of the cultural elite. If you think about it that’s not an unreasonable assessment. A truck driver’s daughter from Nebraska might not have very much chance of becoming a millionaire—America now has the lowest social mobility in the developed world—but it could happen. There’s virtually no way that same daughter will ever become an international human rights lawyer, or drama critic for the New York Times. Even if she could get into the right schools, there would certainly be no possible way for her to then go on to live in New York or San Francisco for the requisite years of unpaid internships. Even if the son of glazier got a toehold in a well-positioned bullshit job, he would likely, like Eric, be unable or unwilling to transform it into a platform for the obligatory networking. There are a thousand invisible barriers.

[–] ChestRockwell@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago

graeber remains great on this.

He also notes that caring labor is often what really is brought to the table in any job, especially with so much automation. Thus, even if the barista's "manual" labor is inconsequential, the caring labor remains incredibly important.

An example he brings up is ticket takers in the London underground. Their job is primarily done now by kiosk and such, so they are a glorified security guard in some ways. However, their real job is to help the disabled, those who are lost, perhaps in distress, etc. Even if the metro functions fine without someone in the station, the system becomes crueler and unable to account for the contingencies of real humans.

However, caring work is devalued because of sexism.

Basically, read the last two chapters of bullshit jobs to create solidarity between the caring work of bartenders, baristas, and other service workers and the last vestiges of manual labor.