I realise you are an unrelenting statist and therefore consider the state the only supplier in certain circumstances such as healthcare and education - it is not a view shared by everyone and not by me - personally I could not care less if a person went to a state school or private as long as they were capable.
{1}And that is a problem? They will always be elitist (if only academically) - but as long as that is not based on the size of a person's bank balance then really does it matter. Why should those who are poorer be denied the best education they can get - just because that education is not supplied by the state. It might be nice if the state sector could supply as good an education (and the simple fact is that certain areas of the state sector do) but on a more general level it does not - not least because of the degree of political interference and the one size fits all nature of it.
So the dictionary is wrong then? [2]What precisely do you mean by the 'upper class' is it the size of their bank balance? In which case given that 8 out of 10 wealthy people did not inherit that wealth then clearly you can change class within your lifetime. Or are you going to come up with the circular definition you usually do which amounts to little more than they are upper class because they are upper class.
One should say what you mean, and mean what you say.
1. Yes, elitism is a big problem for me. And private education is dependent on the ability to pay! As ever, you emphasise the few and take them as being typical. I don't understand you at all.
Your insinuation that "the poor" can all go to private school is absurd.
2. The aristocracy, the nobility - the few that are left. The upper class, as opposed to the middle and working classes. They most certainly know who they are, even if you are having a puzzling problem in understanding who they are.
If you have read what I have been saying on here you will see class is not dependent on wealth in my view.
Mean houshold income of around £38k for the technical middle class; £47K for traditional middle class. Not sure what the bottom threshold would be however and of course it's not that simple
But I don't want kids going to private schools, no matter if a few of them come from less well off backgrounds!
They are thoroughly elitist! Why can't you understand that is my opposition to them?
As for your aristocracy paul, I think most of us realise when we speak of the aristocracy we mean the upper class.
Why are you always so literal ?
That would explain why so many communist leaders around the world chose to educate their off-spring in such establishments, then..... ;-)
But then, to paraphrase George Orwell, even in one party, totalitarian states where everyone is deemed to be equal, some are far more equal than others.
1. Yes, elitism is a big problem for me. And private education is dependent on the ability to pay! As ever, you emphasise the few and take them as being typical. I don't understand you at all.
Never said they were 'typical' - just that the private education sector is looking at ways of opening up the sector to those with less wealth - just that they have not succeeded yet.
Your insinuation that "the poor" can all go to private school is absurd.
Why? If their are sufficient bursaries to cover those who are academically capable but not wealthy there is no reason why not.
2. The aristocracy, the nobility - the few that are left. The upper class, as opposed to the middle and working classes. They most certainly know who they are, even if you are having a puzzling problem in understanding who they are.
Nearly what I expected - the Upper class are those who are not middle and lower class. It is a circular definition at best. Frankly I know who I think are the upper class and would put that at those with extreme wealth and those who are ennobled. You however may not since you hold onto this belief that nobody can change their class and those Lords who started life relatively poorer such as Lord Prescott would now be classed as a member of the aristocracy.
If you have read what I have been saying on here you will see class is not dependent on wealth in my view.
And as I keep saying just because it is your view it does not mean that this is what everyone else believes. Nor have you provided much if any independent backing for this view but it would not be difficult to find a counter view (indeed there is at least one in this thread and I can think of at least another).
Never said they were 'typical' - just that the private education sector is looking at ways of opening up the sector to those with less wealth - just that they have not succeeded yet.
[1]Why? If their are sufficient bursaries to cover those who are academically capable but not wealthy there is no reason why not.
[2]Nearly what I expected - the Upper class are those who are not middle and lower class.It is a circular definition at best.Frankly I know who I think are the upper class and would put that at those with extreme wealth and those who are ennobled. You however may not since you hold onto this belief that nobody can change their class and those Lords who started life relatively poorer such as Lord Prescott would now be classed as a member of the aristocracy.
[3]And as I keep saying just because it is your view it does not mean that this is what everyone else believes. Nor have you provided much if any independent backing for this view but it would not be difficult to find a counter view (indeed there is at least one in this thread and I can think of at least another).
1. Because there are only a relative few number of private schools of course. Their exclusivity is one of the things the parents pay for. Are you saying all young kids should be paid for to go to a private crammer so that they will then get a crack at the private higher school exam like current privately educated children? Where are all of the thousands of extra schools coming from?
2. Sigh. The upper class are what is left of the old aristocracy. Why are you having problems with this simple concept? You can't move from being working class like Prescott into the aristocracy! You are born into it! Wealth does not create an aristocrat.
3. Of course it is my view. Isn't this meant to be a discussion forum where we debate opposing/contrasting views?
Surely there is no definitive version of the social classes? No hard and fast rules as to who sits in which group and whether they can cross into different social classes? If there were there really wouldn't be any discussion on the matter. We'd all know our place.
Personally, I've seen social classification handled several different ways - for example, by the relationship between the employee and the employer, by the type of work people do, or by their income, living standards etc. - there was even a whole new 7-tier class structure being touted a year or so ago.
1. Because there are only a relative few number of private schools of course. Their exclusivity is one of the things the parents pay for. Are you saying all young kids should be paid for to go to a private crammer so that they will then get a crack at the private higher school exam like current privately educated children? Where are all of the thousands of extra schools coming from?
They will always be, if only because of academic prowess - once the current trend is complete and it is only academic elite then as I do not have a problem with it.
2. Sigh. The upper class are what is left of the old aristocracy. Why are you having problems with this simple concept? You can't move from being working class like Prescott into the aristocracy! You are born into it! Wealth does not create an aristocrat.
No it is you who do not understand - the aristocracy is the defined as 'a member of a ruling class or of the nobility'. Which most definitely includes Lord Prescott as he is a peer of the realm.
3. Of course it is my view. Isn't this meant to be a discussion forum where we debate opposing/contrasting views?
But you neither discuss or debate - you state your opinion with little or no evidence, ignore anything that does not fit your worldview. If you want people to agree with you then at least back up with some third party evidence - as I can over saying almost precisely the opposite to that class is a function of wealth and your job (see http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SocialMobilityJUNE2010.pdf).
Indeed the very concept of social mobility is built on the idea that a persons class can change within their lifetime, and it can be shown that in the last years of Labour's term in office in Labour's final term the number of working-class students in higher education began to increase at a faster rate than those from middle-class backgrounds. (see http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/17/danny-dorling-fair-play-statistics) - which also tends to indicate that the dominance of Private Schools is not to do with wealth but with the relationships formed at the time. That supports another element which is if you can get private schools to be means blind then those from the poorer sectors of society will get a look in because they will form the same relationships as the richer ones. Indeed there is some evidence to show that those from a poorer background do better than those from richer ones.
I reckon if GGP is looking for a modern definition of 'middle class', he could do a lot worse than check their toilets. If they've got one of those fragrant oil diffuser things with sticks in the top, they're middle class. If you get lost in the house looking for the toilet, they're upper class. If it smells of flowers because it's in the garden....
Class is not dependent on money and what it can buy.
Be nice if you could provide some clues as to what it is dependent on. For all the pontificating you've done on the subject, I don't recall you ever actually defining what you mean by class.
And before you ask, here's my definition of class: a largely irrelevent construct upheld soley by those who wish to divide by it.
Be nice if you could provide some clues as to what it is dependent on. For all the pontificating you've done on the subject, I don't recall you ever actually defining what you mean by class.
And before you ask, here's my definition of class: a largely irrelevent construct upheld soley by those who wish to divide by it.
Be nice if you could provide some clues as to what it is dependent on. For all the pontificating you've done on the subject, I don't recall you ever actually defining what you mean by class.
And before you ask, here's my definition of class: a largely irrelevent construct upheld soley by those who wish to divide by it.
What I'd like to know is how he goes about removing it.
The suggestion class doesn't exist is so very socialist.
Perhaps Pan should bear that in mind. I thought he was one! And bearing that in mind, I shall no longer refer to him with his title. It's so divisive:D
Perhaps Pan should bear that in mind. I thought he was one! And bearing that in mind, I shall no longer refer to him with his title. It's so divisive:D
Surely there is no definitive version of the social classes? No hard and fast rules as to who sits in which group and whether they can cross into different social classes? If there were there really wouldn't be any discussion on the matter. We'd all know our place.
Personally, I've seen social classification handled several different ways - for example, by the relationship between the employee and the employer, by the type of work people do, or by their income, living standards etc. - there was even a whole new 7-tier class structure being touted a year or so ago.
Agreed.
Your second para. seems more to refer to sociological classifications based on employment and salary than what I would call class, though.
[1]They will always be, if only because of academic prowess - once the current trend is complete and it is only academic elite then as I do not have a problem with it.
No it is you who do not understand -[2] the aristocracy is the defined as 'a member of a ruling class or of the nobility'. Which most definitely includes Lord Prescott as he is a peer of the realm.
But you neither discuss or debate - you state your opinion with little or no evidence, ignore anything that does not fit your worldview. If you want people to agree with you then at least back up with some third party evidence - as I can over saying almost precisely the opposite to that class is a function of wealth and your job (see http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SocialMobilityJUNE2010.pdf).
[3]Indeed the very concept of social mobility is built on the idea that a persons class can change within their lifetime, and it can be shown that in the last years of Labour's term in office in Labour's final term the number of working-class students in higher education began to increase at a faster rate than those from middle-class backgrounds. (see http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/17/danny-dorling-fair-play-statistics) - which also tends to indicate that the dominance of Private Schools is not to do with wealth but with the relationships formed at the time. That supports another element which is if you can get private schools to be means blind then those from the poorer sectors of society will get a look in because they will form the same relationships as the richer ones. Indeed there is some evidence to show that those from a poorer background do better than those from richer ones.
1. I haven't a clue what you mean here.
2. The aristocracy/upper class is what is left of the hereditary nobility.
3. So when did these working class students become middle class in your view then? Did their elevation to the bourgeoisie depend on the nature of their subsequent job, or was their mere attendance at uni enough to do it, so that their future job (if any) is irrelevant?
Be nice if you could provide some clues as to what it is dependent on. For all the pontificating you've done on the subject, I don't recall you ever actually defining what you mean by class.
And before you ask, here's my definition of class: a largely irrelevent construct upheld soley by those who wish to divide by it.
Well, I'm hardly likely to waste my time on giving my view to somebody who thinks it is an "irrelevant construct", am I?
What I'd like to know is how he goes about removing it.
An explanation of the stages.
By removing the means by which the middle class (as it is they who hold the reins of power) maintain their privileged position in society, where their wealth purchases that privilege in the shape of private education, private healthcare and last but certainly by no means least, ownership of the means of prodution.
By removing the means by which the middle class (as it is they who hold the reins of power) maintain their privileged position in society, where their wealth purchases that privilege in the shape of private education, private healthcare and last but certainly by no means least, ownership of the means of prodution.
...and handing it to the new privileged elite, the state.
Comments
1. Yes, elitism is a big problem for me. And private education is dependent on the ability to pay! As ever, you emphasise the few and take them as being typical. I don't understand you at all.
Your insinuation that "the poor" can all go to private school is absurd.
2. The aristocracy, the nobility - the few that are left. The upper class, as opposed to the middle and working classes. They most certainly know who they are, even if you are having a puzzling problem in understanding who they are.
If you have read what I have been saying on here you will see class is not dependent on wealth in my view.
But that is not the meaning of class!
I agree. What's worse, many of them defend the very system that keeps them down.
That would explain why so many communist leaders around the world chose to educate their off-spring in such establishments, then..... ;-)
But then, to paraphrase George Orwell, even in one party, totalitarian states where everyone is deemed to be equal, some are far more equal than others.
Never said they were 'typical' - just that the private education sector is looking at ways of opening up the sector to those with less wealth - just that they have not succeeded yet.
Why? If their are sufficient bursaries to cover those who are academically capable but not wealthy there is no reason why not.
Nearly what I expected - the Upper class are those who are not middle and lower class. It is a circular definition at best. Frankly I know who I think are the upper class and would put that at those with extreme wealth and those who are ennobled. You however may not since you hold onto this belief that nobody can change their class and those Lords who started life relatively poorer such as Lord Prescott would now be classed as a member of the aristocracy.
And as I keep saying just because it is your view it does not mean that this is what everyone else believes. Nor have you provided much if any independent backing for this view but it would not be difficult to find a counter view (indeed there is at least one in this thread and I can think of at least another).
1. Because there are only a relative few number of private schools of course. Their exclusivity is one of the things the parents pay for. Are you saying all young kids should be paid for to go to a private crammer so that they will then get a crack at the private higher school exam like current privately educated children? Where are all of the thousands of extra schools coming from?
2. Sigh. The upper class are what is left of the old aristocracy. Why are you having problems with this simple concept? You can't move from being working class like Prescott into the aristocracy! You are born into it! Wealth does not create an aristocrat.
3. Of course it is my view. Isn't this meant to be a discussion forum where we debate opposing/contrasting views?
Personally, I've seen social classification handled several different ways - for example, by the relationship between the employee and the employer, by the type of work people do, or by their income, living standards etc. - there was even a whole new 7-tier class structure being touted a year or so ago.
That was the one I linked to here:
1 Elite
2 Established middle class
3 Technical middle class
4 New affluent workers
5 Traditional working class
6 Emergent service workers
7 Precariat
Yes, that was the one - thanks.
They will always be, if only because of academic prowess - once the current trend is complete and it is only academic elite then as I do not have a problem with it.
No it is you who do not understand - the aristocracy is the defined as 'a member of a ruling class or of the nobility'. Which most definitely includes Lord Prescott as he is a peer of the realm.
But you neither discuss or debate - you state your opinion with little or no evidence, ignore anything that does not fit your worldview. If you want people to agree with you then at least back up with some third party evidence - as I can over saying almost precisely the opposite to that class is a function of wealth and your job (see http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SocialMobilityJUNE2010.pdf).
Indeed the very concept of social mobility is built on the idea that a persons class can change within their lifetime, and it can be shown that in the last years of Labour's term in office in Labour's final term the number of working-class students in higher education began to increase at a faster rate than those from middle-class backgrounds. (see http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/17/danny-dorling-fair-play-statistics) - which also tends to indicate that the dominance of Private Schools is not to do with wealth but with the relationships formed at the time. That supports another element which is if you can get private schools to be means blind then those from the poorer sectors of society will get a look in because they will form the same relationships as the richer ones. Indeed there is some evidence to show that those from a poorer background do better than those from richer ones.
And before you ask, here's my definition of class: a largely irrelevent construct upheld soley by those who wish to divide by it.
That's shorter and more accurate than mine.
What I'd like to know is how he goes about removing it.
An explanation of the stages.
Perhaps Pan should bear that in mind. I thought he was one! And bearing that in mind, I shall no longer refer to him with his title. It's so divisive:D
Elitist, in fact ;-)
Agreed.
Your second para. seems more to refer to sociological classifications based on employment and salary than what I would call class, though.
1. I haven't a clue what you mean here.
2. The aristocracy/upper class is what is left of the hereditary nobility.
3. So when did these working class students become middle class in your view then? Did their elevation to the bourgeoisie depend on the nature of their subsequent job, or was their mere attendance at uni enough to do it, so that their future job (if any) is irrelevant?
I agree with GGP on his ideas of this actually - he's right on the button.
What I find bizarre is this.
How + why he would want to even try to remove it + why he sees it (his view of it) as a bad thing.
Well, I'm hardly likely to waste my time on giving my view to somebody who thinks it is an "irrelevant construct", am I?
By removing the means by which the middle class (as it is they who hold the reins of power) maintain their privileged position in society, where their wealth purchases that privilege in the shape of private education, private healthcare and last but certainly by no means least, ownership of the means of prodution.
The suggestion that class shouldn't exist is so very Socialist......