[Cin]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

I found this sentence to be very concerning, I think it says so much about the issues of divisiveness. Who Is ordinary? The middle class mostly white? Because poor and homeless white and poc have been under employed and subjected to daily violence. It is a huge valley to cross to see that the 1% is using the military and the police to support the criminalization of the poor. Pitting the middle class against the poor is a great tool of the majority. We have seen it over and over divide and conquer. I do not want to go back to how it was, that leaves to many people out and for me that is the real issue. Class war is happening within the OWS as it does in every other movement. the 99% have different needs that is why there is not one point, there is no universal narrative.

You say you don’t want to go back to how it was because it leaves too many people out. But I don’t think we have ever left how it was. There is dialogue. A lot more than there ever has been. But we have yet to leave how it is behind. We may, as things get progressively worse, but as it stands now, there is still a great divide of misunderstanding between the poor and the middle class. All that has changed that I see so far is there is no longer much difference economically speaking between the poor and the working class. I don’t mean to imply there is no financial difference if you are employed or unemployed. However, if you are counted in that unfortunate group labeled unskilled laborer then you will not earn enough to significantly improve your living conditions regardless that you are employed. Logically speaking if one is employed then one is at least working class and one should be closer economically speaking to the middle class than to the poor. However, that is not the truth of it. Many people who are employed are earning at or below the poverty line. So the employed are found in significant numbers among the poor.

For clarity I will explain how I am using certain terminology. When I say middle class or working class or poor I am talking about economic ability, earning power. I know in the past blue collar worker and working class were used synonymously as were white collar worker and middle class. However, someone who is considered a blue collar worker can easily fall into the middle class financially speaking, just as some white collar office worker can financially be defined as working class. I think unskilled, skilled and professional are a more financially relevant way of understanding the various economic classes as opposed to using old fashioned jargon that really speaks to social class differences. (For the record my use of these terms are in no way an endorsement of them. It pisses me off to even say unskilled laborer. Who the hell decides what work has value anyway? But that’s really another argument for another time.) Logically unskilled laborers make up the largest portion of the working class when speaking about earning potential. Skilled and professional would make up most of the middle and upper middle class. I imagine they would also make up the 1%. The poor include the unemployed who, while a significant portion come from the unskilled laborer class, can include any and all categories of worker. More and more skilled and professional people can count themselves among the unemployed. And as time without an income passes they edge ever closer to poor. Poverty no longer respects social status. If that continues and more and more of the middle and upper middle class experience a diminished capacity for economic advancement and begin to suffer fear of poverty then it will no longer make sense for a decimated middle class to be at odds with the poor. But as it stands most of the divide still remains strong.

What that means to me is that there are still a significant number of people left who are financially secure enough to believe that working slowly for change within the system will be enough. A tweak here and there and see how it works. No need to rush. No need to make too many changes too fast. They still believe the system at its core works and any change needed is merely aesthetic. A bit of cosmetic work on a program or two, a mere surface adjustment here and there and we are good to go. That belief may change as time does not heal the gaping wounds in our economic system.

For now there are still any number of people who are, at the moment, economically safe enough to make judgments about the poor and the working class. These advantaged believe that if the disadvantaged had taken more personal responsibility, made good use of the opportunities afforded them in a free society they wouldn’t be in the mess they are in. They judge because they believe it is some personal characteristic or some inherent superiority that defines them and separates them from those who are poor. It is something about them intrinsically and not some accident of birth that has allowed them to acquire what they have. It is this natural superiority born of brains or talent or simple initiative, but never just plain luck, that assures these advantaged will never have to work at low paying, soul crushing jobs. They will never be at the mercy of employment that leaves them physically and emotionally drained without supplying adequate compensation to allow for a life in an environment that is relatively safe and clean. They will continue to believe this until it is no longer economically feasible for them to do so.

There are still a good number of people who are financially advantaged enough to believe that while you shouldn’t have to starve or live in the street braving the elements, you needn’t have an opportunity to actually live comfortably. It’s enough to be warm and to have something to eat. You don’t deserve the right to choose healthy food or a clean, safe environment. To earn that right you need to have taken personal responsibility. I’m not sure how going to work every day doing a job that exists, therefore must need doing, even though this is not reflected in the ridiculous hourly wage earned, is not taking personal responsibility. Or how losing a job and not being able to find another in a devolving economy can speak to one’s ability to take or not take personal responsibility.

I wish I could live in a society where simply doing the best job you can at whatever work you can get entitles you to live a decent life. A society where all workers have value and all work is important. Not equal of course. Human beings can’t handle that. But of enough value that you get a decent wage so that you can support a family if you have one and live a life that allows for security, personal growth and a few toys.

But right now there still exists plenty of people who are economically advantaged enough to imagine they have the right to judge who is or is not choosing to work. They fancy themselves able to discern another’s motives or reasons behind their unemployment. They believe if you want to work but there are no jobs or you are disabled and can’t work then you should be allowed the bare minimum that would allow your survival, but if you choose not to work too bad for you. The scary part of this is who gets to decide if a human being is purposely choosing not to work? I doubt anyone is announcing a preference for sitting on their ass all day. Although allow me the opportunity at this time to point out that there is a large segment of society, most especially those with large, and I mean really large, excruciatingly large paychecks, who actually do sit on their ass all day. They are performing that all important and extremely meaningful professional labor we hear about. The kind of labor that those willing to take personal responsibility, those who take the initiative and have motivation and drive have earned the right to do simply by their own strong character, ambition and personal achievement (money to pay for education and powerful connections might help a tad). So when they sit on their ass all day it is a virtue.

The thing is that this belief that one has earned one’s right to excessive financial superiority over others doesn’t end well for anybody. Except possibly the 1%. Because as resources dwindle those of you who believe your positions are secure, your superiority is evident and your value as a integral part of this society unquestionable may be in for a rude awakening. The 1% sees no connection between what the rest of society has accomplished and the riches they have amassed. When you see the world like that no one is of any value.

If things continue to deteriorate then more people will be forcibly torn from their positions of financial superiority. We will hear less and less about taking personal responsibility and choosing or not choosing to be unemployed. We are likely to hear more about an equal distribution of the wealth. We will probably hear less about giving the poor a warm place to lay their heads and a little food and a free clinic here and there and more about needing decent paying jobs and healthcare for all. We may start to hear more mainstream conversations about constructing a government that works for the people not just for a small number of rich.

I don’t think we get what we want by asking politely for the 1% to make room for us at the table. They are not likely to just get a conscience. I haven’t noticed history books filled with stories of the rich and powerful relinquishing their control over the masses just because they were asked nicely. Or even admonished gruffly. You have to make them let go. There are non-revolutionary ways to do this. But in the end it’s not just up to the 99% to decide how this is going to go down.

And perhaps there is not a universal narrative but if there were it might be simply that we want to live our lives in a fair and just society that allows for equity of treatment for all members, the right to be financially secure, to always have access to healthcare and to be ruled by a government of the people and for the people, that has the interests of all the people and the future of our world at the forefront of all its decisions.