Opinion of the hard lefty laborites who are upper middle class or better

[All Along The Watchtower]

Let's be honest, we don't like the idea of the rich having an opinion about anything. If they're liberals, they seem to be people rejecting what made them rich. If their conservatives, they're just playing to their interests. At the end of the day, "they haven't worked a day in their lives, so they shouldn't be voicing their opinions on things they obviously don't understand." etc.
[/quote)

Well, the rich are the ones whose opinions matter the most in American politics anyways, so you might forgive us if we don't exactly shed tears over the tragedy of the rich having more money than they know what to do with.

[Vosem]

A very pleasant, charming, and friendly demographic in person; in spite of that the voting habits are just the worst. Voted HP.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'll refrain from being a dick and talking about "not voting their interests". They have their opinions and should stick to them.

I prefer an honest labourite like TNF (not sure how rich he is) to the kind of snobbish latte liberalism that can be found in the upper middle class. Talking about union power just bugs me less than the endless talk about gun control or foreign aid.

Ah, of course the kind of latte liberals who don't particularly care about the actual income levels of the poor of their own country actually are voting their interests, or at least not in a way to actively endanger them (they are not voting to maximize their future earnings... they're not THAT greedy.)

And the degree of influence they've had over the post-1968 left and especially today IS a problem.

I do wonder how much of the working class (especially rural working class) conservatism seen these days is a reaction to the growing influence of latte liberals and other urban elites in American politics. I mean, the Right is so successful at stirring class resentments against liberal cultural and intellectual elites because many of those places and institutions-whether they be the national news media, or Ivy League universities, or the major coastal metro areas in general-ARE the epicenters of America's elite, and have been for a long time.

The institutions that you describe hold just as much influence over the American right as they do over this country's left

True, but conservative intellectual and cultural elites are perhaps less visible than their liberal counterparts. And your average conservative is more influenced by Sesn Hannity or Rush Lumbaugh than by George Will or William F Buckley, Jr. these days-populist professional ANTI-intellectuals, in other words.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

As one of those people myself (and the scion of a long line of dirty hippie pot-smoking college professors who go to Berkeley and vote straight Democratic), strong FFs.

[freefair]

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

[rejectamenta]

A very pleasant, charming, and friendly demographic in person; in spite of that the voting habits are just the worst. Voted HP.

Curiously I find myself feeling the opposite. A lot of these types are insufferable and tiresome to interact with personally, for instance I would much prefer to associate with smelly apolitical knuckle draggers, but I appreciate their voting habits and political concerns.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Those who avoid taxes are hypocritical pieces of sh*t who absolutely don't belong in the left, obviously. Conspicuous consumption is pretty horrible and somewhat hypocritical as well. However, no one is obliged to give to charities. Private charity has absolutely nothing to do with public solidarity.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Let's be honest, we don't like the idea of the rich having an opinion about anything. If they're liberals, they seem to be people rejecting what made them rich. If their conservatives, they're just playing to their interests. At the end of the day, "they haven't worked a day in their lives, so they shouldn't be voicing their opinions on things they obviously don't understand." etc.
[/quote)

Well, the rich are the ones whose opinions matter the most in American politics anyways, so you might forgive us if we don't exactly shed tears over the tragedy of the rich having more money than they know what to do with.

Tragedy? Gah, I"ll be honest, I'm not going to attempt to understand your reply. It seems to be amount to "something something Cathcon feels sorry for the rich", in which case, that's not what I said. What I did say is a pretty big mainstay of the modern conversation going on. While a person on one end of the spectrum will try to make their policies play to the middle and working classes, the type of person they hate most is a rich person with the opposite opinions. Is that not true?

[CatoMinor]

As one of those people myself (and the scion of a long line of dirty hippie pot-smoking college professors who go to Berkeley and vote straight Democratic), strong FFs.

one or two at most generations do not count as a long line. And I think yuppie would be a better term for your parents from what you just described.

[TNF]

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Those who avoid taxes are hypocritical pieces of sh*t who absolutely don't belong in the left, obviously. Conspicuous consumption is pretty horrible and somewhat hypocritical as well. However, no one is obliged to give to charities. Private charity has absolutely nothing to do with public solidarity.

Obviously. Most charities are either way for plutocrats to avoid paying their fair share of taxes/intricate scams or money making operations. Take for example the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 'charity' that allows the Gates family to dodge taxation while using the money flowing into it to bust teachers' unions and advocate on behalf of education 'reform', all the while getting a tax write-off for it.

[DC Al Fine]

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Those who avoid taxes are hypocritical pieces of sh*t who absolutely don't belong in the left, obviously. Conspicuous consumption is pretty horrible and somewhat hypocritical as well. However, no one is obliged to give to charities. Private charity has absolutely nothing to do with public solidarity.

Obviously. Most charities are either way for plutocrats to avoid paying their fair share of taxes/intricate scams or money making operations. Take for example the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 'charity' that allows the Gates family to dodge taxation while using the money flowing into it to bust teachers' unions and advocate on behalf of education 'reform', all the while getting a tax write-off for it.

I would go so far as to say that most charities are scams, but most of the larger ones have way too much overhead and a extremely inefficient. I'm sure there are good groups to give your money to in your community, but they tend to be small and go unnoticed because they don't spend half their budget on advertising.

[traininthedistance]

Well, I'm admittedly much more of a latte lib than a laborite, so I don't agree with them on everything, but FF all the same.  The reason is very simple:

This idea that you must have lived in a situation to feel real compassion for the people who live in it, while unfortunately true to some degree (see Portman and the other Republicans who are conservative on every issue except the single one that affect them or their relatives), is truly disgusting. I am actually very proud of the fact that my political principles go beyond my own personal situation.

Having concern for everyone, not just people who are not "like you" is, well, a sign of a well-developed morality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm admittedly much more of a latte lib than a laborite, so I don't agree with them on everything, but FF all the same.  The reason is very simple:

This idea that you must have lived in a situation to feel real compassion for the people who live in it, while unfortunately true to some degree (see Portman and the other Republicans who are conservative on every issue except the single one that affect them or their relatives), is truly disgusting. I am actually very proud of the fact that my political principles go beyond my own personal situation.

Having concern for everyone, not just people who are not "like you" is, well, a sign of a well-developed morality.

As well as a cornerstone of political philosophy.

[Peter the Lefty]

I guess I'm among them (only because we live in a suburbanish house, which we should never have bought since we can't afford the mortgage anyhow).  Once I'm in college and on my own, I imagine I'll never aspire to own more than a comfortable-but-small house, or perhaps even just an apartment. 

[Marokai Backbeat]

What Nix said is pretty much how I feel. There's nothing inherently wrong with "hard lefty laborites" who are in a wealthy or comfortable position in life, but there is if their consumption habits tend to overtly conflict with their beliefs, or tend to define them as a person. This:

Especially those who want to abolish things like private schools yet send their children there. That's inexcusable.

Is basically what I mean by that. Wealth and socialist beliefs are not incompatible things, inherently. Consistency is all that matters.

[Lief 🗽]

As a lower-middle-class leftist, I feel superior to them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What Nix said is pretty much how I feel. There's nothing inherently wrong with "hard lefty laborites" who are in a wealthy or comfortable position in life, but there is if their consumption habits tend to overtly conflict with their beliefs, or tend to define them as a person. This:

Especially those who want to abolish things like private schools yet send their children there. That's inexcusable.

Is basically what I mean by that. Wealth and socialist beliefs are not incompatible things, inherently. Consistency is all that matters.

I went to a (government contracted) private high school, and I don't want to abolish them (though I'd probably shut down many of the non-contracted private schools). Is that OK?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I give you a pass, Antonio, yes.

[PJ]

FFs for having at least an ounce of compassion for the truly doomed amongst us.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

FFs for having at least an ounce of compassion for the truly doomed amongst us.

Compassion is hardly a concept that is given reverence in the U.S.A. on the grand scale.  Many Americans love when they hear cute little stories of charity and selflessness, but will worship greed and profit on the whole. 

[Leftbehind]

I'm probably one of them...

So, Jbrase, what's your opinion of antiracist whites, feminist men, and anti-homophobic heterosexuals?

I am not saying they should have a certain ideology because of where they are in life, I just find it annoying sometimes when people talk about the poor and working class and have never lived among them. Someone's talk of socialism is a lot less convincing, to me personally, when the closest they've been to working in factory or on a farm was reading a book about the guilded age.

On a side note: I am not upper middle class, or suburban, or live in a basement, before anyone starts killing off strawmen.

Basically, this. If one wants to be taken seriously, they should all at least deliberately endeavor to give their own surplus money away to charity or to governments in times of low tax rates, and to spend a few months living alongside the mass of people on lower incomes.

Completely illogical. Throw away their money to a cause they don't believe in (charity) and make themselves poor so they can suffer the same conditions they've been actively opposing?

The absolute, absolute worst. Champagne socialists are just dirt. Especially those who want to abolish things like private schools yet send their children there. That's inexcusable.

You're confusing middle-class socialists with champagne socialists/hypocrites - the former are FF, the latter not so much.  

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Only one of those, to my mind, is hypocritical - arguing against raising their tax band/avoiding tax. Charity is a sop, whereas systematic re-distribution (the kind that high taxes can afford) is meaningful. Again, they don't have to impoverish themselves to 'prove' they want socialism - that's just disingenuous right-wing rhetoric to discredit them (and if they actually done all those things, they will just becomes as voiceless as the working-class they'll then join).

[freefair]

Completely illogical. Throw away their money to a cause they don't believe in (charity) and make themselves poor so they can suffer the same conditions they've been actively opposing?

Only one of those, to my mind, is hypocritical - arguing against raising their tax band/avoiding tax. Charity is a sop, whereas systematic re-distribution (the kind that high taxes can afford) is meaningful. Again, they don't have to impoverish themselves to 'prove' they want socialism - that's just disingenuous right-wing rhetoric to discredit them (and if they actually done all those things, they will just becomes as voiceless as the working-class they'll then join).

They don't have to give it all away- 10 to 20% would be fine- they'd still be well off. I'm not saying they should be poor.
I'm astonished those on the left place so little moral worth on  charity (material worth, ok)- believing the welfare state to be inherently more moral seems to be taking collectivism a little too seriously to be reasonable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Completely illogical. Throw away their money to a cause they don't believe in (charity) and make themselves poor so they can suffer the same conditions they've been actively opposing?

Only one of those, to my mind, is hypocritical - arguing against raising their tax band/avoiding tax. Charity is a sop, whereas systematic re-distribution (the kind that high taxes can afford) is meaningful. Again, they don't have to impoverish themselves to 'prove' they want socialism - that's just disingenuous right-wing rhetoric to discredit them (and if they actually done all those things, they will just becomes as voiceless as the working-class they'll then join).

They don't have to give it all away- 10 to 20% would be fine- they'd still be well off. I'm not saying they should be poor.
I'm astonished those on the left place so little moral worth on  charity (material worth, ok)- believing the welfare state to be inherently more moral seems to be taking collectivism a little too seriously to be reasonable.

I certainly don't take reasonableness lectures from Libertarians.

[Leftbehind]

They don't have to give it all away- 10 to 20% would be fine- they'd still be well off. I'm not saying they should be poor.

But why give anything to charity when you don't believe in it? It only serves to bolster the status quo.

I'm astonished those on the left place so little moral worth on  charity (material worth, ok)- believing the welfare state to be inherently more moral seems to be taking collectivism a little too seriously to be reasonable.

When you have a system (capitalism) actively centralising wealth in fewer hands, a small minority of them volunteering to pay a small minority of their wealth is at best just tokenism, and at worst a way for the wealthy to placate those suffering an unjust system and assage their own guilt, whilst legitimising their privilege ("oh but he does good with it"/"oh but I've donated to this and that" blah blah blah).

I certainly don't take reasonableness lectures from Libertarians.

Haha, I know right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Since when was 'the left' opposed to charities or charity as such? I think this is veering towards 'politics as it ought to be' rather than 'as it actually is'.