Class and Social Mobility - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14755237
When we discuss class it appears to be something static that can never change. If the son or grandson of a steel mill worker becomes a billionaire he will still take pride in his working class background.

A wealthy merchant in the 1600s could descend from peasants who were living as tenant farmers un the 1100s. Their descendants could potentially be destitute and working in an urban sweat shop by the 1800s.

When social class has the potential to shift how do we identify someone's class status? If a businessman had peasant origins hundreds of years ago then how is he different to the industrial worker with recent peasant origins? And if he somehow loses his wealth and goes to work in a factory what class is he then?
#14755241
Wealth determining class is a recent concept. In many parts of the world it is still not the means of determining class. If it is your only means, then class becomes meaningless. It is just a synonym for wealth.
#14755250
One Degree wrote:Wealth determining class is a recent concept. In many parts of the world it is still not the means of determining class. If it is your only means, then class becomes meaningless. It is just a synonym for wealth.

I disagree. The post-Industrial Revolution Western system of class has been exported to most of the world. The only areas of the world today where wealth isn't the primary determinant of class are rural parts of Africa.

Political Interest wrote:If a businessman had peasant origins hundreds of years ago then how is he different to the industrial worker with recent peasant origins?

They share common roots. However, today their self-interest differs because they've come to different and often clashing stations from the same origins.

And if he somehow loses his wealth and goes to work in a factory what class is he then?

Then he'd be an industrial worker, in theory. In practice, he might identify with elements of the business class that are falling behind in technological/economic upheaval. In Marxian terms this would be the difference between being proletarian and being from an antiquated part of the bourgeoisie.
#14755252
I disagree. The post-Industrial Revolution Western system of class has been exported to most of the world. The only areas of the world today where wealth isn't the primary determinant of class are rural parts of Africa.


I am not a world traveler so I must rely upon my historical knowledge, which could admittedly be out of date, but I believe many in India would disagree with you, as well as China, and even Britain. I understand capitalism has altered many of their class institutions, but I doubt they have totally replaced them.

Edit: I would say ethnicity is more of a class determinate in the world than wealth even today.
#14755255
Certainly in India, it is not only about wealth. At my previous job, I recall Indians sort of snickering and talking in a condescending tone about another guy who had recently become very wealthy. I think he was of a lower caste, so they were still accepting of this person as someone of higher class standing. This probably comes from British influence.

Anyway, I would like to see Potemkin come in here and comment, because he always have very interesting comments about shit like this.
#14755259
Anyway, I would like to see Potemkin come in here and comment, because he always have very interesting comments about shit like this.


Where are Potemkin, Fuser, and our Chinese posters when you need them. Just like the rest of the world to leave the heavy lifting to Americans. :D
#14755269
Hey @One Degree, speak of the devil. :D

I think its complex, its neither this or that. Of course from Marxist pov, its not about what you identify yourself with, you own means of production, you are Bourgeoisie. You work as a wage laborer, you are proletariat/working class regardless of how you personally see yourself.

Rancid wrote:Certainly in India, it is not only about wealth. At my previous job, I recall Indians sort of snickering and talking in a condescending tone about another guy who had recently become very wealthy. I think he was of a lower caste, so they were still accepting of this person as someone of higher class standing.


Not necessarily, they might as well as just jealous.

Anyway, In India class and caste is intertwined and its nature can differ massively from place to place. But to give a rough overview, most of the wealth in India is of course with the upper caste and the castes who were trade/business oriented but were not upper caste neither they were untouchables.

Modern India identifies its various castes in three groups : Upper Castes (Self explanatory), OBC : Other Backward Castes (not upper but not untouchables), SC : Scheduled Castes (Castes who were historically untouchables) and ST : Scheduled Tribes (Various different tribes).

Now the upper caste were never trade oriented but like the old European nobility, they were Landowners. Some in OBCs were traders and merchants and they benefited most from coming capitalism. Most of the big Indian capitalists are from this OBC category and there are also many Parsis (Zoorastrians) and Jains. Now, even though the old structure is crumbling very fast, in social terms the upper castes are still at the top more or less although this is fast changing. You won't find much condescending towards the various merchant/trader castes who have made big but such feelings are quite common for the people who have made big from SC.

Now, SCs and STs are largely still very poor and deprived, the waning power of Upper Castes has been mostly taken over by this OBC.

Finally, this is a very rough summary and it may not apply all over India and yes other religions also have their caste aspect in India. Syrian (The old church of Syria not Syrian people) Christians in Kerla are proud Brahmins, Khans won't marry Ansaris etc etc. :lol:
#14755271
One Degree wrote:I am not a world traveler so I must rely upon my historical knowledge, which could admittedly be out of date, but I believe many in India would disagree with you, as well as China, and even Britain.

In modern India and especially China, wealth matters more than land in terms of power. You can have high social respect due to noble birth in India, but that means exponentially less when a billionaire can just buy out those nobles. The process away from feudal wealth is basically complete in China, mostly due to the Maoist revolution completing capitalist development and explicitly undermining the feudal class at every turn.

Britain is the cradle of this trend, and to a substantial degree exported it to China and India. Even their Tories, once the party of the feudal lords, largely adopted the platform of the 19th century Whigs (the party of the merchants) with Thatcher.

I understand capitalism has altered many of their class institutions, but I doubt they have totally replaced them.

They have not been replaced, but the feudal class is on the wane essentially everywhere besides rural Africa. Even there it's weakening, but at a snail's pace. Members of the feudal class whose wealth survives "buy in" to the capitalist class, whether it's British royals who work in City of London finance or the Dutch royal family's vast oil interests. Ones whose power dies off are mostly low-level rural bumpkin barons from various nations' equivalents of Yorkshire.
#14755273
Rousse wrote:In modern India and China, wealth matters much more than land in terms of social power. Britain is the cradle of this trend, and to a substantial degree exported it to China and India.


No, its not true for all of India at all. Yes, its waning I agree but making such blanket statement is just wrong. Its certainly not true for my home state with 100 million population but then its one of the most poor state lacking much of the modern Industry. The caste called Bhumihar (Literally translated as the one who wears land as jewel) are socially on top of the ladder even with population around 4-5% but they own land above 50%. Basically Land is still synonym with wealth in most part of my state i.e. Bihar.

Then there is also Haryana, the entire notorious Khap Panchayat operates by drawing her power from Land and caste based hierarchy (they both complement each other) not Industrial wealth and its a quite developed state and home to Modern Industries unlike Bihar.

But then I agree, all of my examples are changing very fast, these forces are visibly on downward spiral and cannot hold much longer to older system of powers.
#14755274
fuser wrote:Its certainly not true for my home state with 100 million population but then its one of the most poor state lacking much of the modern Industry.

As I stated, India is less strong an example than China. A country with Maoist-driven capitalist development will destroy the feudal class faster than a country giving it a slow death through liberal capitalist development.

But considering India is a world economic power, the wealthy in urban states have more national clout. It's their terms that dictate economic competitiveness. And if there were a resource they wanted to extract in a rural province, you would as you said start to see rural nobility fall by the wayside there. One group may have regional paramilitaries and long-standing landed money, the other group has billions of dollars and the military.

Then there is also Haryana, the entire notorious Khap Panchayat operates by drawing her power from Land and caste based hierarchy (they both complement each other) not Industrial wealth and its a quite developed state and home to Modern Industries unlike Bihar.

Considering they operate in a well-developed state I would guess they, like still powerful elements of the European nobility, hold their sustained power through a combination of their historical social role and having a leading position in these modern industries as well?

Or are they only in power in part of that region? Wikipedia makes it sound like they're the foremost power in a large network of villages, but that this is not all of Haryana province and that they have power in several villages outside of it as well.
#14755283
Rousse wrote:But considering India is a world economic power, the wealthy in urban states have more national clout. It's their terms that dictate economic competitiveness. And if there were a resource they wanted to extract in a rural province, you would as you said start to see rural nobility fall by the wayside there. One group may have regional paramilitaries and long-standing landed money, the other group has billions of dollars and the military.


Oh, I agree. I would say that in an ocean of Liberal-Capitalism, there still exists a few old world/feudal Islands who have not yet sunk but are sinking. Although the rural nobility has won few battles here and there (without going in details) they surely are loosing the war.

Considering they operate in a well-developed state I would guess they, like still powerful elements of the European nobility, hold their sustained power through a combination of their historical social role and having a leading position in these modern industries as well?

Or are they only in power in part of that region? Wikipedia makes it sound like they're the foremost power in a large network of villages, but that this is not all of Haryana province and that they have power in several villages outside of it as well.



They mostly operate from Haryana but also include Western UP and parts of Rajasthan but among them Haryana is the most developed, UP will be another example of one of the most backward state economically.

In Haryana the modern Industrial growth has been mostly driven not by the people of Haryana but the outsiders, it just has benefited from the fact that it is close to the capital. The traditional ruling class/caste of Haryana has failed to make heavy inroads in this new system although they have amassed temporary wealth by selling and leasing lands to Industries. One of the reason why their demise is not only inevitable but will be quicker even though they seem so strong right now and are in some sort of tactical alliance with new outsider capitalist class who don't want to piss them off as it currently stands, its good business with them.
#14755326
:D

One thing for sure, me as Lord-Protector of India is her only hope for eternal greatness. Though I can extend the courtesy to the whole world.

As president, he can certainly stop it. Why sho[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s) […]

Europeans and Russians are educated, this makes t[…]

Was Bataclan or 9/11 an inside job??? @litwin […]