Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
That is sort of the classic Marxist argument, but history largely refutes it. The two greatest wars in human history having been wars of either rival nationalisms, or of an ideology that placed race above all other considerations.
Further, as monarchies ranging from the democratic variety - see also Japan and the United Kingdom - to less then democratic - see also Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, for example - amply demonstrate, class is not so important a force. Indeed, paradoxically, at the level of monarchy at least, it has been a force for national unity, including in opposition to rival nationalisms.
Marx, suffice to say, was wrong. His theory was a romantic reaction to the Enlightenment. To wit, the idea of the Enlightenment was that man was a spontaneously rational and social being. That he had rights, rooted in nature.
However, man has been corrupted by institutions that evolved over history but that were not inherently rational and therefore not consistent with his natural rights.
The idea behind the Enlightenment then was that man must be stripped of the illogical and irrational/pre-rational sources of his identity - i. e. religion, ethnicity, tribe, etc. - and law made in conformity with his natural rights. When law and natural rights are consistent, man will live in harmonious relationship with his fellows.
The problem. of course, was that man gets his sense of identity from religion, family, tribe, nationality, etc. When stripped of these - as the British statesman and political philosopher put it - man is "reduced to his naked shivering nature."
Into this stepped Marx. In brief summation, he combined man's need for a sense of identity with a "scientific theory." He discerned a dialectic in History - with a capital "H" - in which economics and class was the source of man's true identity and that the clash of owning and working classes would result over time in a stateless utopia where man lived in fulfillment of his nature.
This, of course, was not scientific at all. It greatly oversimplified man's nature and, in practice - and this is skipping over a LOT of important detail - conduced to the concentration of power in an elite whose job, in Marxist theory, was to guide the workers toward that classless utopia that - allegedly - History was moving toward anyhow.
Suffice to add that the classless utopia collapsed - see also the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Whatever tensions class distinctions may have wrought, in the end people rallied to their sense of national identity first and foremost. Indeed, it is nationalism that has - by far - been the driving force of the modern world.
The world's current tumults and populist wave born not in reaction to class, but to the homogenizing forces of modern technology. Technologies whose effect is to blur and break down national identities. Identities to which people cling with a ferocity and intensity that really has no parallel.
That all said, as Burke pointed out, while nationality has its divisive aspects, it is on the whole a force for good. Giving people a sense of identity and place that no other categorization can replicate. When stripped of nationality, it is then that people chase after false gods - and thus the "secular religions" of Socialism, Fascism and National Socialism that made the latter half of the 20th century so - for lack of a better term - interesting.
In comparison, both as a force for division and as a force for unity, class pales in comparison. It is not unimportant, but its importance has been greatly overestimated by a generation that opposed Marx, but never seems to have read him.
Agree. I grew up dirt poor in West Philadelphia (REAL West Philly, not that 35th to 50th Street gentrified "new Brooklyn" bullsh*t). It was predominantly black, but we had a few white people in the hood. One girl was super white (pale skin), blue eyes, and blonde hair. Nobody treated her differently. (As in, she had a "Nigga card" and everything; this was also the 90s, for what's it worth.)
But the moment some upper middle class snob entered the neighborhood, there was instant hostility from everyone involved. Most would assume it had to do with race (most rich people in America are white), but it was definitely class-based. The unspoken bias was that the rich were the people that spit on us and kept us poor and unable to elevate out of poverty (which is half true and kind of a "chicken or the egg" deal; there are other ways to elevate out of poverty, but if you're broke and uneducated, you likely won't think of any that don't involve becoming an athlete or rapper).
Nowadays, the mainstream media has made racism worse than ever before and most of it is coming from the far left. Blatant, disgusting, unapologetic pure vitriolic bigotry coming these people, especially regarding whites. And it's all being controlled and manipulated by the financial elites. The irony is staggering. I'd be perplexed if I didn't already know most people are dumber than pig sh*t and very easily manipulated and gaslighted. But still, the enemy throughout most of modern civilization has always been the greedy and corrupt in power, whether it be royalty, government, or social media corporations.
But then again even once you make it into the social class, you still end up getting categorized by ethnicity.
I’ll give you an example. My parents made into the yacht club. Only because they would meet the quota of having an ethnic group into the club. Although their salary did play a role, so did their ethnicity and they stood out like sore thumbs every time they went.
I've always found the lower a persons social cast the most nationalistic they are. I'd even go as far to say those right at the bottom don't like anyone who isn't local to their neighbourhood let alone country.
I would also say that kind of resonates around the world.
I always remember watching Rab C Nesbitt when he went on holiday to Italy / Spain and met his double lol
https://youtu.be/TVk4nh-hBKY
@Dali-chan Most do not have a PhD. That’s a complete fantasy. The tens of millions coming to the US do not have college degrees let alone a PhD. The masses coming in open boats in Europe do not have PhDs. It’s just ludicrous.
@poppy, insightful as usual. I think your statement applies more to the Millennials and Gen Z though. In past generations, all levels of society were patriotic and nationalistic. They saw the world as concentric circles with self in the middle, then family, then local area, the country, then the rest of the world. The “country” ring has faded and with globalization perhaps that is best.
True they were more nationalistic, perhaps if they weren't they wouldn't have marched off to war every five minutes
And honestly, that is why I think globalization will be the best path forward even though I harbor nationalistic tendencies. Globalization is a given though and likely best. It doesn’t mean though that we can’t cheer for Wales when they play England though 😀 or the US when we play anyone 😂
Opinion
25Opinion
I think the premise is wrong. I don't think people are totally divided at all. I think that this notion that people are so divided is a political ploy pushed by the political left to use the divide and conquer strategy in order to seize power.
All people want essentially the same thing. They want to live their lives in freedom, free of government control and tyranny and be free to determine their own destiny as human beings and not be dependent on government.
Those who push the notion that people are divided, and cause all the division they can by intentionally stirring up racial hatred, class hatred, gender hatred and any other kind of hatred they can, want just the opposite. They want a big, all powerful government that tells everyone how to live their lives and controls every aspect of it from health care, to energy use, to choice of career, to education to what means they can have to defend themselves, to what they can and cannot say, how they can and cannot worship, what ideas they can and cannot hear and on and on and on.
The founders of America clearly understood that government must be RESTRICTED and CONSTRAINED otherwise it always turns into a corrupt monster that seeks to take away the liberty that ALL human beings crave. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. And in America now, the party of big government is in control and trying to take away the liberty that the people want. One can only hope they rise up and DEMAND that the Democrats LEAVE THEIR LIBERTY ALONE.
People are not divided. They have common interests. But those interests are being challenged by the political left that seeks to take them away through tyranny and persecution.
I think that my problem with the question is the word nationality because I don't think that it's the proper word to use in the scenario if you're talking about in general Americans of different backgrounds you're still talking about Americans nationally. I think racially because we have a systemic problem in this country that has been going on since the end of slavery that needs to be fixed that until it's fixed you will never be able to separate the division in class and the division of race in this country but I don't think nationality plays into that.
Sure as hell the latest governments are doing their damnednest to make sure that the social classes are reduced to just poors and rich, and are managing rather well, just by simple observation.
In a globalist world the matter or nationality is less important as everybody goes wherever they want with no much restriction, the issue now is about culture.
Different cultures meeting on the same territory usually end up in segregation (perpetuated by very immigrants, such as the various Chinatowns existing in most progressed countries) and internal strives for superiority (middle eastern attacks on our cultural symbols and habits).
This is also the main reason why globalism is non applicable, if not at an economic sublevel. But people, once more, are stupid and can't see stuff happening under their noses.
I personally think that anyone with a lot of money and power is generally respected by most people. The higher up the ladder you go, the more intelligent and less biased people are towards peoples skin tones or apparent nationality. HOWEVER, there is definitely discrimination across all parts of the social status spectrum.
In many case studies with infants, it has shown that even they at such an early age are able to distinguish colour and tend to associate more with what they consider familiar. So it's not unnatural to discriminate. We teach ourselves that there is more to a person than their skin colour or apparent nationality through experiences and learning in life.
That is why I said "Agree" to this question.
well your definition of class includes cultural differences. cultural differences are huge across nations, so natinal differences lay into the class differences. i would say what devidies people today more than anything is the classical individual freedom vs. collective security. those are in my estimations the 2 core values that clash the most. that's basically the traditional "left-right" spectrum and right now we see people drifting more and more towards the extremes. it doesn't seem to matter if you're rich and educated or poor and dumb. the contemporary conflict line caused by corona politics goes straight across all traditional class theories.
i would say the classical class differences are only second to that today. though just a few years prior, i would have seen that differently.
on second thought, you may argue that this is just an artifical societal cleavage meant to overshadow the rapidly increasing class differences.
It depends a lot on the social culture that is present in a nation. Countries of Germanic culture, e. g. United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, United States, Scandinavia have excluding cultures based primarily on easily identifiable characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion etc... The countries of Latin culture, Italy, France, Spain and some countries of South America a European cultural majority such as Argentina and Brazil (classical Latin, not Latin American) have a greater orientation towards class differentiation and relative culture.
For me, I disagree with that sentiment. I don't go around with "filtered glasses" that distinguish people by class. Just as I don't go around filtering people by race or gender. But in our current condition there sure do seem to be more people who filter people by race and politics.
Not sure really. I am pretty much on the poor end of things and one of my friend from collage is on the more rich side of things with both his parents working in jobs with great pay.
So class there didn't divide us there at all. Then my grandma is middle class on my dad side, meanwhile my dad is on the poor side.
So i don't think it really does apart from the ones who put too much weight on that.
Disagree.
If people want to see for themselves, go to let's say Saudi Arabia, Congo, Japan or another foreign culture, and try hang out with people of your own wealth class, and you'll quickly see that they are a lot more different to you, compare with a fellow racial person, even of different economic class.
Definitely, also there are so many idiots who think they're middle class when they aren't. Middle class is 90k a year and up.
If you're working class wake up and fucking realize it instead of hiding in delusions.
The American dream has been dead since the 70s
Not sure. I think it varies. People are also divided by race gender sexuality etc.
but you don't think any one of those is more dominant over the others?
No..
Yes it’s fairly accurate, look at holiday destinations, you tend to get those of same social standing at same destinations.
also job types tend to be similar the world over.
access to education etc.
I disagree. Sure there are rich and poor people from all nationalities, but the truth is that society is divided by rich white countries and poor non-white countries.
I disagree.
I'm white and I come from a working class background. My family were quite poor.
I've known/know black working class people. I've known/know rich white people. There are things I have in common with those black working class people which I don't with the rich white people. There are things I have in common with those rich white people which I don't with those black people.
Put me with a rich black guy? We probably have very little in common at all.
I go by nationality, but not the one that I was born into.
That might be what you go by, but do you think thats how society as a whole is?
That would depend on the country that is in question?
ok how many countries do you feel are more nationally divided that by class? do you think one is more prevalent overall in our world over another?
At least ten of them, but Japan at least from what it seems is so super homogenous that gentle colorism happens due to them being as etiquette driven as they are among many generations, and Japan is very near and dear to my heart for all it is worth.
In some contexts, yes, but that’s ignoring things like Chinese nationalism. NToonslism is weak in a lot of places it needs to be stronger.
Meh. Class is further divided into other subsectors and isn't fully defined in most countries and races.
People who judge based on race are a very small minority who cast a big shadow. A great majority of those who cry racism every time they have an u favorable interaction with another race, don’t even know the difference between prejudice and racism.
In some places nationality determines class, and in others class actually determines perceived nationality. I think what really devides people is politics.
I wholeheartedly agree. Seen people of all races where they even treat others or people of the same skin tone differently. Seen very few humbled by the difference in class.
This has always been the case. And it's here to stay.
Money is absolutely everything!
In my opinion it is more that Nationality is associated with a certain Classification.
Strongly agree. If you're broke no one will desire to be around you. There's nothing to do with you.
Not sure about "class", bu Family wealth and status make a lot of difference. Cultural affiliation for sure. Not so much what you actually are as who you associate and identify with.
But what do they care about more? Nationality or race. That’s how the rich get richer.
Hmmm I chose 'Undecided'. That's a tough one...
People are divided by perceptions, nothing more.
meaning what? so its only an illusion as to where you stand in society?
Where you stand in society? What does that even mean?
as in your economic or social status. you're saying people aren't divided in that way?
What is social status? It's nothing more than perceptions. It's in our heads.
yes we know. society made them up.. but even so people still like to separate or distinguish themselves by their social/economic status. And stuff like that can still have real material consequences in the real world.
The condition is not real. It exists only in people's heads. Perceptions, nothing more.
its not just in people heads. we do this to one another. you pretty much can't escape it either. If you dislike it join the communist party, they want a classless society.
I don't dislike it; I ignore it.
and how well is that going for you? do you have a job? a place to live? food?
Yes to all the above
ok then you are in a certain economic class. you can't escape this.
What is an economic class? What does it look like? Is it big? Green?
its your material conditions in which you currently live. You want to better your material conditions? get a better paying job.
What does that have to do with status, and why?
it represents you place in society, you hold little power the less money you have. rarely is it ever not the case. Rich people tend to get better things in life, better health-care, education, often times they have their pick over who they get to date, which friends they can or can't hang out with. sometimes what types of social events you can attend to.
In general the more economically well off you are the more opportunities you receive in life.
Rich people get more things because they can afford them. That has nothing to do with the social construct of "class", which exists only in people's minds. Perceptions, nothing more.
and your economic status determines what you can or can't afford in life and how others treat you in society.
No, you have that backwards. What you can and can't afford in life determines your economic status, but only because humans have invented the concept of status in their minds so they can sort people into classes... in the minds.
right and you still can't escape that no matter what UNLESS we truly live in a communist classless society. if thats what you want, more power to you, its not gonna happen over night
I don't want communism.
well thats what you are advocating for by definition here.
No, not at all. I'm not advocating for anything, and least of all communism. I'm only pointing out that this divisiveness you speak of is silly when you consider it's all in our heads, and the reality is we allow ourselves to be divided by rhetoric that in most cases isn't consistent with reality.
Yes and I keep point out to you that even if they are social constructs they STILL have real world consequences in our world. We. Can’t. Escape. This.
Not any time soon. You don’t want class in our society, advocate for communism.
I’d sure love to see you explain to a homeless person how his socio economic situation is all in his head. I’m sure he’d be very receptive to you...
Communism creates far bigger problems than class does, and they are problems that are NOT just in our heads. There is a reason why there has never been a communist society where people were free to do and believe what they choose and free from oppressive control by those in power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
And homeless people face far bigger issues than class or the division that results from it. Most have mental health issues and/or substance abuse problems. Little or nothing to do with class.
Look, I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. My point is not at odds with yours. It is simply that the division we experience is mostly due to perceptions, ignorance and mental weakness. What divides us is the human tendency to judge and feel superior to others, and to look down on those who are not like us, not facts.
Studies show that people in other cultures who don't have nearly the level of resources, modern conveniences and quality of food available to them are at least has happy as we are here in the US. All the material things you mentioned that delineate classes of people in western society are NOT necessary to live and happy, healthy and fulfilling life. But we are conditioned to believe they are. We live as if they are and we judge others and ourselves when others/we don't have as many of those material things as we think we should, and yet we don't need them to be happy and healthy. It's an artificial burden we place on ourselves... in our minds. Perception.
Honestly, the biggest problem contributing to our division today is modern media. Most of the perceptions that contribute to the increasing division in the US today are driven by the media and the politically driven biases with which they report events. That is equally true on both sides of the political spectrum. Over the last year we were intentionally divided by the media for the purpose of political gain, and as a result we are more divided today than ever before.
Literally everything reported by both the liberal mainstream media and Fox News, which is really also part of the mainstream media today, was politically biased in one way or another. It's often subtle, other times more overt. But for any stories related to issues of political importance (racial bias, police brutality, COVID, foreign relations, gender... you name it), literally EVERY story is carefully presented in a way that promotes bias (and hate for the "other side") among viewers. Stories are reported or excluded based on whether or not they paint support the narrative the particular news outlet pushes. That is by far the most divisive element in the US today.
The saddest part is that we allowed it to happen by not seeing through it. We allow ourselves to be influenced by people in power (politicians and their respective party's complicit media). We allow them to control our perceptions of the world so they can control our behavior.
That was the point I've been trying to make all along. The vast majority of the things that divide us are within our control, and often not even real, but we allow them to divide us anyway.
The cover photo is how women see men
I agree in my country anyway
In some cases, I would agree with the statement.
No, most people are divided by religion
Yes, definitely.
That’s so true
Strongly agree
You can also add your opinion below!
