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.
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.
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.
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.
s 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.
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.
