what middle class?

The middle class is a vague term. Most Americans like to think of themselves as middle class whether it’s accurate or not. A 2005 New York Times survey found only 1 percent of respondents considered themselves “upper class,” and only 7 percent considered themselves part of the “lower class.” Most economists and other experts say income alone can’t define the middle class. “There is no single definition,” said the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at UW-Madison and an expert on income distribution. There is no universal norm, no international definition that can be applied equally across the globe for the term “middle class”. Not so long ago, most families in the middle could get there and stay there on the earnings of a single breadwinner. Today, many two-income families are a paycheck away from losing their middle-class status and, in some cases, their homes because they are living beyond their means. Nor is the trends of relying on two incomes and spending more than the household earned limited to the United States. Globally, an increasing number of families relied on the use of two incomes and some serious leverage to achieve their middle class dreams.

If you lined everyone up based on Census Bureau income data and threw out the top 20 percent of household incomes and the bottom 20 percent, you’d be left with household incomes of about $25,000 to $100,000, Smeeding said. But that approach doesn’t take into account household size or a community’s cost of living. In its major report last year on the status of the middle class, the U.S. Department of Commerce identified middle-class people by aspirations instead of income. It said the middle class shares six goals: homeownership, a car, college education for their children, stable health care, a pension of some sort, and occasional family vacations. A wide array of incomes can achieve those goals, the report said, although some families definitely would be left out of the middle class by that definition.In many capitalist economies, the middle class label is a financial definition largely based on the lifestyle that you can afford. A nice house in the suburbs, two cars, good schools for the kids and a few weeks of vacation somewhere warm and sunny are the traditional rewards for achieving middle class status. In India and Indonesia some researchers conclude that a home that has a TV set, a refrigerator, a motorcycle or a car qualifies as ‘middle class’ in the Indian context.

Jeff and Denise Ehren aren't clear on the exact definition of middle class. They both work full time at UW-Whitewater — he's a custodian, she helps run the sports and recreation center — but those jobs together grossed just under $50,000 last year. They've got a mortgage, student loans, credit card debt and a variety of work on the side , from bartending to secretarial work.

"I certainly don't feel middle class," said Denise Ehren. "Sometimes I think we should just call ourselves poor and be done with it."

Robert Putnam is professor of public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and also the author of Bowling Alone.

ROBERT PUTNAM: People of different income levels, educational backgrounds, are less likely to marry people of other, outside their own social class. Less intermarriage across class lines is declining, not rising. Racial, I'm sorry residential segregation in class terms is increasing not decreasing. Integration in schools - that is kids going to school with people whose dads do something or mums do something other than them, that's class segregation in schools - is increasing not decreasing.

MARK COLVIN: What's causing it?

ROBERT PUTNAM: A number of things actually. It's not a single thing. I think part of it, the largest single explanation is the growth of the economic gap in America and frankly not only in America. I think that's true in most other countries. I don't know the details of the data here in Australia but I do know in most parts of the world there is a growing gap between rich and poor. And that means that kids coming from upper middle class backgrounds are living in a different world now from kids coming from working class or less well off backgrounds. This is sometimes in America mistaken as a racial problem because people think, well you know if there are class differences you've got racial differences. But actually it's clear it's not racial problem. It's a class problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3181969.htm

The rise of the richer worker in Asia

Although "middle class" is more a subjective sociological term rather than an objective economic definition many socialists would prefer to describe such people as simply higher paid members of the working class, as they are just as often to be associated collectively in trade unions and recognise their class unity against the real true wealthy elite.

The Asian Development Bank define India’s middle class as those who spend anywhere between $2 and $20 (Rs 93 to Rs 930) a day on purchasing power. Broken down, the lower-middle class falls between US$2 and US$4 per day, the middle-middle class spends between US$4 and US$10 per day and is able to save and consume non-essential goods, and the upper-middle class consumes between US$10 and US$20 per day.

However, more than three-fourths of India’s 274 million-strong middle class face the risk of slipping back into poverty in the event of a major economic shock as they are in the lowest spending bracket of $2-4 (Rs 93-186) a day.Another financial crisis, wars or large natural disasters can reverse people’s move into higher income categories."Asia's rapidly-growing middle class remains vulnerable ... A major shock can easily send them back into poverty," said Jong-Wha Lee, chief economist at the ADB.

Over the next two decades, the Indian middle class population is expected to touch one billion. And 55% of the world’s middle class will be in Asia by 2030, up from 25% now.China had 817 million people, or 63% of its population, in the middle class bracket in 2008.

Diabetes, heart disease and cancer on the rise among Asian middle class and that people are adopting Western eating habits that may lead to obesity. The rise in obesity in China and India is cause for concern, especially when much of emerging Asia’s population is still living in poverty. China has almost 11 percent of its population living below the minimal level of dietary consumption while over 20 percent of Indians are dealing with the same problem.
“All indications are that in the next 20-30 years, Asia will be faced with an increasing number of chronic diseases on a scale previously unseen,”

Thailand's Untouchables

Hat -tip to P B for this story

A Mercedes-Benz was pulled up alongside a city bus, and a young man was having an angry exchange with the bus driver, whom he accused of scraping against his car. The passengers started shouting at the man, who got back into his car and appeared to be about to leave. But instead he accelerated forwards onto the pavement and into the crowd of passengers, crushing several of them under his vehicle. One woman later died, and several other passengers were seriously injured.

The police charged the young man, Kanpitak Pachimsawas, with murder.
But the case very quickly turned into one about class differences, about the perceived arrogance of Thailand's rich, towards the poor . Kanpitak, it turned out, was the 20-year-old son of a former Miss Thailand beauty queen and a wealthy businessman. He was also the nephew of a powerful police officer.

The bus driver reported that his father had arrived at the scene and threatened to use his police connections against the passengers.
"He thinks he has money and a big family name, so he can do things like this to poor people," the bus conductor told reporters at the scene.

Kanpitak's father was unrepentant. Speaking on a TV chat show two days later, he showed more concern for his son than his victims. Responding to the bus conductor's comments he said:
"They are uneducated. That's how they are. They think they are abused, that rich people are bad, that the police are bad. Lower class people have a bad attitude towards police officers and rich people. They hate us and curse us."

Suddenly we were witnessing something you do not see much in Thailand - open class conflict.

Kanpitak Pachimsawas was released on bail and, amazingly, even allowed to continue driving.
On his first day in court he was apparently overcome by nerves and said he was unable to answer any questions. The judge adjourned the case until November. He may never go to prison.

Suchira Insawan, the daughter of the woman he killed , says "Many parts of the Thai bureaucratic system favour rich people. If you are not one of them, you will always be left at the back of the queue."

Who rules America

An interesting read on Power to the People blog.

"Through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government" the upper class are able to rule America and influence decisions affecting the bottom 80% of the population. This power stems from their great concentration of wealth which is derived from ownership and control of large income producing corporations. As Domhoff states allowing corporate leaders to "invest money where and when they choose; expand, close, or move their factories and offices at a moment's notice; and hire, promote, and fire employees as they see fit. These powers give them a direct influence over the great majority of Americans, who are dependent upon wages and salaries for their incomes. They also give the corporate rich indirect influence over elected and appointed officials, for the growth and stability of a city, state, or the country as a whole can be jeopardized by a lack of business confidence in government."

But ultimately this small elite rule through the passive consent of the exploited majority , since we do not act in our own interests but adopt the interests of our masters as if they were our own and we do not exercise the political power that we do possess , but that we always fail to wield .

All Coppers are Workers

Today , saw a protest march for more pay by the police so i have transcribed a Socialist Standard article from way back in August 1971.

Are the police paragons of virtue or fascist bastards? Certainly they are abused as fascists by many leftists who , with their customary lack of originality , have also seized upon the American term “pigs” which is used endlessly in their various journals such a Red Mole and International Times. At the demonstrations against the Industrial Relations Bill earlier this year , the police were denounced as enemies of the working class and many placards showing a Bobby as “your next personnel manager” were on display .

Is this attitude justified ? Of course the police are not in any trade union and they are sometimes seen in conflict with strikers , besides students and other protesters; so how different are policemen from other wage earners in their general outlook?

Obviously , the nature of their job as part of the state machine ensures that the ruling class will try to ensure that the police cannot strike . Add to this the fact that throughout its history many of the force have had a background of military discipline , and the possibility of a police trade union looks bleak indeed . And yet there was such a union - The National Union of Police and Prison Officers , formed in 1913.

Earlier attempts to obtain better pay and conditions through organisation were made in London in 1872 and 1890. Both were quickly crushed by dismissing the men’s spokesmen. However, during World War One the police were no longer well paid in relation to other workers - were even worse off. Cancellation of leave-days plus many other irritations saw the rapid growth of the illegal union with constables Marston and Thiel as Chairman and Provincial Organiser respectively. When the authorities tried the usual victimisation tactics almost the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force , numbering 19000 men , struck . During the strike pickets clashed with blacklegs and special police, just like other workers in a similar situation.

The authorities , caught unprepared , had to climb down and the men’s demands were met with on important exception - the guarantee of union recognition . Soon after the strike the union claimed it had over 40000 paying members . In some cities the union was influential in the Police Representation Boards - in Liverpool it was able to have men promoted who had been unfairly passed over. Meantime the authorities were preparing for a showdown and in this they were helped not only by granting better pay and conditions , but by the union leadership which was far too militant for its members.

When the union was outlawed by the Police Act of 1919 a national strike was called despite the fact that less than half the police were members ; also , there was no strike fund and no likelihood of support from other unions . This time in London only 1113 came out , but in Liverpool 932 out of 1256 struck. Riots took place there in Liverpool , Birkenhead , as looting mobs battled for days with soldiers and specials while a battleship and two destroyers steamed from Scapa Flow to the Mersey . The strike collapsed and every single striker was dismissed , never to be reinstated . For many it meant , besides unemployment , eviction from home and loss of pension. Many who had been opposed to striking nevertheless did so out of loyalty to the union or because they had given their word . Today there are still survivors of this little known episode in working class history who proudly possess a card which proclaims that they are “ still on strike”(1).

Nor is the British experience unique . The same things happened in Boston , USA , in 1919 with similar results - all strikers were dismissed . In 1963 the Helsinki police impressed the urgency of their case on the authorities by resigning en masse on the same day ! In March this year Paris police stopped work twice on the same day for several hours and distributed leaflets outlining their grievances , amongst which was their dislike of being sent to quell campus disturbances ( leftists take note!). Also , many New York police struck for several days last January .
Nowadays the police in Britain , from inspectors to constables , are organised in the Police Federation , formed in 1919. Although forbidden to strike , the Federation negotiates pay and conditions with the authorities in much the same way as a trade union . The separate Scottish Federtion has been demanding the right to strike and its secretary , Dan Wilson , commented that the government in refusing this “…are only burying their head in the sand if they deny the police the same rights as other workers . We are , after all , only workers" (Guardian 28/11/70).

So the police record in recognising their class position in society isn’t as bad as some people may think. They have , from time to time, shown considerable courage in the face of tremendous opposition from the authorities - and from public opinion . And their response to attempts by their employers to squeeze extra work from them is the same as that encountered in factory , mine or office . Some years ago when the Chief of Police in New York attempted to increase the men’s productivity , a police captain observed that “ The Chief makes the decisions and then the locker room makes decisions” . In short , the men themselves regulate their work rate .

That policemen regard their work in much the same way as other workers can be seen from the numbers who leave the Force for jobs offering better wages and hours. In harsher times a job in the Force was a sinecure and much sought after , and men were prepared to accept the strict discipline. With the coming of “full employment” after 1945 there was a mass exodus of police into better paid industrial work and they were joined by those police who had been in the armed forces . By 1959 almost as many trained men were leaving as recruits were joining . 25000 joined between 1960-64 but 17000 left in the same period. In 1964 seventeen recruits meant a net gain of two. As J.P. Martin and Gail Wilson put it - “ For many the police service is no longer a lifetime commitment” (3)

The argument is often advanced that in the event of a socialist majority attempting to establish Socialism democratically , the police will be used , along with the armed forces , to suppress that majority . This is an argument which assumes that policemen have political and moral ideas which are very different from those of society in general . Stuart Bowes , in his attack on the police (4) supports this view - “Anti-democratic sentiments , pro-fascist sympathies and racialist antipathies are commonly revealed by individual policemen” . Perhaps Bowes hasn’t noticed that the same can be said of other workers too - the dockers and market porters who marched in support of Enoch Powell in 1968 are obvious examples.

Bowes quotes many instances of police attacks on strikers and demonstrators , especially during the Depression years The sad fact is that politically ignorant workers , fearful for their jobs in hard times , will be more inclined to perform despicable acts and obey savage orders . Police brutality during the 20s and 30s can be largely attributed to this , and Bowes has to admit that police violence during the post-war strikes has been little.

Michael Banton , in his book Policeman in the Community , points out that “The policeman obtains public co-operation and enjoys public esteem , because he enforces standards accepted by the community” . In other words , if the police are “pigs” then they are only a reflection of a society of “pigs” : they simply do its bidding. The policeman lives in the community and desires to be part of it and have its respect . He needs , as a social being , the moral support of the community in doing his job and will often disregard the law if it is in conflict with what the community thinks is right. For example , in a society with a high proportion of automobile users like America , the point has been reached where the police often avoid booking for traffic offences because of the loss of respect produced by such action .

The police themselves know the situation. The Federation’s Newsletter has stated that “Without the confidence , approval and support of the public , the police machine as we knowit today would become incapable of fulfilling its function…the history of the police force shows [that] clearly” Exactly . Imagine how the Royal Ulster Constabulary would fare if it tried to hunt out IRA men in the Republic ? Or remember how hopeless was the task of the police in Cyprus and Aden when faced with hostile populations? Anyway , policemen who will draw the line at handing out a traffic ticket because of public disapproval are unlikely to be willing to try quelling a majority determined upon changing society .

Do not misunderstand us about the police : this is not whitewash job . Undoubtedly many policemen have obnoxious Political and Social ideas , and there can be no denying that some of them are prone to use violence . But if they sometimes behave brutally towards students , demonstrators , etc, think how many other workers with all their prejudices would behave towards these , if only they had the policeman’s authority and opportunity.

It is long since time for leftists and radicals to stop being hysterical about the police and to have a saner look at the subject .In the Number 6 issue of Ink , one writer , Peter Laurie , has shown just such a welcome approach when in an article describing his past and present attitudes towards the police , he concludes “We feel that there are forces of liberation at work in our society and that they are being held up and obstructed by blocks like the police. It seems to me now that the police are no more than an organic expression of the mind of industrialised man : we will not change them until we change the way everyone thinks , until we demolish the great inhuman system that divides us and uses us all” . Could this be the light at the end of the tunnel?

Our case is that policemen have much the same attitudes as other workers since they are conditioned by the same economical , social and historical forces operating in society. Eventually, the world’s workers , will respond to capitalism’s inhumanities to the extent that they understand and desire the socialist alternative - production for use and the end of exchange relationships. Then Socialist ideas will be just as prevalent in the minds of any policemen who may still be around . They will be for the revolution , not against it .

V.V.

Notes
1 For a history of the police strikes of 1918-19 se “The Night the Police Went on Strike” by Reynolds and Judge 2Western Socialist number 5 1965
3The Police- A study in Manpower
4The Police and Civil Liberties

Hierarchy of Power and Long Life

Life expectancy in the richest countries of the world now exceeds the poorest by more than 30 years, figures show .

Average life expectancy in Britain and similar countries of the OECD was 78.8 in 2000-05, an increase of more than seven years since 1970-75 and almost 30 years over the past century.

In sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy has increased by just four months since 1970, to 46.1 years.

Narrowing this "health gap" will involve going beyond the immediate causes of disease – poverty, poor sanitation and infection – to tackle the "causes of the causes" – the social hierarchies in which people live, the Global Commission on the Social Determinants of Health says in a report.

Even in the UK the privileged live longer . In the 1980s, in a series of ground-breaking studies among Whitehall civil servants showed that the risk of death among those on the lower rungs of the career ladder was four times higher than those at the top, and that the difference was linked with the degree of control the individuals had over their lives.

Professor Sir Michael Marmot, chairman of the Global Commission on the Social Determinants of Health stated that if people increased their status and gained more control over their lives they improved their health because they were less vulnerable to the economic and environmental threats.

The result is that even within rich countries such as Britain there are striking inequalities in life expectancy. The poorest men in Glasgow have a life expectancy of 54, lower than the average in India. Infant mortality is still twice as high among the poor in Britain, 7 per 1,000 among the poor and 3.5 among the rich .

The answer, the report says, is empowerment, of individuals, communities and whole countries.

"Technical and medical solutions such as medical care are without doubt necessary. But they are insufficient." Professor Marmot said: "We talk about three kinds of empowerment. If people don't have the material necessities – food to eat, clothes for their children – they cannot be empowered. The second kind is psycho-social empowerment: more control over their lives. The third is political empowerment: having a voice."

The simple fact of the matter is that solutions will not be found inside the capitalism whatever may be claimed by the welfare reformers . The present system relies on a small minority maintaining control and authority over the majority and artificially rationing the means of life .

The State of America

Some extracts from Wage Stagnation, Growing Insecurity, and the Future of the U.S. Working Class by William K. Tabb which was in Monthly Review .

Over the three decades from 1972 to 2001:-

The wages and salaries of Americans at the 90th percentile (those doing better than 90% of their fellow citizens) experienced income gains of only 1 % a year on average.

Those at the 99.9th percentile saw their income rise by 181 % over these years (to an income averaging almost $1.7 million).

Those at the 99.99th percentile had income growth of 497%

Between 1997 and 2001:-

The top 10 % of U.S. earners received 49 % of the growth in real wages and salaries;

The top 1% got 24 % of the total ;

While the bottom half of workers received less than 13 %.

This trend is of longer duration. Based on a somewhat different calculation the share of income going to the top .1 % quadrupled between 1970 and 1998

By the mid-1990s CEO pay was about 5 percent of corporate profits. In 2003 their share was 10 percent of all profits

In the 2006 holiday season the top Wall Street firms together paid out an estimated $36 to $44 billion to their employees.

From 2000 to 2006, all 93 million American workers—all production and non-supervisory workers as defined by the government—had real earnings increases of less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the top Wall Street firms for just one year.

Edward Wolff has documented that the top 10 % of wealth holders own 85% of the value of taxable stocks and mutual funds, the top 1 % own about half.

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have demonstrated that the share of pretax income going to the top 1 % of Americans doubled between 1980 and 2004. (The last time the top 1 % had such a large share of the total was in 1937.)

Between 2001 and the spring of 2006 worker hourly productivity rose by 24 %

Men with less than a high school education saw their wages fall in the 1980s in real terms by 20%.

From 1979 to 1992 real yearly wages for male high school dropouts fell by over 23 %

High school graduates with no additional education experienced a fall in real wages of 17 %.

During that 1980s decade, 13 % of Americans between 40 and 50 years of age spent at least one year living in poverty,

But by the 1990s, 36 % did.

In 2004, 1.6 million people filed for personal bankruptcy, twice the number of a decade earlier, and half of those filed after a major medical expenditure. Other prominent causes of debt were divorce and job loss.

The American Dream

Two-thirds of Americans in a 2002 poll believe that success depends on forces within their own control—double the percent who respond this way in Italy or Germany and triple those who respond this way in Turkey or India.

Another 2002 poll found that 81 percent thought they would be richer than their parents.

Three-quarters of poor Republicans, who as a group make up some 10% of the electorate believe that people can make it on their own through hard work and good character.

One poll taken in 2000 found that a quarter of teenagers in the United States believed they would be millionaires by the time they were forty. At the time the poll was taken there were 150,000 millionaires in the country. If the teenagers were right about their future, nine and a half million people would have to jump to this status.

And of course there is always just luck

By the start of the 2000s , Americans were spending more on gambling than on theme parks, video games, spectator sports, and movie tickets.

Data from the late 1990s shows households with incomes under $10,000 a year spend three times as much on lottery tickets as those with incomes of more than $50,000.

The article describes the state of America in these terms

"The most important promises used to justify capitalism are that your children will have a better life than you do, and in President Kennedy’s famous words, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” meaning everyone benefits from the accumulation of capital. These promises ring hollow...

...No longer does economic growth mean increases in the real earnings for the working class as their productivity rises...

... For working people the issues are not simply the stagnation of real wages and growing inequality but the worsening insecurity that permeates many aspects of their lives as labor market conditions change and government abrogates more and more elements of the social contract...

...The U.S. economy is always creating and destroying jobs [Every three months 7 % of all jobs are destroyed and roughly the same number are created. ] . The question is how much trouble do the unemployed have in finding work? What kind of jobs are available? What do they pay? What is the work like? What are the benefit packages, if any? If they are laid off how much pain do workers endure when they are involuntarily separated from employment? How long does the period last? What sort of job did they lose, did they get, and again at what pay and with what benefits?...The true cost of job loss must be measured not just in money as economists do in their limited calculations. For many people there is a spiral pattern in which layoffs lead to not only financial insecurity but to feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness, depression, sleepless nights, headaches, chronic stomach aches, and fatigue that cause lasting harm...Even after getting work some people have trouble talking to the boss and dealing with job demands. The damage done by job loss, even the threat of job loss, along with the worries about how people will live after they are no longer able to work, or if they have a serious illness how they can pay for the doctor and a hospital stay, produce anxieties that permeate working-class existence. There is a rise in escapist pursuits as the economy produces greater uncertainty...

...On the whole, life grows ever more insecure for working people...

...Americans are frustrated that their incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living and that they are being squeezed. They are critical of corporate greed and dishonesty. They want the government to call these corporations, especially pharmaceutical and oil companies, to account. They are worried that things will not get better. But they are not, in great numbers, hostile to the system. They express faith in the American Dream and continue to believe that individuals can overcome obstacles. A majority envy the rich and famous...

...The unspoken assumption underlying the liberal approach is that everyone else is doing just fine. The poor are viewed as a separate group excluded from the benefits of a system that is working for everyone else. This was not a true picture in the 1960s. It is certainly not the case today. The poor are numerous and in need of help, but it is the class nature of society that produces and replenishes the reserve army, that forces some to work full time year round and still be poor, while it excludes others from even this prospect. This makes all workers insecure about the future and fearful of losing what they have...

...The penchant for people to see the basic unfairness of the capitalist system and at the same time accept it and to believe that they can do well against the odds is a difficult reality for Marxists... Why does the working class refuse to take on its historical obligations and instead seek individualistic or escapist alternatives? While the progressive segments of the middle class and some working-class militants are willing to struggle for meaningful change, most working people are not...

Plenty of questions , damn few answers .

Chomsky on Class

Michael Albert of Parecon doesn't accept the "two-class" theory of Capitalism . In addition to the Capitalist and Working classes he also counter-poses the Coordinator class - " doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers and others who have a monopoly on empowering labor are a class above workers who do overwhelmingly disempowering labor". What makes classes real for Parecon is that different classes have "very different economic situations, power, income/wealth, views of one another" . Therefore , there are certain part of the population in particular occupations who have their own interests and aspirations and thus they constitute a separate class - the Coordinator class .

Noam Chomsky who has been quoted as being sympathetic to Parecon , however , in this interview he appears to have some different views on class than Michael Albert .

"...there was substantial discussion—not just in the United States but in Europe, too—of what was then sometimes called ‘a new class’ of scientific intellectuals. In that period of time there was a level of knowledge and technical expertise accumulating that allowed a kind of managerial class of educated, trained people to have a greater share in decision-making and planning. It was thought that they were a new class displacing the aristocracy, the owners, political leaders and so on, and they could have a larger role—and of course they liked that idea.

Out of this group developed an ideology of technocratic planning. In industry it was called ‘scientific management’. It developed in intellectual life with a concept of what was called a ‘responsible class’ of technocratic, serious intellectuals who could solve the world’s problems rationally, and would have to be protected from the ‘vulgar masses’ who might interfere with them. And it goes right up until the present.

Just how realistic this is, is another question, but for the class of technical intellectuals, it’s a very attractive conception that, ‘We are the rational, intelligent people, and management and decision-making should be in our hands.’ ...

...It’s not an entirely new conception: it’s just a new category of people. Two hundred years ago you didn’t have an easily identifiable class of technical intellectuals, just generally educated people. But as scientific and technical progress increased there were people who felt they can appropriate it and become the proper managers of the society, in every domain. That, as I said, goes from scientific management in industry, to social and political control...

...My feeling is that they’re nowhere near as powerful as they think they are. So, when, say, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about the technocratic elite which is taking over the running of society—or when McNamara wrote about it, or others—there’s a lot of illusion there. Meaning, they can gain positions of authority and decision-making when they act in the interests of those who really own and run the society. You can have people that are just as competent, or more competent, and who have conceptions of social and economic order that run counter to, say, corporate power, and they’re not going to be in the planning sectors. So, to get into those planning sectors you first of all have to conform to the interests of the real concentrations of power...

...People do not want—or often are not able—to perceive that they are conforming to external authority. They feel themselves to be very free—and indeed they are—as long as they conform. But power lies elsewhere. That’s as old as history in the modern period. It’s often very explicit.

Adam Smith, for example, discussing England, quite interestingly pointed out that the merchants and manufacturers—the economic forces of his day—are the ‘principal architects of policy’, and they make sure that their own interests are ‘most peculiarly attended to’, no matter how grievous the effect on others, including the people in England. And that’s a good principle of statecraft, and social and economic planning, which runs pretty much to the present. When you get people with management and decision-making skills, they can enter into that system and they can make the actual decisions—within a framework that’s set within the real concentrations of power. And now it’s not the merchants and manufacturers of Adam Smith’s day, it’s the multinational corporations, financial institutions, and so on. But, stray too far beyond their concerns and you won’t be the decision-maker.

It’s not a mechanical phenomenon, but it’s overwhelmingly true that the people who make it to decision-making positions (that is, what they think of as decision-making positions) are those who conform to the basic framework of the people who fundamentally own and run the society. That’s why you have a certain choice of technocratic managers and not some other choice of people equally or better capable of carrying out policies but have different ideas..."

Which is a rather different proposition from Albert's Coordinator class .

The so-called Coordinator is nothing more than the monkey and not at all the organ-grinder , that Albert assumes . And to acquire and maintain the comforts and a privileges a "coordinator's" status within capitalism offers , he or she must act in the interests of the real ruling class , not independently and in opposition to , as the working class must . It is not a matter of the tail wagging the dog as Albert would make us believe but the Coordinators are being simply the mere overseers and facilitators and intellectual apologists at the service of those who really own and control . Just glorified workers who align themselves with the master class and who can just as easily recognise their own actual powerlessness and subjugation and desert the capitalists for the solidarity of the working class ranks .

The Return of the Sloane Rangers

From the Daily Telegraph :-

The Sloane Ranger is still going strong according to the authors of a sequel to the best-selling The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook which, when it was published in 1982, was the definitive guide to the upper-middle classes living in west London. The modern Sloane differs from the original in more than fashion sense. Today's Hooray Henrys and Carolines are perfectly coiffed, jet-setting and hungry to make money of their own .

"They are rich, but they are serving the rich," said co-author, Olivia Stewart-Liberty. "...They are also much more business-orientated."

This entrepreneurial spirit is personified by such as the Duchess of Cornwall's nephew Ben Elliot who runs a private members' club and Piers Adams, of the Piccadilly night-club Mahiki, a favourite of Kate Middleton and Prince William.

Chav Sloane: Court the paparazzi and manage to get kicked off down-market reality television shows, but still relish a freebie
Thumping Sloane: A pretty decent bunch: 21st century equivalents of Hooray Henry and Nice Caroline
Turbo Sloane: Have added to their fortunes through successful business ventures, in particular, exclusive nightclubs frequented by the other tribes
Euro Sloane: Usually the off-spring of minor European royalty, they spend most of their time in London
Sleek Sloane: Older but glamorous reincarnations of the original Sloane Ranger, who have updated their image
Eco Sloane: Altruistic and philanthropic, this tribe has impeccable green credentials
Party Sloane: Enjoy knocking back Crack Baby (mojito) cocktails in the capital's exclusive nightclubs
Bongo Sloane: Slightly dotty (but still posh) forty-somethings who extol the virtues of alternative treatments

Toby Mundy, the managing editor of Atlantic Books which will publish the sequel in October, said: "The Sloanes are back and richer than ever. It is okay again to be proud to be posh..."

I'm afraid they are just selfish scum of the earth to me .