Topical political theory

[ahinton]

But that's a different point - there, you really are talking about an actual condition but making it sound like a disability.

But is it really? How, for example, would you distinguish in each and every case - or rather in all cases - between a (medical) "condition" and a (medical) "disability" other than when such a condition might not be physically or mentally "disabling" per se?

Anyway, here's another (to which I hope FF won't take exception on political grounds) - "the ruling class" (sometimes pluralised into "the ruling classes"), which is at best a misleading term, in part because, in and of itself, it fails with sufficient clarity to identify what it is that purportedly distinguishes its members from others who are not its members...

[Richard Barrett]

I know several autistic people who strongly object to the use of the word "disorder" in describing their autism as ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) and I think they are right

Indeed. But that could be extended to say that it's ruling ideology that decides, according to its own agenda, what does and doesn't constitute a "disorder" or for that matter a "disability", as opposed to being on the "normal" mental or physical spectrum. It would be wonderful (and not impossible) to live in a world where there would be no such thing as a disability, that is to say a condition that prevents someone from living a fulfilling life. Then, of course, arguments as to whether it's appropriate or offensive to use this word or that would become superfluous.

[Serial_Apologist]

But is it really? How, for example, would you distinguish in each and every case - or rather in all cases - between a (medical) "condition" and a (medical) "disability" other than when such a condition might not be physically or mentally "disabling" per se?

Anyway, here's another (to which I hope FF won't take exception on political grounds) - "the ruling class" (sometimes pluralised into "the ruling classes"), which is at best a misleading term, in part because, in and of itself, it fails with sufficient clarity to identify what it is that purportedly distinguishes its members from others who are not its members...

Thast's only because they (the ruling class or classes) place themselves further and further beyond reach, any dividing line being increasingly hard to distinguish the higher it goes. I am quite sure they know who they, the "usual suspects", are; and it could probably be spelt out in terms of ownership of land, property, shares, access to the instant and fastest means of transport, expensive healthcare, financial advisers, solicitors and barristers, as well as to he media, politicians in power, right across the world.

Where you draw the line with the middle class(es) may be difficult to decide at any point in time - that it exists is beyond question, and a matter addressable by law, the question being, in whose hands.

[ahinton]

Thast's only because they (the ruling class or classes) place themselves further and further beyond reach, any dividing line being increasingly hard to distinguish the higher it goes. I am quite sure they know who they, the "usual suspects", are; and it could probably be spelt out in terms of ownership of land, property, shares, access to the instant and fastest means of transport, expensive healthcare, financial advisers, solicitors and barristers, as well as to he media, politicians in power, right across the world.

Where you draw the line with the middle class(es) may be difficult to decide at any point in time - that it exists is beyond question, and a matter addressable by law, the question being, in whose hands.

Since the people whom you describe as having created this distance between themselves and others not of their ilk and the particular way in which you spell out what principally characterises them points to one thing alone - financial wealth (and what the people who possess it or have access to it do with it) - it might seem more appropriate to term them the moneyed classes (not that this would make them any different or better than anyone else, of course!)...

[Richard Barrett]

they (the ruling class or classes) place themselves further and further beyond reach, any dividing line being increasingly hard to distinguish the higher it goes. I am quite sure they know who they, the "usual suspects", are; and it could probably be spelt out in terms of ownership of land, property, shares, access to the instant and fastest means of transport, expensive healthcare, financial advisers, solicitors and barristers, as well as to he media, politicians in power, right across the world

Relationship to the means of production innit.

[Serial_Apologist]

Since the people whom you describe as having created this distance between themselves and others not of their ilk and the particular way in which you spell out what principally characterises them points to one thing alone - financial wealth (and what the people who possess it or have access to it do with it) - it might seem more appropriate to term them the moneyed classes (not that this would make them any different or better than anyone else, of course!)...

Were the "moneyed classes" willing to forfeit, or at least share, some of that which confers, if not always individually guarantees, their power over the rest of humanity, I would agree: that their system is in worse shape than it has arguably been since the 1970s would otherwise offer them opportunities to benefit the rest of us with the leadership qualities, not to mention the intelligence, that has enabled them to get to where they are when - as their apologists so oten argue when confronted with the inheritance issue - they have raised themselves up through sheer Maxwellian effort. The very fact that they do not is almost the very definition of their class being that of our rulers, as the aristocracy once were, and their refusal to step down.

[vinteuil]

.

... but doesn't the distribution of wealth more or less follow a bell curve : where, then, do you do the cut-off between the "moneyed classes / rulers / aristocracy" and the rest?


.

[Richard Barrett]

... but doesn't the distribution of wealth more or less follow a bell curve : where, then, do you do the cut-off between the "moneyed classes / rulers / aristocracy" and the rest

I'm not sure how much like a bell curve the distribution of wealth in the world is now. The poorer half of the world's population own 1% of its wealth, and the richest 2% own half of it. But see my previous post to this thread - the ruling class is the group of people who through wealth and its associated power decide on the political agenda of societies at a national and supranational level. It's not a question of how much money you have in the bank but how you use the power that emanates from it.

[MrGongGong]

Topical political theory

I say it provided a very rewarding aspect to my quality of life, I wouldn't have wanted to change it - and I'd have been ok had there been a grammar school!

I love myths and legends, thanks for reminding me of this one.

[ahinton]

I'm not sure how much like a bell curve the distribution of wealth in the world is now. The poorer half of the world's population own 1% of its wealth, and the richest 2% own half of it. But see my previous post to this thread - the ruling class is the group of people who through wealth and its associated power decide on the political agenda of societies at a national and supranational level. It's not a question of how much money you have in the bank but how you use the power that emanates from it.

That's the best and clearest explanation that I've read for this term and I thank you for it. I now no longer have a problem understanding it and I apologise for my thickness in not having done so previously. So, the ruling class comprises neither the entire wealthy class per se by reason of their wealth nor those who actually rule as heads of democratically elected governments by reason of being such but those members thereof who wilfully misappropriate their wealth in the ways and on the scale that you describe here; I understand such a definition to exculpate all wealthy individuals who use their money responsibly or at least do not use it to secure and wield power over others. Much appreciated.

[Lat-Literal]

I love myths and legends, thanks for reminding me of this one.

Ideologue!

[Serial_Apologist]

So, the ruling class comprises neither the entire wealthy class per se by reason of their wealth nor those who actually rule as heads of democratically elected governments by reason of being such but those members thereof who wilfully misappropriate their wealth in the ways and on the scale that you describe here; I understand such a definition to exculpate all wealthy individuals who use their money responsibly or at least do not use it to secure and wield power over others. Much appreciated.

I wouldn't put it that way myself. Any society's rulers can be "good" or "bad rulers" in a conventional moral sense - just think of all the different kings and queen from the Plantagenet age, and how they were seen, then and by history! The question of character doesn't exclude them from being representatives of their class. This does not however boil down to a question of exoneration, but of accountability. Carnegie and Gates may well have represented the more humane side of capitalist power, but the fact that they are able to donate their money to causes of their choice, and that nobody apart from themselves is in the enviable position to change that choice by subjecting them inseparably from their economically-derived power position to election defines them as members of the ruling class.

Sorry if this is less well expressed than I would like; a neighbour has just begun playing the most unbelievably loud music in his back garden, almost obliterating what I can hear of Jazz Record Requests with my windows shut. He probably thinks he's a member of the ruling class!

[Richard Barrett]

The question of character doesn't exclude them from being representatives of their class. This does not however boil down to a question of exoneration, but of accountability. Carnegie and Gates may well have represented the more humane side of capitalist power, but the fact that they are able to donate their money to causes of their choice, and that nobody apart from themselves is in the enviable position to change that choice by subjecting them inseparably from their economically-derived power position to election defines them as members of the ruling class.

Exactly. My point was not that there are some wealthy people who are not members of the ruling class but that there are some not so very wealthy people who are part of it, or at least devote themselves to serving its interests - many politicians, for example.

[ahinton]

Exactly. My point was not that there are some wealthy people who are not members of the ruling class but that there are some not so very wealthy people who are part of it, or at least devote themselves to serving its interests - many politicians, for example.

Indeed - and a fair point it is.

[ahinton]

I wouldn't put it that way myself. Any society's rulers can be "good" or "bad rulers" in a conventional moral sense - just think of all the different kings and queen from the Plantagenet age, and how they were seen, then and by history! The question of character doesn't exclude them from being representatives of their class. This does not however boil down to a question of exoneration, but of accountability. Carnegie and Gates may well have represented the more humane side of capitalist power, but the fact that they are able to donate their money to causes of their choice, and that nobody apart from themselves is in the enviable position to change that choice by subjecting them inseparably from their economically-derived power position to election defines them as members of the ruling class.

Sorry if this is less well expressed than I would like; a neighbour has just begun playing the most unbelievably loud music in his back garden, almost obliterating what I can hear of Jazz Record Requests with my windows shut. He probably thinks he's a member of the ruling class!

But do YOU think that he is?! Hope the racket stops soon if it's not already done so.

Your mention of Carnegie and Gates is interesting; however, if governments act equally responsibly with the funds in their charge, mightn't they likewise be regarded as members of the ruling class by dint of so doing (or would you regard that term as applicable only to individuals and not to governments)?