Display:
You mean by your meaningful definition, which is that they depend for their living on selling their work for a salary? That they are therefore members of the proletariat?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 at 07:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pretty much. Most of the people losing jobs are, though they've been persuaded otherwise.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 at 07:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They and everyone else have been persuaded, which makes a very considerable difference in terms of perception and prestige.

And does their proletarian classification alter the fact that the sector they've been working for has been the cuckoo in the nest for nearly thirty years, and has deprived many other sectors and salary-earners of sustenance?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 at 07:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you have to have FU money to exit the proles.

by the definition of selling your energy, being beholden, surely anyone who's signed a contract is a prole.

maybe the concept of proletariat is over, it only had resonance when it was in the form of lumpenproletariat. which has to be one of the most onomatapeic words/sounds ever!

those guys with their cardboard boxes are the modern equivalent of hod-carriers building the great pyramid (scam).

what does it matter if their from upper, middle or working class backgrounds? the financial services environment gives the appearance of being quite democratic, less of an old boys' club than it used to be a century ago.

glorified barrow boys? ex etonian wankers? everything in between?

not lumpen though...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series