I’ve been having trouble explaining to liberal co-workers that there isn’t really an “Upper” or “Lower” working class. They insist that class as a relation to means of production is outdated and it makes more sense to measure it by income. What’s the most effective way to explain to them why this doesn’t work?
Consider a tradesman versus a libarian who has rich parents and went to a privately funded school.
The tradesman may make 90k+ while the libarian will make 20k on average, but one is much higher of a class than the other.
Why?
Because the libarian is able to talk and engage in culture that the tradesman is not; the types of culture that each engage in; football vs the opera is a classic example gives them the social connections that the tradesman would never have. They are able to make political connections, sway the opinions of the rich and can engage on a higher plane of culture than the tradesman.
Furthermore they might make less on face value salary wise but will have social connections gained at the private schools to people who will go on to become prime minister and CEO of companies.
Look at the PPE scandal in the UK; people being given corrupt acsess to contracts worth 60 million just because they where friends with the PM in high school; imagine the tradesman doing that.
This is called ‘cultural capital’
edit: drive by downvotes that add no rebuttals lol
this is a marxist definition of class and something the USSR was aware of when it made the opera free and over-produced cavier so it was dirt cheap