Much hand-wringing occurs over the subject of class. In the end, everything comes down to class differentiation.

The word possesses anachronistic sounding connotations, conjuring up a mental image of the British aristocracy and its snobbish affectations; the upper-class twit, for instance. However, a person of a high-born class does not necessarily dilenate the qualities of style and excellence. Just because a person possesses one does not guarantee they exhibit the other; take the well-heeled rube, for example.

The hereditary class has made way for those of fortunes generated from wherever. Class persists in being passed on by ancestry. But old standards are gone. Supercilious society no longer assures acceptance of the idle breeds based on peerage alone.

Once upon a time, making money was considered gauche; a gentleman did not engage in business but leisure. Titles and peerage belonged to an age of empire and the etiquette of an antiquated society. For argument’s sake, the inclusion of one’s family in Debrett’s determined a person’s pedigree and, therefore, their social acceptability. Nowadays, anyone of uncertain means from a blue bloodline is fodder for tabloids and gossip magazines, especially when they are crass enough to trade off it, such as Prince Harry and his domineering, low-born mixed-race American wife do.

We do not suggest that pedigree ever implied the quality of character or negated it either. Nevertheless, the class system-generated inequities are no longer considered tolerable to the progressive. Hitherto, social status was a matter of good breeding based upon dubious criteria of ancestral worthiness. Nowadays, prestige is a matter of wealth or reputation. And, bear in mind, the latter is a mutual contrivance by society. Take Greta Thunberg as a case in point: a youth whose reputation is owed to an elitist agenda and not a personal accomplishment.

This demonstrates, in an ironic twist, the progressive has ascended to a class of its own. Politics alone does not assure inclusion in the ranks of a particular class, but a type of class is more likely to express a common worldview. The politics of the progressive are a singular topic. We are concerned with the invocation of class and the implied virtue or lack thereof. We contend that all classes are equally intolerable and that notions born of social justice or prejudice are simply that.

Having cited the inevitable example of the upper class, a chiefly bygone group, we remind the reader of the political elites. Today, we sustain an onslaught of disingenuous social justice causes like ‘inclusivity’, ‘environmental concern’, ‘animal rights awareness’, ‘gender equity, and all the hallow issues that entertain the privileged of the present day. We are cautious about speaking of a vanishing middle-class, given the abovementioned elites are engaging their aforementioned social conscience to enact changes that will ensure a shuffling of what is on the board rather than sweeping away the objects. In other words, social stratification remains; it is the order of things that changes.

With the sun setting on the hereditary class system, the light shone on the travails of the working class. Marxism, communism, socialism: all imbued the toiling proles with a nobility derived from their living struggle. Many rich coveted the privileges of the poor, such as the favouritism with which God supposedly esteemed them.

Yet, without falling prey to unfair generalisations, the working class were useful drones more-or-less satisfied within the limitations of their menial caste. To empathise with their struggles and the injustices inflicted on them by the parasitic classes is to assume they deserved anything better. Perhaps a few hours more rest per week, a meagre increase in income, but in terms of whether or not their sacrifices justified better respect for them is purely an ideological perspective.

Indeed, the working class became the hobbyhorse of the intellectual class. As the intellectual class elevated to the political controlling class the insincerity of the human plight ostensibly motivating revolutionary class change revealed itself as more potential advantage awaiting exploitation.

The insect kingdom experiences no such existential angst: especially species like ant colonies and bees that depend upon its strict order for survival. Regardless, comparing the insect hive to the human-animal is in the order of sophistry, yet it demonstrates an argument. Altruism is a concept belonging to humanity, and when nobly carried out, any reward cannot be by financial remuneration.

The lesson here is that the masses demand to be ordered by necessity and that revolution is the crusade for recognition by the superior individual above the herd. ■

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

error: Content is protected !!