I'm reposting from /pol/, just because I expect the quality of discussion here to be better.
Is the quality of culture dependent on a person's social class? If yes, couldn't we, therefore, eliminate cultural barriers between people - for example gypsies - be improving their social welfare and elevating them within society?
Do you mean
>Is the quality of culture dependent on a person's economic class?
?
Social class is synonymous to socioeconomic class, yes.
>If yes, couldn't we, therefore, eliminate cultural barriers between people - for example gypsies - be improving their social welfare and elevating them within society?
If you give them sheep or goats so they can milk them, they slaughter them and eat them immediately. If you give them shelter, they leave it. They are conditioned to desire a nomadic lifestyle.
Same goes for wanting to transform subsistence economy guys by throwing money at them: they spend it, not invest it, and return to subsistence economy when they run out of it.
Now you begin to understand why Marx and Engels have to desire children to be raised away from the family: they can be programmed to be cogs in the industrial city machine and contribute to the logic of accumulation.
The moral of the story is that if you want to eliminate cultural barriers you have to eliminate cultures.
Transform minority communities into the theme park version of themselves, wage a war on language, etc. downsize differences wherever you find them.
You can then celebrate diversity in all things once the on diversity that matters, opinion, is gone.
*one
One culture is not better than the next there are differences based on class but the only reason the culture of the rich is privileged is because it is associated with all the ease and comfort of wealth. The best thing we could do for the world economy and society is execute the top 1% of wealthy people.
>downsize differences wherever you find them.
So I guess my reasoning in the OP is true, in part. The first step would then have to be significant social interaction and forced integration by way of employment and schooling.
>One culture is not better than the next
Of course it is. Why else would people be moving to Europe and to the US, if it weren't?
pierre bourdieu - cultural capital
read it yourself
the great homogenising effect of capitalism in action
>Marx and Engels have to desire children to be raised away from the family
Absolute bullshit. "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy tier.
>they can be programmed to be cogs in the industrial city machine and contribute to the logic of accumulation
This is precisely what Marx criticised in capitalism.
Protip: they aren't moving there for the culture they are moving away from the wars which are directly related to euro-American culture and they are moving towards the concentration of wealth so hopefully they won't be destitute.
You're dismissing the effect Western cultural globalisation has had on the world. A turkish muslim imam's idea of a good time is very likely to be derived from western influence.
That isn't why the migrants are coming to Europe though. Also I don't know if that is even true.
No it isn't you fucking retard
>Is the quality of culture dependent on a person's social class?
No. What a dumb thought.
> I'm reposting from /pol/, just because I expect the quality of discussion here to be better.
>expects better quality of discussion on Veeky Forums
Yes, it is.
People have been migrating to the US and Europe long before the Syrian Civil War. And why wouldn't it be?
>x is synonymous with xy
Just shut the fuck up. If you're here to learn do not second guess your superiors
They didn't come here for the culture then either. The migrant waves have always been associated with some kind of economic or political collapse (Irish Potato Famine, Poverty in Southern Italy, Poverty and Drug Wars in Mexico). We don't have a privileged culture in the west we just have a concentration of power and wealth here.
>Absolute bullshit. "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy tier.
June 1847:
>All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.
February 1848:
>10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Sounds good, right?
>Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form.
Sounds even better, right?
>Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
What, you didn't think the education was free, did you?
>This is precisely what Marx criticised in capitalism.
Marx wasn't ready to fully abandon capitalism, positivism, and their mythology of accumulation and progress, it's what nearly all of his readers in the last century had to criticize of him, lmao
Wealth, prosperity, tolerance, education... How are these not the hallmarks of a greater and prosperous culture?
Wealth and prosperity are not aspects of culture they are aspects of conquest and hegemony. Or do you think people get rich simply because they are well cultured good people?
>1848
Nigga that was when Marx was a young college grad. Cite from his later real work and not his early shitposts
>The writings of Marx and Engels are a cultural marxist conspiracy by /pol/
>do you think people get rich simply because they are well cultured good people?
They do go out of their way to give an appearance that they spend more wisely.
>aspects of conquest and hegemony
Wouldn't you say these two are aspects of European culture themselves - the former the drive, the latter a consequence?
>prosperity isn't a hallmark of a prosperous culture
>cherry picking wealth and prosperity and not taking wealth, prosperity, tolerance and education as all together.
What you think every single thing a person ever wrote should be held as authorative as their far more comprehensive and considered project later in life?
Get real man
In marxist theory and praxis I saw nothing that would ever contradict their aforementioned education programs.
Now go ahead and show me where in Das Kapital or Origins of the Family they say anything against them.
>Get real man
I did. Unlike you I do not think the writings of Marx and Engels are a cultural marxist conspiracy by /pol/.
It is just an appearance and "spending" isn't even a relevant concept when you have billions.
I don't really know a full answer on that; Predation is not exceptional of course. I think maybe Christianity is somehow instrumental but I am not knowledgeable enough to say how. Anyway the fact is that today Europe and America have the strongest militaries and are able to subjugate the rest of the world (china is an exception) so that is why we are so rich.
Those four things can't really be conflated so easily. Maybe tolerance and education are products of wealth and prosperity ?
>"spending" isn't even a relevant concept when you have billions.
Then why is it that you want to get workers sons and daughters to buy used textbooks through some service, only aristocrat kids show up?
Would you be shocked if I told you that they are raised to care about economic factors more effectively than your typical prole? Wouldn't a marxist parent seek to do something similar?
That is an entirely anecdotal argument and in all probability inaccurate.
Wealth is maintained through assets such as land, real estate, trust funds, stocks, etc.
Anyway I'm not arguing that the poor are bad with money of course they are but that is not why poverty exists and that is certainly no explanation for growing income inequality.
>I'm not arguing that the poor are bad with money of course they are but that is not why poverty exists
But how do you get any social mobility going on when you're bad with money?
How do you save yourself from falling into poverty when you're bad with money and they usual suspects come to take it?
Social mobility is far from the realm of possibility for the great number of actual poor. Bad spending would probably have worse effects on the middle class than the poor and this is the case viz a viz the housing/credit crash of 2008 and coming soon the student debt crash but i digress. The poor can go further down and then they are often forced to take state assistance so you could say their bad spending habits place a taxation burden on the scrupulous rich but none of this has to do with the actual mechanical reality of poverty and income inequality which is institutional and on another level purely egotistical (why would the rich want to be less rich? Why wouldn't they use there power and influence to manufacture consent and create policy which not only protects their wealth but increases it too? Social mobility is a threat to their position, their way of life and their long term strategy.)