«just because there's an upper tier and a lower tier of the oppressor class»
That point of view seems to be both blind to the difference in nature, and politically blind too:
* There is a difference as to the "class": the "trusties" may be the tools (e.g. fast-food shift supervisor) or complicit (e.g. anti-union consultant) of the rule of …
«just because there's an upper tier and a lower tier of the oppressor class»
That point of view seems to be both blind to the difference in nature, and politically blind too:
* There is a difference as to the "class": the "trusties" may be the tools (e.g. fast-food shift supervisor) or complicit (e.g. anti-union consultant) of the rule of the "masters", or simply receive some crumbs off the table (e.g. plastic surgeon) of the "masters", but they are not in the same class. Maybe "oppressors", but not "oppressor class"; consider the role of the servants who work at the lower rung of the political police forces of many countries.
* It is politically blind because a standard point of "masters" is to direct the resentment of their "servants" to the "trusties" who merely express the rule of the "masters", both to split the "servants" among themselves, and to deflect anger from themselves. It is the ancient "The cossacks are bad, but the czar is good (even if the cossacks work for the czar)" technique.
* Also the "masters" do have an upper and lower tier, but the lower tier is not the "trusties" servants, it is the barely-independent masters like the owner of franchise shops, or the owner of the premises cleaning business who was its manager before it was spun off. They often are not much better off than the "trusties", but have much greater authority to set strategy.
* Some "trusties", like the doctors who co-own a large practice in which they also work, are in part "masters" and in part "trusties", and that is far more common in modern times that it used to be the case in older times, and that perhaps is a source of confusion.
I think we are arguing semantics here, but I thank you for the response.
<<consider the role of the servants who work at the lower rung of the political police forces of many countries>>
Unless you're somehow drafted into the political police, you choose to join the political police. That is to say, you voluntarily participate in oppression.
<<It is the ancient "The cossacks are bad, but the czar is good (even if the cossacks work for the czar)" technique.>>
No argument here. It's just my opinion that this technique is beginning to outlive its usefulness with regard to the present political situation in the USA; I don't pretend to have any kind of accurate universalist view.
The blunt and unsophisticated point I have attempted to make is that the "servants"/working class/indigent may not care too much about the gradations between higher and lower "trusties" and lower and higher "masters." I believe that they will tend to view anyone who does not have to struggle daily for mere survival as part of the "oppressor class." As you note, this is no doubt an overly broad term, but people whose primary daily concern is perpetuating their existence have little time for niceties.
«the "servants"/working class/indigent may not care too much about the gradations between higher and lower "trusties" and lower and higher "masters." I believe that they will tend to view anyone who does not have to struggle daily for mere survival as part of the "oppressor class."»
But that is the political blindness: the servant classes have rarely succeeded in fighting the masters class for a better deal without the "help" of the "trusties" ("Craig Russell" refers to this in his mention of 1984).
Creating a political alliance between "masters" and "trusties" (usually via real estate and stock share ownership) is pretty much the essence of reaganism.
Here is an indian dreaming of a reaganite electoral coalition in India to focus politics on "labor market reform" instead of waste like "the right to food, education, or to work":
“The electorally decisive “median voter” is stuck at an income level that prevents a coalition of middle and upper income voters from pushing for further reform, and the politics of redistribution trump the politics of growth. To many, it would appear that India has already achieved this unenviable scenario, in which the government’s flagship economic schemes are centred on entitlements such as the right to food, education, or to work and not, for instance, on reforming arcane labour laws.”
«just because there's an upper tier and a lower tier of the oppressor class»
That point of view seems to be both blind to the difference in nature, and politically blind too:
* There is a difference as to the "class": the "trusties" may be the tools (e.g. fast-food shift supervisor) or complicit (e.g. anti-union consultant) of the rule of the "masters", or simply receive some crumbs off the table (e.g. plastic surgeon) of the "masters", but they are not in the same class. Maybe "oppressors", but not "oppressor class"; consider the role of the servants who work at the lower rung of the political police forces of many countries.
* It is politically blind because a standard point of "masters" is to direct the resentment of their "servants" to the "trusties" who merely express the rule of the "masters", both to split the "servants" among themselves, and to deflect anger from themselves. It is the ancient "The cossacks are bad, but the czar is good (even if the cossacks work for the czar)" technique.
* Also the "masters" do have an upper and lower tier, but the lower tier is not the "trusties" servants, it is the barely-independent masters like the owner of franchise shops, or the owner of the premises cleaning business who was its manager before it was spun off. They often are not much better off than the "trusties", but have much greater authority to set strategy.
* Some "trusties", like the doctors who co-own a large practice in which they also work, are in part "masters" and in part "trusties", and that is far more common in modern times that it used to be the case in older times, and that perhaps is a source of confusion.
I think we are arguing semantics here, but I thank you for the response.
<<consider the role of the servants who work at the lower rung of the political police forces of many countries>>
Unless you're somehow drafted into the political police, you choose to join the political police. That is to say, you voluntarily participate in oppression.
<<It is the ancient "The cossacks are bad, but the czar is good (even if the cossacks work for the czar)" technique.>>
No argument here. It's just my opinion that this technique is beginning to outlive its usefulness with regard to the present political situation in the USA; I don't pretend to have any kind of accurate universalist view.
The blunt and unsophisticated point I have attempted to make is that the "servants"/working class/indigent may not care too much about the gradations between higher and lower "trusties" and lower and higher "masters." I believe that they will tend to view anyone who does not have to struggle daily for mere survival as part of the "oppressor class." As you note, this is no doubt an overly broad term, but people whose primary daily concern is perpetuating their existence have little time for niceties.
The primary trusties at the moment are tenured Professors and content Editors.
«the "servants"/working class/indigent may not care too much about the gradations between higher and lower "trusties" and lower and higher "masters." I believe that they will tend to view anyone who does not have to struggle daily for mere survival as part of the "oppressor class."»
But that is the political blindness: the servant classes have rarely succeeded in fighting the masters class for a better deal without the "help" of the "trusties" ("Craig Russell" refers to this in his mention of 1984).
Creating a political alliance between "masters" and "trusties" (usually via real estate and stock share ownership) is pretty much the essence of reaganism.
Here is an indian dreaming of a reaganite electoral coalition in India to focus politics on "labor market reform" instead of waste like "the right to food, education, or to work":
http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2011/08/is-india-heading-into-a-middle-income-trap/
“The electorally decisive “median voter” is stuck at an income level that prevents a coalition of middle and upper income voters from pushing for further reform, and the politics of redistribution trump the politics of growth. To many, it would appear that India has already achieved this unenviable scenario, in which the government’s flagship economic schemes are centred on entitlements such as the right to food, education, or to work and not, for instance, on reforming arcane labour laws.”