What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

Leisure.

If you are poor, you are likely to work hard to become less poor, because that is the obvious way to do it. You probably don't have time or education to make an analysis of society, and almost certainly not the time to spend organising a populist resistance in the form of trade unions or workers cooperatives or boycotts or demonstrations or riots. It takes time, education and money to make these efforts, and much persuasion to convince enough others to constitute any kind of power base. For any one individual, it is always a better bet to work super hard, suck up to the boss, and hope for promotion (see Jordan Peterson).

I'm the son of an architect, middle middle-class educated and comfortable, so I have had the opportunity to 'stand and stare'. As soon as you do that, it is liable to become obvious that no one ever got rich by working hard.

At either end of the social spectrum there is a leisure class. :smirk:

At either end of the social spectrum there is a leisure class. — jgill

Explain?

Leisure: "opportunity afforded by free time to do something."

If one is on welfare, with no job, this might apply. I have observed this in young British men who are addicted to the sport of climbing. They pool their resources for housing and food and pursue their dreams. (However, my observations are dated having been from the 1980s. Thatcher's government might have made this less likely).

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money.

@Unenlightened's answer, "leisure" seems on the mark; and in another sense, it means the 'psychological space' to afford thinking about radical alternatives (at least, socialism is viewed as a very radical alternative in the US, where I come from). People with a reasonable level of education and connections generally do well enough to obtain that leisure. But, as @Jgill observed, people who have access to enough welfare benefits can also afford to think about radical alternatives.

Another factor, I think, is a having a certain amount of personal liberty to pursue what are (in places like the US) quite unpopular ideas. One has to be 'inner-directed' enough to ignore the disapproving frowns and comments of work associates, friends, and relatives.

Lots of people (not in the US) have examples of 'socialistic policies' available to them, which are generally valued by their society. Many countries have had more favorable policies toward the working class, providing good health programs, liberal amounts of vacation time, and so on.

it's worth noting, however, that not too many people in the EU are calling for, hoping for, or planning for the abolition of capitalism (speed the day), which would be necessary for full-fledged socialism (at least, as far as I know).

I am always curious as to what people mean by "socialist"?
Is providing basic health care to the population of your country "socialist" or is it responsible government? In either case sign me up.
Is free education for the most talented, motivated and capable regardless of race, sex, religion or socio-economic status "socialist" or an investment in the nations future? Again I am all for it.
It seems to me most cannot distinguish between "socialism" and "communism".
In terms of economies, central planning and state ownership of entire economies seem to have failed multiple times but there are other state interventions that would seem to be in the interest of both the state and the general welfare.

I am always curious as to what people mean by "socialist"?
Is providing basic health care to the population of your country "socialist" or is it responsible government? In either case sign me up.
Is free education for the most talented, motivated and capable regardless of race, sex, religion or socio-economic status "socialist" or an investment in the nations future? Again I am all for it.
It seems to me most cannot distinguish between "socialism" and "communism".
In terms of economies, central planning and state ownership of entire economies seem to have failed multiple times but there are other state interventions that would seem to be in the interest of both the state and the general welfare. — prothero

Seconded.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

I think the access to academics is a big part. If your worldview expands beyond yourself and you start to think in terms of benefiting the system that all are a part of instead of only benefiting yourself or your family, you start to move in a socialist direction. Wealthy people have this luxury because their family being safe and fed is not a thing they worry about. Working class and even many middle class people are in the position of living paycheck to paycheck so they must have that smaller scale focus.

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money. — Tzeentch

Like this for example. This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. All their money is their money because they earned it. There is no conception of the vast array of services and opportunities offered by the collective effort of everyone around them, mostly through government, that make it possible for them to be "self-made". In the US, this holds true even all the way up into the upper middle classes because the consumer culture makes even very rich people feel like they always lack something, so they don't expand their vision. Of course, the super-rich in the US have set it up so that they can buy the politicians to keep tax rates absurdly low. Most other developed countries haven't allowed this. That's American exceptionalism for you.

The Theory of the Leisure Class: Thorstein Veblen

1. Introductory
2. Pecuniary Emulation
3. Conspicuous Leisure
4. Conspicuous Consumption
5. The Pecuniary Standard of Living
6. Pecuniary Canons of Taste
7. Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture
8. Industrial Exemption and Conservatism
9. The Conservation of Archaic Traits
10. Modern Survivals of Prowess
11. The Belief in Luck
12. Devout Observances
13. Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests
14. The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Oh, I am concerned with the welfare of people around me. I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government.

You speak with the self-righteous ignorance of a true socialist.

Oh, I am concerned with the welfare of people around me. I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government.

You speak with the self-righteous ignorance of a true socialist. — Tzeentch

And you use ad hominem attacks in place of developing an understanding of reality that show you are both self-righteous and ignorant.

Feel free to not respond. I was not courting your mouth-breathing opinions. I already know everything you're going to say. I've considered your position and discarded it as ahistorical and anti-human. You are only here as an example, not a participant. You may go.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

Let's say that having "compassion" for those who have less than you is much easier when you are in a better situation than said miserable.

I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government. — Tzeentch

Every society in the world contradicts this principle. Would you then try to enforce this principle on the societies of the world? Why do humans form governments in the first place? This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things. The key is to put the power of this apparatus in check, not to abolish it altogether (though I am totally open to serious conversations on the possibility, they just seem to me like romanticism).

I have observed this in young British men who are addicted to the sport of climbing. They pool their resources for housing and food and pursue their dreams. (However, my observations are dated having been from the 1980s. Thatcher's government might have made this less likely). — jgill

I suspect that these were more likely middle-class than working class. My recollection is that even in the good old days, you needed to be pretty damn literate to negotiate the benefits system with any degree of success. I've known a few climbers too in N. Wales, and they climbed the slate quarries for fun, precisely because they were not the children of the quarrymen who climbed them with drills and explosives for a living.

Let's say that having "compassion" for those who have less than you is much easier when you are in a better situation than said miserable. — Gus Lamarch

Why is compassion italicized in quotes? :naughty:

Myself being an in-betweener, voting rightish in scandinavian elections aka probably democrat in the US i still com from a working class background. My father made the journey to middle class. Me and my brother are the first ones going to university. Now I have come in contact with people from wealthy academical homes and surprisingly many lean to the left. Same when you read about eg Sartre. Also from a profoundly bourgeoisie home, but becomes a socialist.

In the same family you can see entrepreneurs and activists. What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? Very few people in my humble-house background in a not so good suburb became socialists.

Perhaps they were weened too late. Less responsibility. Less risk. It’s no strange wonder that the coddled grow up to prefer the same treatment when they get older. The “cradle-to-the-grave” concept is no joke.

I suspect that these were more likely middle-class than working class. My recollection is that even in the good old days, you needed to be pretty damn literate to negotiate the benefits system with any degree of success. I've known a few climbers too in N. Wales, and they climbed the slate quarries for fun, precisely because they were not the children of the quarrymen who climbed them with drills and explosives for a living. — unenlightened

I've been to North Wales. It's realy pretty there.

I'll see myself out...

:naughty: — Pro Hominem

I think you got the point.

Every society in the world contradicts this principle. Would you then try to enforce this principle on the societies of the world? Why do humans form governments in the first place? This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." — JerseyFlight

You clearly don't know anything about the Constitution. It is to be fought for, died for, basically a whole bunch of violence is supposed to be done for it. Its purpose is to give people guns so they can do that violence. God Bless Merka.

No so my friend. I was not advancing an apologetic, I was citing a simplification of reasons to establish government. I don't have a problem with those principles, of course a conversation as to what they mean is necessary, but that is for another thread. My point was about the necessity of government.

No so my friend. I was not advancing an apologetic, I was citing a simplification of reasons to establish government. I don't have a problem with those principles, of course a conversation as to what they mean is necessary, but that is for another thread. My point was about the necessity of government — JerseyFlight

Yes, I agree with you. I was making a joke at that other guy's expense.

I suspect that these were more likely middle-class than working class — unenlightened

In the late 1940s Joe Brown and his companions initiated the British era of working class climbers, and those I met in the 1980s and 90s who were living on the dole were largely, but certainly not entirely, from that class.

If one visits some of the poorer areas of NYC they might find unemployed young men exercising and playing basketball during the working day. Well, before the virus struck! A leisure class, but not an appealing one.

The comment I made initially is not original. It was coined by one of the California climbers of the 1960s - perhaps Eric Beck - about dirtbaggers and elitists of that era. I was a member of that climbing generation and climbed and camped with one of those dirtbaggers from a working class background who is now a billionaire. Another colleague and friend from a humble background became almost literally Royal Robbins: Spirit of the Age.

I've known a few climbers too in N. Wales, and they climbed the slate quarries for fun, precisely because they were not the children of the quarrymen who climbed them with drills and explosives for a living. — unenlightened

Your reasoning here leaves me bewildered. When you are so confident about motivations, you should know something about the world to which you refer.

:smile:

When your tirade has settled I suggest you meditate on what I've said. You may think my remarks were ad hominem, but they hit the mark pretty well.

You seem to take issue with this statement:

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money. — Tzeentch

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. That's a statement of fact. If you don't understand why that is arrogant, you're ignorant.

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Then there's the quintessential bid for moral superiority, which I interpret as terribly selfrighteous.

You may scream "Ad hominem!" as much as you want, but so far I consider you guilty as charged.

I consider government to be a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence.

Furthermore, governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, and therefore I consider governments, at their basis, to be no more legitimate than a despot.

For these reasons, government will, at its very best, be a necessary evil.

This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things. — JerseyFlight

What if an individual isn't interested in securing those things? Under the current system they are simply forced to pay for them anyways!

The key is to put the power of this apparatus in check, not to abolish it altogether (though I am totally open to serious conversations on the possibility, they just seem to me like romanticism). — JerseyFlight

I agree. Though, governments seem to have a tendency to, over time, grow corrupt and to consolidate more power. Keeping governments small with as little influence over individuals' private goings-on should be an active process. And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end.

To the original poster, regarding his question: why a wealthy person would have left-leaning political views.

Easy. He or she has a heart. He or she is an empathetic being, who feels the pain of others, and wants to stop it for them.

The leisure argument above is simply one of the false ideals of the fascist American culture created to justify its own present-day mythology.

When you are so confident about motivations, you should know something about the world to which you refer. — jgill

I know something; perhaps you know more. And back on topic a bit, it may be middle-class self-satisfaction that cannot believe that the working class can do anything on its own initiative. It may be that the media records the middle-class socialists like the Fabian Society and pays them attention and forgets the grassroots organisers of the Grunwick strike, or earlier, the Penrhyn Quarry strike.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

Revolt against their parents and everything they portray to stand for.

The most vociferous and in their hatred of the right nearly disturbed have many a personal aspect to their loathing of everything reeking to the right and conservatism. If your ties with your parents are cut because of politics (among other issues, usually) that hatred is personal.

Seen some examples even in PF.

You asked what socialism. Example from my country : admitting a lot of refugees from trouble areas in countries such as Iraq and Somalia. (How do I include the actual text when replying? Using Ipad)