You said that of the ‘lifestyler’ elements, perhaps I have the right to be dismissive. Well that’s the only element I am dismissing. And I did so using one paragraph of a thousand-word foray into this topic. I don’t really see much to be objectionable about that. We evidently have differing conceptions of where in society that element is drawn from, and that’s fine – neither of us can fully disprove the experience of the other one, and I have no wider sociological data to draw on.

So we are at our perennial destination of agreeing to disagree?

Baaw! No to new people protesting!

For the rest, I trust that the development of the socialist movement and the overthrow of capitalism will ultimately prove me right (beyond what my own powers of reasoning can do).

As for why you should be less prejudiced and dismissive…that really should be self-evident.

[The following is somewhat hyperbolic] – I think it is interesting that you choose to say that rich people aren’t political in the way you see the word. I realise that I am dancing in a semantic pinhead, but I think it shows something. I think you see things entirely in terms of the class struggle mechanism – that is reality for you. I think that part of the basis of liberalism is the realisation that one has really very little understanding of the world, even on a basic level, let alone on a moral and political level. A second foundation (I will not attempt to give an exhaustive list) is the belief that people should be free to follow their own good. I realise that you will deny that capitalism allows this, but that is by-the-by for the time being. The fact that you deny the status of politics to anything but class based analysis is, in a way, a denial of those people’s right to pursue the good. Of course you wouldn’t ban it, but you see it has having no real legitimacy – you deny the importance of their politics. That is what I find objectionable (not that I expect you to care what I find objectionable – in fact I am confident you don’t).

From accounts I have read of the early CND marches, or the May 68ers, the same phenomenon is observable in those cases too.

As for your final paragraph, well of course that’s the reason rich people aren’t political in the way I see that word. Hardly a great revelation when I said so myself in the last comment. Different conceptions of the world, and the material basis for this, is what all of this boils down to. I’m curious as to why you think this mean I should be less prejudiced against or dismissive of the lifestyler element to the protest movement?

Without any explication of ‘particular understanding’ your analysis is meaningless. If you intend to denote a minimal level of familiarity with the issues then you will probably find that most of the wealthy have an understanding of commensurate if not superior understanding to the not-rich. They have more leisure time and, on average (but obviously, only on average) a better education, which in turn, on average, correlates with better understanding (our education system isn’t so inequitable as to mess that correltion up entirely).

If on the other hand you want to define particular understanding in a restrictive way with a high level of understanding needed to meet that, then almost no one can protest (without criticism). Certainly most people striking about their jobs can’t – they don’t necessarily understand the politics, what they understand is that their job will be lost. I take it you don’t look down on them.

The reason rich people aren’t politcal in the way you see that word is “why the bloody hell should they be?” The political system in essence does them no great disservice, and as most of them don’t have any interest in Marxian ideas of property, they don’t see it as particularly inequitable. They are more concerned with problems like Climate Change and Third World poverty because they see this as the true inequity – the place where the capitalist system truly does screw people. This isn’t a lack of interest in politics – its a lack of interest in your particular conception of what is of fundamental political importance.

If my ‘snobbery’ as you put it is aimed at their wealth, well it’s that very wealth which isolates them from what the rest of us have to deal with. Climate change is such an attractive issue for the wealthy, because it can be framed in such a way as to have no wider political relevance which may offer
unattractive conclusions about the nature of our society and their position in it. And if I offer up one of the symbols of wealth as an article upon which to focus such snobbery, is it unjust to point to the symptoms of the isolation I’m talking about?

For all your comment on the irony that I went to Oxford, I’ve never owned a ‘named brand’ pair of shoes in my life; I simply can’t afford them.

You can declare what I’ve said to be ignorant all you like, but almost anyone involved with protest movements over a period of years will know precisely the sort of crowd I use this type of rhetoric to delineate.

“My own cyncial, mean-spirited stereotyping” doesn’t give you wiggle room. All that meant was – I’m not labelling all people who were there as the kind of people who wear “fancy designer trainers” (sorry, I just find that an amusing turn of phrase) and drink in pubs in Kensington. I don’t care about that limitation. I was referring to those not excluded.

If on the other hand you are admitting that your view of these people is cyncial and mean spirited, then I’m very happy to agree with you. It is. And quite frankly, its highly ignorant as well.