I feel the need to write this article because I have just finished chatting with yet another poor leftist. And the most incredible thing, what strikes me the most, is their belief that the disguise holds up, that it has always held up and that it will always hold up.
And so they go around like this
believing that no one sees them. So, there are several reasons why everyone sees that you come from wealthy families, and that you have an overall enviable existence.
- The first thing is the sense of guilt.
The Italian bourgeois, but in general the bourgeois of any Catholic country, are ashamed of being rich. Unlike the poor, who learn to be ashamed of being poor and strive to imitate the rich, the bourgeois is ashamed of being rich and strives to imitate the poor. The result is essentially this:
This person must have read a lot about the poor, so he can describe how the rich see the poor. Well, now we know how the rich imagine the poor. But there are TWO inconsistencies in this painting.
The first is the poor underpaid exploited with the internet . A bit like d'Alema, surprised to have a boat, justified himself by saying “today even workers can have one”, he says “but today even the poor have internet”.
Well, that's not true .
Income is the big difference between people who have the internet and people who don't.
The second incongruity is the free time dedicated to an unproductive choice. There are two cases: either they pay you to write that article, or (from the point of view of the culture of the poor) you are wasting time. Or hope to make money in the future.
Having grown up in a poor family, then becoming "very wealthy", I can say one thing. The culture of poverty imposes a shame on failure (especially when there are children in the middle, who ask for the same things as others), and the ambition to cross the finish line. The poor man who gets rich is usually an exhibitionist, for this very reason: he is trying to erase a stigma, he is trying to say “I did it too, I didn't fail”.
No poor person is ashamed of being enriched, nor is he ashamed of being rich, and if this is seen as ostentation it is only because those who produce the reference culture (on how the rich should behave) suffer from a sense of guilt.
And so the guilty rich produce a culture that requires the rich not to flaunt that they are rich, which is experienced as a guilt. In the transition, the blame has passed from a structurally Christian blame to a structurally political one, normally populist (right or left doesn't matter), because the most important purpose of those who go to the streets shouting "we are the people" and ', in fact, to look like the people .
On the internet everyone pretends to be a different social class than their own. The poor pretend to be rich, the rich pretend to be poor , or at least like the poor .
And this catches them immediately.
- The type of education.
When you are poor, and you have the culture of poverty, the school exists only as a social elevator. You have to study to find work and earn money . To be honest, when you have the culture of poverty, everything must be a social elevator, or the status symbol of a higher social class.
When I started with computers, my father was worried because (he started his own business and now the money was running, all right) I wasn't mingling with the other bourgeois who instead developed their own moped. And so I wasn't fitting into the new social class.
He began to calm down when (as a plumber he walked into the homes of the rich) he began to see that the children of the rich also had computers. That even engineers and surveyors and architects made use of it. That was when he stopped making a fuss about my time at BBS: I was doing rich stuff. He didn't know how, he did n't understand how, but my desk was the same as that of the children of the rich. It was better now.
Similarly, the rich opt for a humanities school, because then they will go to university. The poor don't have this defragility that is needed to make plans for ten years. They are afraid that the fat cows will run out. So they immediately pushed for technical schools, "for the world of work". Only the fatalists say "if necessary we will make sacrifices".
Thus among the poor there is a prevalence for technical or scientific schools. A strong prevalence. Which reflects on the quality of the writing, but not only in the grammatical sense. The problem is that technical or scientific schools instill a quantitative mentality. If you have a technical or scientific education, it is not enough for you to know that "there are also families of poor people who have internet", or of "workers who have a boat". You want to know HOW MANY they are.
Moreover, in the culture of the poor the quantitative problem is a real obsession, and quality is normally read as durability (i.e. quantity for time) or as productivity (which is still quantity for time) : "Spending more to spend better", as the poor say quality, is seen in this way: either the most expensive object is worth because it lasts longer (quantity for time), or because 'performs its task better (productivity').
Quality in abstract terms from quantity comes ONLY from the culture of the rich, but to understand it you need a type of education that avoids the quantitative question all along. In this way, and only by ignoring quantitative issues throughout the educational process, we obtain the mentality of the humanist / rich man, who can talk for hours about something without ever putting a quantity into it: and even when it comes to quantity, they usually stop at percentage statistics with no standard deviation or percentiles. Which indicates a (almost) complete lack of mastery of the concept .
Moral of the story: there is a specific way of writing about someone who comes from a rich family and grew up immersed in the culture of the rich. It is developed with a prevalently humanistic culture, and is shown in a way of writing that barely touches the quantitative problem.
The qualitative problem disconnected from the quantitative one (normally aimed at aesthetics) is the brand of the rich.
- economic benefit and political benefit.
The life of the poor is a continuous assessment. An essential do ut des . On the contrary, the rich experience the surplus. Something that can give without receiving anything in return.
In fact, saying that the rich doesn't get anything in return from charity is absolutely wrong. Being burdened with guilt, the rich receive enormous relief from charity. In the religious sense it receives a promise of paradise, in the more political sense it receives in exchange the permission to say "we are the people", together with the others.
A mass of proletarians in the streets is a mass of proletarians. No rich are allowed, except benefactors. The benefactors are usually the financiers of the movement, or who do politics on their side . In general, so we have TWO ways of doing charity.
- The distinctly economic one, which consists in donating surpluses to the poor without asking for anything in return except the appeasing of a sense of guilt, or the promise of a future paradise (when the conscience is personalized and becomes "god").
- The distinctly political one, which consists in the military with the poor in their claims. In this case you spend too much time and money, but you get a political career or the possibility of shouting "we are the people" together with the poor , which in turn calms one's sense of guilt.
For this reason, there are three types of institutions that benefit the poor: religious institutions, left-wing parties and social right-wing parties. All three tap into the guilt of the rich. And all three suffer when a class of enriched poor arrives, who do NOT have the sense of guilt.
I'm not talking, mind you, about radical chic. This is an American problem. In Europe, the far-left benefactor makes militancy a lifestyle choice, (in the hope of better disguising himself) so it is not chic at all. To betray him is a different fact, which is the perspective: he too lives like the others, but unlike the others he can stop whenever he wants . And it will stop, because sooner or later death will have the eyes of their parents, and they will inherit .
BUT all these models entered into crisis with the 80s. When masses of people suddenly got rich in the economic boom, and in Italy there was (and still exists) a generation of rich (recently enriched) who does NOT suffer from guilt. So flaunt. This generation does NOT feel obliged to give charity.
But the lack of guilt for wealth is typical of the culture of the poor. Paradoxically, social issues are under-represented precisely because there are no longer benefactors, both in the political and financial sense. The Berlinguer (who was a hereditary noble on a male line) who does politics today is not there, because the rich or the bourgeois or the middle class look to Berlusconi, the rich rich man who is not ashamed of being rich, just like their.
And here comes my message to the "comrades":
The few political benefactors who still exist arouse mistrust, and for a specific reason:
In the image above, there is a single rabbit that no other rabbit will ever trust .
Guess which one. It's easy, just a mirror.