Sorry for this question. I am still learning.

Something that has always bothered me is how much u.s. politicians obsess over helping the middle class. Seems like the two major parties talk about it a lot. Why do they endlessly talk about helping the middle class, but never seem to acknowledge or focus on helping the (lower?) or poverty or proletariat class?

To me it sounds like the middle class by definition should be not be as in need as other classes that don’t have as much? What’s the purpose of this?

  • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    13 hours ago

    To add to the other comments here, the middle class doesn’t really exist. So when you promise to help the middle class, you’re promising to help no one.

    There are clearly defined classes with clearly defined and antagonistic interests, so the mythical middle class is a way for the bourgeoisie to hide the fact that they have no interest in serving the working class by claiming to serve an “average” class that doesn’t exist and seems to in practice have the same interests as the bourgeoisie.

    The “piss on my head and tell me it’s raining” of the American political jargon.

    • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Yup I came here to say basically this. The middle class is a scapegoat that reinforces the idea that you’re a moral and abject failure for not rising to this gilded position within American society. Solving the issues of the underclass undermines the entire middle-class mythos and would cause a self reinforcing reaction from those who think they are in that class. By giving the underclass more you create the perception that you’re not helping the middle class. Forget rising tides lifting all boats.