political and class ambivalence is also a way to spin things. which the original comment itself did. this is a navel-gazing, meaningless criticism. if you disagree substantively you should just say so.
Class ambivalence? Who is upper class here? Jeff Bezos? He was born to single mother out of wedlock in highschool. Or is class something you can buy your way into now?
Before he started Amazon, Bezos had already been already an SVP at DE Shaw, so it's not like he would have any trouble finding another quarter million from investors.
> Or is class something you can buy your way into now?
In America, class has always been something you can buy your way into. Take a trip to Newport some time, and visit the mansions of the robber barons: each is stuffed with mediocre classical and neoclassical mimicry. The purpose of these ostentatious displays was to prove to each's neighbors that they were sufficiently landed, wealthy, and worthy of their class designation.
Edit: But of course note: wealth is neither necessary nor sufficient for class; it only makes it much, much more accessible.
Yes. Social mobility is one of the hallmarks of a class system.
If you can’t spend your entire life improving yourself from the circumstances of your birth then you don’t have a class system, you have a caste system.
no, class (in the marxist sense, everything else is meaningless cultural signifiers) is not about "upper" or "lower", it's about either getting paid for wage labor, ie being working class, or getting paid for other people's use of property you own, ie being capitalist class. this is extremely basic and is the fundamental divide under capitalism.
> it’s interesting to watch efforts to spin things one way or another