Class Based Privilege vs Privilege Based Class and Leonard Nimoy

I, being a frequent adventurer on the internet, have come across the term 'privilege' on several occasions. Being the Russia fanatic that I am, I could not help but wonder about the nature of the word as it is used. Anybody who has studied Russia knows full well the lengthy divisions of privilege between the intelligentsia and the peasant class. Even further, The Soviet Union, that big, red, evil blob, encouraged the development of immense privilege inequality at every possible step. This may not seem to make any amount of sense given the 'egalitarian nature' of the Soviet Union (more on this below). But it was there. I am baffled to see the word privilege used, in its own slanted, assigned meaning, to describe the issue of inequality in the United States. To begin to address this, one must first define this word. Privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

I will begin with the Soviet Union. As I described above, the issue of inequality went far beyond any communist manifesto could possibly have predicted for a self-proclaimed 'socialist' society. I am, of course, referring to the game. The horrible, evil game. The game of political dependency, outing your neighbors, and whitewashing the actions of borderline-inhuman (secret) policemen. This is the game which is referred to in the phrase "playing the game" in reference to gaining an advantage in a political system. Widely known, but often rejected, the Soviet regime actively encouraged its citizens to be as selfish as possible. Stand for your Comrades! But as they look the other way, report their anti-state political activity. You will earn the trust of the ever-powerful communist party. With trust comes our infamous word, privilege. With the horrible policies of the power-hungry Supreme Soviet, the Soviet government relied on the dependency of its citizens. By this, I mean that their citizens would always have to look the other way. They were always unable to say anything. The outcry of the common, decent Russian /Pole /Ukrainian /Belorussian, etc would be answered with two world-shattering fates. 1) The break of the individual and his/her family with the state (itself a death-sentence). 2) (In many cases, worse than death) the further reduction of the individual into a source of hard labor in the Gulag (Archipelago for the Solzhenitsyn veterans out there). This was the case. It was a win-win for the state and a lose-lose for the individual. On one hand, the state held a free source of hard labor, and on the other hand, the state kept dissent in check and held hostage the 'happiness' of its people (which it could take away at the drop of a hat).

The 'Gulag Archipelago'

Having acknowledged that, it becomes easy to see that, in the Soviet Union, your privilege determined your class. The Soviet Class System (de facto) was not supposed to exist. The government would deny it at any point. This does not change the fact that it was a real entity. I would actually recommend that you would take a two-minute break and watch this video http://youtu.be/UeO44STvnJw?t=2m18s from here to around 4 05. Watched it? Good. This example is one of many. To reiterate, the closer you were to the top of the mighty Soviet ladder, the more privilege that the state handed out to you. This 'trust' that the government bestowed upon its good and loyal citizens quickly materialized into additional meal rations, first place in bread lines, diplomatic immunity, a reputation worthy of fear and respect. These things or their equivalents, to some degree, are determined by your class here in the United States.

To contrast the brutal, unfriendly Soviet 'class' system, we have that of the United States. This class system is, thankfully, very different from the other system. In this system, your class determines your privilege. If you are economically well off, you have the advantages of the society. If you are economically downtrodden, by contrast, then you have very little of those advantages. The biggest difference lies in the fact that there is class movement in the United States. If you, for example, are born into a poor family, you always have the opportunity to improve your standing (and not by condemning your neighbors to work themselves to death in the Gulag). This, of course, was not always the case. Even today, there is still education inequality based on different neighborhoods, states, counties, cities, etc. The opportunities are still there, however. While not perfect, the scholarship system and the military (as stated in a previous blog) provide a means to a higher education to those who cannot afford it. In many cases, scholarships specifically, this aid is designed to address those of less privileged backgrounds. A degree does nothing if it sits on a shelf in one's home, however. This brings us to another couple of issues employment and recession. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm This chart shows that education, pay, and employment are directly related. This being shown, your chances are better when you are educated. Education, as mentioned before, can be attained with enough work (obviously, having parents that can pay for said education is more convenient, but if those who do don't work, then they'll fail eventually). Now, like all economies, that of the US must rise and fall, often unpredictably. Sometimes, it can be near-impossible to get a job. This is when people start to fall in class. Class movement is not always a good thing. In this case, when the economy goes bad, people start to suffer. It is inevitable. When your class falls, so does your privilege. It then becomes easy to feel resentment to those who have more privilege than you.

However, this is not about resentment. This is about inequality. Inequality will always exist in a multicultural society. Period. The United States is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-whatever nation. Bigotry exists among individuals, communities, and most importantly, business executives. What we must understand, however, is that we are not the Soviet Union. We do not deport mass amounts of Tatars from their homes, purposely starve out peoples deemed 'untrustworthy,' or arrest people en-masse because their inherent facial features make them seem 'suspicious'. Something we have done, on the other hand, is provide land set aside for specific ethnic groups. Some feel that ghettos, reservations, etc. are provided to offer safety, community, and whatever other garbage excuse that they can come up with. This is an area that the soviets may have beaten us on. The Soviet Union oversaw the creation of what is known as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (region). This provided safety to Jews across the Soviet Union. Jews who had suffered terrible discrimination (odd considering that the hatred of Jews was a primary attribute of the Soviet's most hated enemy, Nazi Germany). I was kidding, not about the JAO, but about the Soviets beating us at something. While the JAO was a real construction, the Soviets still had no answer for the millions of displaced Poles, Germans, Tartars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc. other than the Gulag, of course. In the creation of reservations and ghettos, the US had dug itself into problems which will take several generations to solve. The fortunate part is that our class system will play the largest part in solving these issues of historically created discrimination. The Soviet system of privilege based class kept the 'untrustworthy' and 'useless' ethnic groups at the bottom simply because the government controlled the class system (as described above). Here, anybody may rise above their background. Will people of minority status experience unfair discrimination? Probably at some point, but hardly ever will such discrimination be enough to keep them forever down. Especially if they really want to move up.

Specifically, the term privilege describes one's class standing by its very definition in relation to the US economic environment. However, privilege, on the internet, refers to one's racial, religious, and sexual background in addition to class. I do not think that this is the proper use of the word. To refer to one's privilege is a statement which is purposed, on the internet, to prove that an individual has had an easier life because of the aforementioned factors. For instance, a white, christian, middle-class, straight, male lives an easier life because of being white, christian,  middle-class, straight, and  male. I believe that this is the case but only because of one of the factors: being middle class. As we have already stated, discrimination will happen. It is unfortunate and inexcusable. However, class can be transcended in the US. Along with class comes wealth. Wealth is the key to all levels of immunity, special treatment, etc. which I despise. It does, however, mean that privilege is anyone's to be earned. I, for one, do not believe that something that someone has earned warrants accusations of privilege based blindness. Furthermore, I believe that it is wrong to discredit one's argument based on something that is a show of hard work and discipline. There are exceptions, however. Two examples strike me the most: those who inherited their wealth (and thus, their privilege) and those who have not yet been cut off from parental dependency. So, if you are arguing with the offspring of a multi-million dollar company owner or an immature middle schooler, high schooler, college student, dropout, etc. then you have a permissible reason for using the internet definition of privilege. I would, however, appreciate it if people didn't utilize the internet definition of privilege. It ignores the work that others have done, it ignores legitimate arguments, it is used as a silly comeback, and it is disrespectful to those who have truly suffered because of privilege immobility and inequality.

---Leonard Nimoy---

I, also being a trekkie, was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Leonard Nimoy. I have watched Star Trek for maybe eight years now, and I have been a massive fan since I first saw the show. Spock was my favorite Star Trek character for maybe five of those years (I started with Scotty and eventually worked my way over to Bones). Spock was simply awesome. His character development over the course of the Original Series and the TOS movis was extremely touching, as an alien from another culture, who had no emotion at all, learned to care for his friends and become more and more human as Star Trek went on. Nobody could have portrayed Spock more perfectly than Leonard Nimoy. However, we must remember Nimoy as the man he was alongside the legend that he created. Leonard Nimoy was, in my opinion, one of the few respectful and good-hearted hollywood types. I despise hollywood and its selfish, over-dramatic, narcissistic tendencies. Leonard Nimoy was the complete opposite of all of those things. He looked out for his co-workers, he kept a cool head, he blew nothing out of proportion, he cared for others, and he was a bastion of decency. The world has lost a great man. Let us not only remember Spock, but let us remember and emulate the traits of human decency and honor that Leonard portrayed through Spock and through his own life. 

We should follow his (and Spock's advice) lets forget our differences on the day to day, because everyone should live long and prosper.

--- Keyboard Woes---

I want to apologize if I left out any "m's," semi-colons, or colons. The keyboard that I use hasn't been functioning properly lately. I can not type any of the above letters or symbols. I have been copy and pasting the m's throughout the post. Thanks for the forgiveness.