"SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE"

The connection between global climate disruption and global capitalism is well understood by ecosocialists.

See these websites:

http://systemchangenotclima...

http://climateandcapitalism...

Any hope that we have in dealing with global capitalism all depends on our system of governance. The horizontalists and commoners are doing a good job of building the alternative economy. The question is do we govern ourselves or allow the elected representatives of the capitalists continue to govern for and over us? Do we want as Vandana Shiva says, "Earth democracy" or do we continue with neofascism - the merger of corporate/financial and state power? All power to the workers' councils and general assemblies!

"Workers' councils and general assemblies" are great ideas, and can be found in various concrete examples, such as the renowned Mondragon industrial Co-op complex begun under Franco's fascist government. They were beginning to design an electric car, last I knew. Whether they are conscientiously "Earth-oriented," they have not clearly shown, however. The UK's Co-op bank has been funding numerous environmental initiatives, as have various other European social democratic entities.

Gandhi has taught us the a constructive program is essential to effective political action. One of the greatest limits to progressive politics is the neo-colonial dependence of most people on the "free market" for basics of survival - food, shelter, a right livelihood.. Sadly in our neoliberal democracy our human rights have been "privatized." and our participation in meaningful decision making marginalized.

Also, nice to see this discussion of Graeber's work by Stephenson. I've been curious about him since reading a short bio piece here in Brazil.

Rachel's story seems especially inspired to me because of its connection to the co-operative, community, and solidarity economy examples of economic democracy. I'm sorry that her worker co-op didn't succeed, and it was left at that. Does that angle reflect a self-defeating philosophy internalized by intellectuals? Probably. While a co-op start up will usually face challenges, many have succeeded, like Equal Exchange in Massachussetts, food co-ops all over the country, and credit unions all over the country. Even Kentucky has at least three food co-ops, including one in Lexington, and a variety of credit unions like one in Louisville. The Arizmendi Cheese Shops and Bakeries in California are another group of inspiring social enterprises. Of course, while Climate Change is a popular and important topic, it naturally refers directly back to even more urgent problems, I like to note. As the 2005 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment reported, and the WWF Living Planet Report hold in their bowels, toxic chemicals and other degrading processes are already causing all kinds of acute problems. The WHO doesn't warn pregnant women about mercury levels in tuna for nothing. Of course, Superfund sites don't reflect dangers to only that poster demographic. Thank God I've heard that NYC has several new food co-ops.....

One word refutation:

China.

Not good enough?...

India.

Clear yet?

Every reader of Kropotkin understands that a combination of maximized productivity with minimized production is the way to maximize well-being while minimizing work.

Seen rather shallowly, it is obvious that, work=impact.

So fine, so much for the obvious. The question is how do we get people to actually do this? A question without answer for over a hundred years! And remember, it is not just pampered USA Empire "Occupiers" who must be convinced, but the majority or something more globally, including India, including China.

Questions first! Most definitely! Socrates would back this up all the way. Ask the right questions.

The answer depends on who the WE defines. We, the citizens, would do OTHER than what, "we" the elites are doing. Important to make THAT distinction since it's the pivot that policy rests upon.

We don't have a shot at less than 2 degrees because we have already put up the carbon that will result in more than that and all of the climate scientists know it. Likewise we are never going to get back to 350 ppm unless we figure out some method of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and we probably aren't going to accomplish that in the necessary time frame either. I'm afraid that all of these types of proposals are akin to closing the barn door after the horses have all escaped. Nothing wrong with trying though.

Photosynthetic plants.

There. Figured out your carbon removal problem.

What was the next question?

Nonsense. Reforestation and land-use improvements have the potential to reclaim 100 gigatons of carbon (according to Hansen). That's less than a fifth of anthropogenic carbon emissions to date. The biosphere is not a bottomless pit which can magically absorb all our garbage. Digging up geologic reservoirs of carbon, hundreds of millions of years old, and dumping it into the atmosphere is fundamentally irreversible.

Aleph Null, it is one thing to highlight the importance of capping the burning of fossil fuels, but let's not inadvertently detract from the equally important task of drawing down the atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis, no matter the estimated upper limit of 100 Gt. Because without this part of the solution, capping alone is still not going to be enough. Both are politically difficult -- so there's no point downplaying the importance of one part, even inadvertently.

What I'm saying is that in the heat of an argument, we could sometimes give the wrong idea that something is either not important or not workable. And in the case of carbon sequestration by photosynthesis, it is dangerous to give such impression, even inadvertently.

It might take some extra typing to differentiate between geological carbon and surface carbon. But whatever the upper limit in sequestration, we need to go for max! Either that or disaster or some crazy geo-engineering projects pushed through! But I'm all for pointing out that this is a slow process, but an absolutely necessary thing.

Even to push for maximum photosynthetic carbon draw down, a whole lot of land is going to be needed, and that would be a whole 'nother struggle involving large landowners. So it's just a request to keep the context in mind. I know Matthew Heins's post was somewhat simplistic and makes it real hard to respond to. On the other hand, I do not want to diminish the importance of pushing for maximum possible land-based carbon sequestration.

It is not downplaying reforestation and land-use strategies to present the firm fact that their potential reduction is only one fifth of cumulative emissions. Cumulative carbon from deforestation is estimated at 100 gigatons. So Hansen's projection that just as much can be reclaimed is actually quite ambitious - if it were reforestation alone, it would mean replanting all the forests mankind has ever cleared.

Of course it's vital to do everything possible, especially stopping carbon emissions immediately. The quite popular delusion that excess carbon in surface reservoirs can be entirely solved by planting trees, mulching fields and grasslands, fertilizing the ocean, or any combination of the three is part of a mass psychosis which keeps the status quo in place. Many or most people think they can put off worrying about carbon emissions, because somebody is just about to devise a brilliant, painless fix. Ain't gonna happen, folks.

I think certain numbers need to be hammered home in a way that makes sense to most people -- such as your post above http://www.commondreams.org.... The general information out there so far that non-specialists can access could use some improvement in the messaging style.

Most ideologues talk about fighting the phantom of "capitalism" while completely neglecting the more tangible areas that can be targeted for boycotting and banning. People can easily start with high carbon-footprint activities such as the Olympics and other mega sporting events, which also happen to be an integral part of the empire. The complete reluctance and silence over targeting tangible, carbon-intensive parts of the system makes me suspect the seriousness and the real motives of those who merely talk about some nebulous "system".

Mega sporting events are only one example. There are lots of carbon-intensive activities and consumption that can be easily targeted for boycotting and banning.

I also do not understand the refusal of the people to consider the electoral option seriously, and not just in the USA. What is stopping the people from voting for a Green Party, for example? Implementing a cap on emissions, such as through a global treaty on GHG emissions, is going to require politicians committed to such a thing. And without a cap on emissions, all other talk is only that -- just talk! So instead of talking about some vague "systemic change" which most people cannot wrap their heads around, it is better to push for change using the options available and accessible right now.

There is no main switch for "the system". But there are multiple switches for various loads, and these need to be turned off one by one. I seriously suspect the motives of people who would ignore tangible areas of action while posturing and grandstanding about a "systemic change".

This is a strong argument, and I agree to the utmost. While I like to unearth the green initiatives at these mega events, like the World Series, Superbowl, and World Cup also, the US has two kinds of social enterprises that are not uncommon: food co-ops and credit unions. At least one NYC food co-op buys 100% green power. A Mass enterprise, Co-op Power, is using the Danish-German locally ownership method also being picked up in the UK, France, and now Spain. Then there are the purchasing options- farmers' markets, and certifications like organic and Fair Trade. Even the corp's have to follow certain rules to get certified.

Thanks, even though I was harping on just one thing: why don't people support specific actions that would also work towards bringing about a more comprehensive change down the road? These specific actions could be by way of boycotting, banning and shutting down destructive and completely non-essential activities, and also the setting up, expanding, or supporting more sustainable alternatives -- of the kind that you have mentioned.

Speaking of sustainability, here too people could be working for some specific things that would have multiplier effects all around, and would also be in effect bring major changes in the current system. Please check out a recent comment of mine (warning: it's long :)
http://www.commondreams.org...

True, the biosphere is not a pit for garbage.

But carbon is not "garbage" to carbon-based life.

And "reforestation and land use improvements" is only a fraction of what can be done. Not all plants are trees. Plus the idea of some fixed amount of carbon the biosphere can absorb is just silly. Obviously the capacity changes and can be more or less than now. A warmer climate would point to more if nature was left to take its course.

My point was merely that just because implementation methods have not been agreed upon does not mean that the "solution" to the 'problem" of increased carbon in the cycle has been not only not known all along, but will furthermore not come about regardless of us. (clear? ;) )

The OP was near to the key heretical realization that an understanding and adaptation to the climate and "stopping climate change" are not the same thing at all, so I thought I'd take that last step for him.

If Matthew has known "all along" the solution to increased carbon in surface reservoirs, he should let somebody know. Certainly no such solution is known to science.

It is preposterous to suppose that limits (such as the biosphere's capacity to absorb carbon) do not exist, anywhere in Nature. The only serious question is how large that capacity is. For the answer to that question, readers can decide who is more credible: James Hansen or Matthew.

Reforestation is properly thought of an essential amelioration of the carbon problem, not a complete solution. To blithely assert the latter, on no scientific basis, is to harmfully minimize the scale of the climate crisis. Just what the fossil fuel propagandists ordered: this is no big deal, they'll tell you, we can just plant some trees and fix this in no time.

>>"Plus the idea of some fixed amount of carbon the biosphere can absorb is just silly."<<

What makes you say that? In the time scale that is relevant to humans (100s of years), the biosphere can only absorb a certain MAXIMUM amount of carbon.

One freshly planted tree can take anywhere from 25 years to up to 100 years to absorb just 1 ton of carbon (net basis), depending on the tree and the location. Read that again.

We will still have to rely on photosynthesis by plants and trees, but it is a slow process. And it requires the stopping of any further deforestation. And the setting aside of a whole lot of land. And that means, stopping livestock operations -- which currently occupy 45% of the land area of the entire planet!

You sound like a sincere guy, but keep in mind that we all have to continue learning.
http://www.commondreams.org...

The bogus idea of "carbon offsets" stems from misconceptions about reforestation. Well-intentioned people are hoodwinked into thinking they can atone for their carbon sins by paying someone to plant trees.

An accurate accounting reveals that the only carbon emissions which can be offset by reforestation are the ones which came from deforestation. The damage inflicted by burning fossil fuels is irreparable on human timescales.

The natural process which eventually removes carbon from surface reservoirs - called rock weathering - takes millions of years.

And yet, people do fail to make the connection, somehow. Look at the leadership of 350dot - how many of those folks recognize that ecological depredation is an inevitable consequence of corporate domination? (By my count: zero.)

Or look at OWS. In my experience, I heard ecological awareness voiced very seldom at OWS events. Some people writing about OWS, like Naomi Klein, tried to gently nudge them in that direction, with scant success.

I'll hazard an educated guess, and it will involve a number of analogies.

First of all, people ARE specialists. The average Cardiologist is no specialist on the stomach.

Few musicians are necessarily good auto mechanics, and so forth.

Second, there are so many fronts in the corporate war ON life that people tend to focalize their actions and strategies.

One group may focus on Gen-tech "food," and another group, on coal's ruthless mountain top removal. Another group may make its focus the safety of seafood coming out of the Gulf of Mexico while another checks the safety of fish in the Pacific. (Should I list all the places where corporations threaten life in its myriad forms?)

There are so many fronts in this battle that instead of asking yourself why people are FORCED to streamline their interests (which essentially suggests there is a flaw in persons), look instead at the magnitude of what IS being faced!

I remember borrowing a friend's bicycle out in California. I wondered if I could bike from the town of Ojai out to Lake Casitas. It was such a breeze that a day or so later I left earlier with the intention of biking further.

There are some BIG mountains between Ojai and Santa Barbara, but what I learned was that if I looked at my FEET as I pedaled, rather than at the magnitude of the mountain before me, I rather effortlessly got to the top. It was an amazingly liberating revelation! I felt so empowered and NOT out of breath, either!

The analogy is that we humans can only do so much. Far better to take step after step than think we can take on the whole mountain. And that's why people specialize.

You can stand back as an intellectual and connect the dots, but those on the front lines cannot BE on the front lines of numerous simultaneous battles all at once.

It's tiring to always see critique leveled at the very persons trying the hardest to change a system that uses its muscles and fiscal power to resist the changes that are not only needed, they are moral necessities.

Maybe you'll keep my biking analogy in mind... it offers a worthwhile perspective and a visual offset to all the critiquing which is drawn to a high art on this site. Daily.

Well-stated and useful analogies, Siouxrose. I might add that even though people might have developed specializations that help in taking on a particular part of the dysfunctioning system, the efforts of all are greatly enhanced when all people and groups appreciate and support one another, rather than trying to force all efforts into one silo, discredit others on the same team, or worse, actively work to tear them down.

For that matter, the cultural concept of an environmental movement (as if advocating a habitable planet were a special interest) is incomprehensible.

Hannah Arendt speaks to this, I think, in her classic The Banality of Evil. People have a habit of arbitrarily segmenting themselves and the world. The evil motivating Eichmann to atrocities, according to Arendt, was nothing remarkable. He was just doing his job, and incapable of thinking about it - his job was one thing, being human was another thing.

Another analogy is multiple-personality disorder, where the psyche erects a defense against insufferable abuse by splitting off into separate people in the same body.

In other words, I'd say the modern incapacity to make such rudimentary connections is a form of mental illness.

This analogy is misused in seeking a way to blemish the motives of sincere Environmentalists. See my comment on the NEED for specialization.

Invoking Hannah Arendt indeed... Considering the "banal" : Is the on-line entity 'Aleph Null' an individual , itself with "multiple-personality disorder" who professes to have insight into psychopathy and "mental illness" one whose "psyche erects a defense against insufferable abuse by splitting off into separate people in the same body" ; OR: a psy-ops agent. Some, in the 'environmental movement' might be interested.

I'm always flattered by the attentions of DHS troll Buffalo Bugger Bill, who devotedly follows me around with such inanities.

But I'm dismayed they haven't found a better quality troll to harass me. Is there an application I can fill out to request an upgrade?

"Troll" that I am , I can't help noticing that > You now , are the 'self-anointed' science-'expert'-skeptic ( also in human psychology ) on this web-site, AND a consistent taunter of those who doubt the 'Official Story' of what transpired on September 11, 2001.> Yet you can't seem to credibly address the fact that David Chandler, a high-school physics teacher forced the N.I.S.T. to
concede that the top 6 floors of W.T.C. Bldg.7 dropped at FREE-FALL ACCELERATION for 2.25 seconds. Meaning there was no resistance below
them = demolition. Explain that Exalted Science 'skeptic'. Yep, It's yet again another "Truther Attack" upon your noble entity... Others look here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Right.

During the 19th century, the environmental crisis
then was in agriculture – the loss of soil fertility with the spread of capitalist agribusiness. Soil fertility is a product of natural and human history. Productive soil can be made unproductive and visa versa. Capitalism operates like locusts: it exploits a resource until it is used up and then
moves on. What Marx noted was that capitalism created a “rift” between the metabolism of humanity and the natural world. Instead of human (and animal) manure being used to replenish the soil, capitalism concentrated working people in cities where that vital resource became a toxic waste and farmland became depleted. Scholar John Bellamy Foster has clearly shown that Marx’s concept of the metabolic rift is far more powerful than the most advanced notions of environmentalism coming from left liberals or even other
radical traditions (thus overturning the erroneous idea that Marx was anti-ecological).

Just like lions and ants are part of a healthy metabolism of
an ecosystem (or not) so too humans once were, not only part of, but were crucial contributors to, a healthy - and truly sustainable - environment. That’s where we need to go now.

(If this becomes a double post, it's because the comment was "awaiting moderation" because I included a link to Monthly Review.)

While it's a good question, it's not so strange in terms of modern educational worldviews. We don't generally study things "holistically." One approach in this direction is called General Semantics, founded by a guy named Korzybski. Words and scientific analysis have begun by labeling and analyzing differences. I went to a good school where I lived in a co-op dorm, then worked in a local activist non-profit where I learned about Greenpeace. Amnesty International also came to my attention. I supported both of them and other groups, then worked in social services before I learned about a food co-op in New York City. Years passed before I realized that in a food co-op, I was a "co-owner." William Greider at last wrote The Soul of Capitalism, which I finally read, along with other efforts that helped me understand the co-operative business model. It's all Piaget, Skinner, and Francis Bacon, and then having a post-Howard Gardner/neo-Gandhi experience of awakening. It's often not automatic.

Right.

During the 19th century, the environmental crisis
then was in agriculture – the loss of soil fertility with the spread of capitalist agribusiness. Soil fertility is a product of natural and human history. Productive soil can be made unproductive and visa versa. Capitalism operates like locusts: it exploits a resource until it is used up and then moves on. What Marx noted was that capitalism created a “rift” between the metabolism of humanity and the natural world. Instead of human (and animal) manure being used to replenish the soil, capitalism concentrated working people in cities where that vital resource became a toxic waste and farmland became depleted. Scholar John Bellamy Foster has clearly shown that Marx’s concept of the metabolic rift is far more powerful than the most advanced notions of environmentalism coming from left liberals or even other
radical traditions (thus overturning the erroneous idea that Marx was anti-ecological).

Just like lions and ants are part of a healthy metabolism of
an ecosystem (or not) so too humans once were, not only part of, but were crucial contributors to, a healthy environment. That’s where we need to go now.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview...

With respect to Jevons, it's vital to avoid conflating energy efficiency with energy frugality. Jevons' Paradox applies solely to the former.

Even the effect of energy efficiency, in the context of perpetual economic growth, is fundamentally impossible to untangle from the effect of economic growth. Economic analysis can only look at real world examples (or models based thereon), where there's no zero-growth control global economy to examine.

As a thought experiment, imagine that someone invented an airplane which doubles energy efficiency. Jevons' Paradox applies to this case. Since fuel is a major expense for airlines, they could cut their ticket prices enough to stimulate more air travel. Even in this extreme case, however, there probably would not be greater than 100% rebound - called backfire - at the microeconomic level.

In contrast, imagine that people started doing without air travel - this is energy frugality, cutting back on energy consumption in a manner which does not feed economic growth. A rebound (again, falling short of 100%) is conceivable in this case on the macroeconomic level - less demand here leading to more demand elsewhere. But that's because of global economic growth (which frugality does not compound), not because of Jevons' Paradox.

If a mass movement campaigned to boycott air travel, that would not be individualism. Your dogmatic aversion to anything resembling an individual choice risks undermining the power of people to band together and make decisions outside the constraints of formal political structures. Something you condemn as individualism might turn out to be an initial step toward revolution. Maybe you're not looking for an excuse to justify your own inaction, but that's the tenor of your argument.

You don't seem like one of those technophiles who thinks alternative energy can replace the energy wealth derived from fossil fuels. Alternative energy can cushion the blow, but climatologists Anderson & Bows don't see any viable alternative to energy austerity - drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and overall energy consumption, throughout the developed world. Whether frugality is imposed top-down, bottom-up, or a combination of the two, there's no question that another decade or two of business as usual will doom the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets, with unforeseeable consequences.

The technical point is that Jevons' observation about efficiency was never intended to apply to frugality. Fossil fuel propagandists like Lomborg are behind the delusion that cutting back on consumption is counter-productive, because it results in more consumption. This is lunacy. You might as well say that leaving your tap running all day is a good way to save water.

Kevin Anderson puts it quite bluntly:

In the short term, the only way we can get our emissions down is to actually reduce the level of energy we consume.

His last two papers make clear that by "we" he specifically means "we in the developed world" who are responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions. The people you denigrate as "US middle class" are precisely the ones who need to understand that without solidarity for poor people around the world, the ones who use the least carbon but who will suffer the most immediate effects, we're all done for.

Power is gained when it is exercised. Nothing is "left out of the mix" when people take effective action.

Oh, I get it... to deflect attention from the REAL deciders--the 1% and their corporate lawyers, lobbyists, and PR persons--you need to redraw the battle lines to make it LOOK like the Middle Class is the entity that doesn't give a shit about the poor.

Funny how this line of reasoning (if it could be called that) is coming out of Atomsk & Tom Carberry, and now you and Two Americas are volleying it around (even if you've taken on the "adversarial" position).

As if the Middle Class is the one defining the nation's policies... the policies that allow banksters to walk away with trillions while turning the other cheek when the MIC loses trillions either on the illegitimate wars themselves, or via the missing palettes of paper money (so useful for black-ops, and such).

As if it's the Middle Class looking for ways to cut Social Security and "entitlements," or the Middle Class that resists raising the minimum wage.

So your ode to Solidarity is a veiled attempt at laying blame on the Middle Class for the covert operations of elites; a means of hiding THEIR deregulatory strategies that all worked to cripple government, dissemble the checks and balances, and turn the U.S. into a 3rd world ecologically battered swamp.

Blame the Middle Class while asking for Solidarity.

Who writes these scripts?

Souix: there's a fictional "middle class" and then there's a real one. The fictional one, used by corporate media, has the working poor to everybody short of Warren Buffet in the middle class - it's meaningless. The real middle class represents approximately the top 20% of income earners. These people "benefit" from the system even if they work for someone else. They are also the target of ( and creators of) most of the ideological support for the system. That still leaves (at least) 80% of the population who are being hammered by it.

Tom, The "Middle Class" is an artificial construct brought about by the 'New Deal' and would not naturally exist within Capitalism.

Sorry, Tom. This argument is just like those used to first damn liberals and now Progressives.

EVERYONE sees the Middle Class as people who go to work. It defines anyone who doesn't make more than about $100,000 a year or perhaps $150,000 for a couple.

The U.S. is mostly middle class; however, with the downward push of income exerted through programs like NAFTA (which acted to export good jobs), more and more people are now in what might be termed the Lower middle class.

If you want to set up a designation for the nouveau riche or bourgeoisie, and define that as couples with incomes over $150,000 (maybe the bar should be set higher?)... then I'd say 20% are THERE and that 20% (lawyers, top athletes, doctors, shrinks, successful real estate brokers, business owners) perhaps reinforce the policies of the 1%.

But all this loose talk about "the Middle Class" is scary. Fifteen years ago I had a discussion with a brilliant academic out in Ojai and he saw the DESTRUCTION of the Middle Class as the elites' game plan.

YOU and your allegedly Socialist forum pals once again are DOING the Right's work for it.

I find this overlap consistent on this site.

The topics alter, but the sentiment remains the same.

Here's what it says to me:

EMBEDDED!

INFILTRATION!

TROJAN HORSES... abound here!

And the real hilarity of it all is that for all the talk of Solidarity... each day a new "enemy" is added to the Hit List.

Do you clowns laugh at yourselves, or is it just "following orders"?

Started to respond to a post by you on another article Siouxrose but "saw this" (more name calling) as all it would probably lead to.

So, went away, came back, and there you were below this article---doing just that, with another poster.

I naively thought that "maybe" you'd ease up on the condescending name calling after John Tredrea "rightly" criticized it last weekend.

But I obviously thought wrong.

What a shame.

So...enjoy your arguments Siouxrose, believe I'll go elsewhere.

I wish you would since you've taken it as your business to stalk me here for years.

It's pretty hilarious the way you Miss Manners boys try to shame a THINKER into going along with your memes by attempting to turn the EXCELLENT challenges that she raises into the illusion of an attack on another poster.

However, when YOU and your pals attack me, that is never noticed.

The double-standard is repugnant. And as you well know, documented fully on my end.

A time of accounting will come when chumps who worked together in attempts to control "open" conversations, and used shaming devices to silence dissenters will be exposed for their cowardice, their cheap shots, their massive use of deception, and their basic attacks on Civil Liberties.

See ya then!

Check. You believe in the corporate media's version of the "middle class." You have no idea how inconsistent your analysis is: on some issues great, on others, almost reactionary. And when people patiently and respectfully point them out, you react with venom.

I grew up with a concept of the Middle Class and it was families like my own. It was suburbia.

Just as the media and people like your pals have worked to diligently discredit Progressives and Liberals, now they are taking aim at the Middle Class.

The loose use of language is fueling massive deception. Tying my HONEST and ACCURATE challenges to your group's Talking Points is hardly venom. Nice try.

If you WANT venom, that can be arranged.

It is pretty hard to make clear definitions or draw clean distinctions between what is middle class, lower class, upper class. It used to be that people who worked and could get by paycheck to paycheck, but who were not moving "up" the lower middle class. I would say that, as a rule, as one moves up the middle class income scale, the more people are comfortable with their existence, the more self-interested they become, and the less likely they are to want to rock the system boat. I wouldn't lump everyone in the middle class together with similar interests or similar actions.

True enough though that more and more in the middle class are being pushing down lower and lower. As a consequence, more and more of them are recognizing the broken system.