[color=red]whiteness exists. like i said, it is a social construct, but it does exist. ignoring it doesnt make it go away.</font color=red>
<br>Incorrect. Exactly wrong. As a social construct ignoring "whiteness" or "race" does make it not exist except as history [pun obviously intended...]. And you still failed to define what a "middle" class is. An ill-explained *example* fails to address my "confusion" [as you put it] in any way. So, I'll reiterate...What in hell is the middle of class? Middle working class? Economic relativity, right? Mean, mode or median economic power? I guess "middle" can be a testable variable if you meant relative economic power of the only two classes in existance, but you didn't specify. So, do you mean, minimally-compansated dominated class, or middle-income dominating class? Do you say there's a upper-working class and a lower-working class, and inversely, a upper ruling class, and a lower ruling class? Why is that significant enough to discuss? Since there is no grey area in the relationship of those 'doing' and those getting done [class relations], I don't understand the implications of your use of the word 'middle' in relation to the two classes. Obviously, there isn't such a thing as a "middle"-income ruling-class anarchist. The notion is as ridiculous as an anarcho-capitalist or a national-anarchist any more than there could be a lower- or higher-income ruling-class anarchist. And, again, why do you feel there *is* a prejudice against "middle"-income working class anarchists and not upper-income working-class anarchists? That, also, is ridiculous. Are you stupid, lazy, a counter-operative or just repeating a buzz-word you never bothered to consider critically for the sake of consuming time from your boring life, and consequently, our lives also? And again, just to rereiterate, just what the fuck do you mean by "middle"?