Pietro Ingrao Quotes

You may be the most liberal, Liberal Englishman, and yet you cannot fail to see the categorical difference between the responsible and the irresponsible classes.

The Sixties was a time of breaking down class barriers, although I think class still exists today in some areas.

The one class you do not belong to and are not proud of at all is the lower-middle class. No one ever describes himself as belonging to the lower-middle class.

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them.... In every country these two parties exist.... Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same party still and pursue the same object.

The class struggle does not permit supporting any governmental initiative or sharing in political power.

Democrats don't relate to middle-class people.

Everything is about class in England, whether it's upper, lower or middle. Why should that be?

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.

The working class of England today have no vision of society beyond the acquisitive - no version of themselves or their habits as anything other than transitional, on their way up or on their way out. The working class, at best, is a waiting room for people who aim to become middle class if possible.

We don't have a lot of class-conscious filmmaking.

We're seeing quite a lot of people who really would like a return to class-based politics.

In all my novels, a sense of place - not just geographic but social - is a critical element. I have always been drawn to the novels of Edith Wharton, among others, where social dynamics are crucial. Wharton's class consciousness fascinates me, and some of the tension in my books stems from that.

My friends Sir Roger de Coverly and Sir Andrew Freeport are of different principles, the first of them inclined to the landed and the other to the moneyed interest.

History by no means guarantees in advance that the broad strata of the Negro population, holding varied and confused views, many dominated by ideas alien to the class-conscious proletariat will fall into the organization of the Communist movement.

The disagreement among American political parties, with only a few exceptions, has been over the practical question of how to secure the agreed objective, while conciliating different interests, rather than over ultimate values or over what interest is paramount.

Today, our party is small and the parties of the capitalists are large and strong, but the day will surely come when the Communist Party will be the only party in the United States.

But the most common and durable source of faction [political parties] has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.

Actually I vote Labour, but my butler's a Tory.

The Communist Party and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same in some ways ... To stay in power you've got to give people a good life and improve the economy.

The division of society into estates or castes means in effect that conceptually and organizationally these ‘natural’ forms are established without their economic basis ever becoming conscious

The political tendencies of the various social classes are based on a correct practical instinct.

The complex origins of class cleavage in politics are not easily unraveled

The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don’t acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead.

In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement.

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists