Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by PachPachis, Feb 20, 2017.
Do you mean that sarcastically?
Well I am actually am anarchist... Anarcho-Communist is my specific tendency
Well that makes two of us.
This certainly is an issue! All I can say is that sometimes we get lucky and find a balance point.
For example, we’re in a small band of hunter-gatherers, several families, 25 total individuals. As older, more mature persons, we watch so that younger people coming into full flower of adulthood don’t lord over others, which usually doesn’t happen to a big extent.
In some societies, the chieftain(s) and priests may have balance each other, luckily.
And in modern society, sometimes neither gov’t nor corporations lord over citizens, sometimes, luckily. I’d first check out the societies of the East Asian Miracle (1960 - present).
The biggest issue is making sure that the "older, more mature persons" don't lord over others. Chieftains and other societies where power is held by seniority are good examples of this.
The Asian tigers are not good examples of societies. The norms created during those economic miracles are what led to the huge systematic issues we see in East Asian countries today.
Also the East Asian miracles saw cooperation between corporations and the government which basically proves my point that society is ruled by the powerful.
In the United States, middle-class Jobs have slowly eroded since the 1970s (40+ years!)
I don’t know if this has happened in South Korea, Taiwan China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc, or most importantly, in the bulk of China.
+ China itself later on. Literally, one of the most important events in the history of the human race.
I’d actually be open to the argument that this is second only to the human race escaping the Toba volcano bottleneck 75,000 years ago. Even with the start of agriculture, we developed it multiple times with multiple independent centers.
Later edit: per special edition of Scientific American, Fall 2019, “The Story of Us,” the bottleneck may have been from 195,000 to 123,000 years ago due to an ice age period (Marine Isotope Stage 6).
So? The prosperity of a country isn't dependent upon how many middle class jobs you have.
I’d say the middle class is a pretty good engine for consumer electronics, health advances, music, literature, plus the auto industry.
And then, even though the middle class is blamed for being “bourgeois,” highly resistant to change, and all-around a stick-in-the-mud, in fact of actual fact, I think the middle class was and is very much involved in many types of social activism. For example, many of the Civil Rights activists in the 1950s and 60s (United States) were middle class in the black community.
I'm pretty sure (besides literature) it's the working class that's making those things. The middle class just consumes them.
That's not my point. My point is that a strong middle class isn't an indicator of prosperity. Case in point: Arab countries.
They aren't prosperous countries, their days are numbered, and even then they have a really big middle class, most of their citizenships in fact, they muddle the water with having most of their working class as foreign working Non citizens, so they appear on "paper" as without middle class
Did you mean proper, or prospering?
prosperous, I edited it
Yeah that's my point: a big middle class doesn't guarantee prosperity.
Also this is only the case for Gulf countries.
They might be necessary but insufficient for sustainable growth.
I'm not entirely sure a class system is necessary at all. And I don't think infinite growth is desirable either.
I embrace different definitions of the middle class and think different ones can help explain facets.
In my universe, during the heyday of the U.S. auto industry + the UAW union, U.S. auto workers were middle class in everything except a narrow definition of a “college oriented” job.
What might you think of this?
The middle class isn't really an income class. The class system is organized on your access to the means of production and thus your ability to exploit collective force.
I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to think of it. I don't know what your definition of middle class is so I don't understand why you called it middle class.
People tend to take vague concepts repeated throughout our lives for granted while having very vague ideas about what they actually mean. This kind of thing obfuscates debate.
That's the Marxist definition of class, the Weberian definition of class is based around income though, if I remember correctly.
It's not entirely Marxist to my knowledge.
The Weber has his own class analysis going on (i.e. three class stratification) which has several factors along with wealth. It's rather unfair to simply characterize it as just stratification by income.
Separate names with a comma.