[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

In society there are usually classes. There is a bottom rung low class, sometimes a middle class, and an upper or ruling class. Depending on the socio-economic structure of the society in question, these classes can represent several different groups and their relation to the economy.

Didn't i just say this in my last post? Seems like everyone here loves to agree with me but they change the words around a little to make it sound different. What's the problem with just saying....."yes, that's how classes work".

During Feudal times, there was an aristocratic ruling class, a middle merchant class, and a peasant class. The revolutions in the past centuries that led to a switch in ruling power also caused a switch in economic power, in fact, the two go hand in hand; the middle merchant class, the bourgeoisie, became the ruling class, and the lower peasant class mostly became the working class.

LOL, Zhukov,

you've been reading the wrong books buddy. Nothing has changed. The "revolution" as you put it didn't change anything. There are numbers sub classes but the two main classes are this

There is a ruling Oligarchy

and then there is you


Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers. Maybe I should've been a bit more clear but I didn't think this would drag on for so long.

Eitherway. Your wrong. Whoever told you that pile of garbage that you just typed out is absolutely wrong. Research Oligarchy.

The birth of capitalist society also led to the creation of a new middle class, the petite bourgeois, of smaller capitalists that purchase labour from the working class, but do not own the means of production like the ruling capitalist class do.

When and where are you speaking of? It would be nice to know which countries history you are speaking about because all of them have different stories behind them.

There has always been a small battle between labor and employers and on a bigger scale there has always been a battle between the Oligarchy and the people.

Everything else is a sub-category.

We attribute class to the relation one has to the economy rather than simply how much wealth they have because these terms mean something from an economic, and also historic, point of view. You do not see "the rich" being in power, or "the poor" being the base of a revolution for this reason, even though the rich may be part of the ruling class, and the poor may be part of the lower class. This is too simple, as the economy is the main structure of the society, rather than 'having money', and economic developments do not and have not come about from 'having money', rather, they come about through the interests of one class clashing with another.

Are you kidding me? Who has more sway in government affairs? Weathly financiers or dirt farming peasants? Where the hell did you get this information from?

Every time you say "relation with the economy" you agree with me. That's all. Please acknowledge this.

If class simply meant wealth, then why would the word 'class' even be used? Why 'middle class' when we could just say 'middle wealthy'? Why would there be low, middle and upper class, when there are people that are more wealthy than low but not middle? Lower middle? Upper middle? Upper upper middle? I could go on.

If you can't understand the relation to wealth, economy, and natural resources to the class one holds in a society then I don't know what to tell you.

"A small amount of people" outside of a union still means your "middle class" exists. But this is idiotic to argue since you don't even know what you are talking about. By the way, I'm not part of a union and I live quite well.

There are some people outside of unions that hold a middle class income yes, but a healthy economy needs labor organizations because the corporate oligarchical structure will always seek to lower standards of living, quality of life, and the destruction of old age pensions.

I do know that official unemployment figures are only related to a certain percentage of people. You said that we should double the official percentages, so, we double the official percentages of the mid thirties and we get 50%, higher than your post-doubled percentage of 25%. Much higher.

5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.