[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

I don't believe in the term "working class". Everyone who is not an Investment banker or insurance parasite is "working class". I'm talking about Lower - Middle - and upper middle class.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Capitalism did not overthrow Feudalism simply because the middle class had more money than the feudal lords, it came about because the bourgeois were controlling the economic power through trade more so than the Feudal lords were through taxes and land rights. They held economic power, so they took political power.

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.

DON'T YOU SEE? YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVING THAT CLASS MEANS WEALTH? DON'T YOU SEE?

Actually, never mind. There is no point typing this and there is no point you typing a reply, because you will be completely wrong.

All of these can be attributed to the living standard of the individual. If you're a steel working or a phone receptionist and both are making 40,000 to 70,000 a year.....Your both middle class.

No, your an idiot.

A very small amount of people can be wealthy without any labor organization. You're correct.

A very, very ,very small amount of people can have all the wealth while the laborers with NO representation can continue to have their living standards slashed.

"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.

I can't think for you. You're going to have to be a big boy and do it yourself.

Straight from the VinceZeb school of "Make my argument for me". Max would love you if he were around. You make what sounds to me like a rather outrageous statement, and then when I ask you to back it up you ... you tell me to back it up for you? Why would I?

The moon is made of cheese!

Prove it

YOU PROVE IT! I CAN'T THINK FOR YOU!

Everyone knows that the government always finds ways to manipulate the unemployment figures. I don't know how old you are....probably very young seeing how feckless you are.....but in big boy land the unemployment numbers are always wrong and "discouraged workers" who don't show up anymore to collect their benefits get taken off the lists for unemployment payments.

Common sense. blatant reality. you have the internet. use it.

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.