Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator
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".
|
NO! NO you didn't just say that in your last post. Are you serious? What the fuck? You said class was determined by wealth, and I said that class is determined by ones relation to the economy, as in, ones standing in society. Are you a wage labourer or an employer? Are you a small business owner or are you a major share holder in a world wide mining corporation? These are the thing that affect what class you can be considered part of, not how much money you have.
Quote:
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
|
The... I am having trouble getting my head around this level of ignorance... the various revolutions (plural) of the last few centuries haven't changed anything in your point of view? I mean, I would say that it all certainly seems to be of a similar looking structure; top, bottom classes etc, but to say that things haven't changed as far as man's relation to society... ok, I understand now. See, if you foolishly believe that class is determined by wealth, then you would see nothing wrong with this point of view. Unfortunately, every single social scientist, economist and historian on the planet disagrees with you because you are wrong.
You wont see any difference between the oligarchs of ancient slave societies based on agriculture, or the "Oligarchs" of modern capitalist society based on industry because you are a moron.
There are the thinking, intelligent, often humuorous but usually on the ball members of this forum.
And then there is you.
Quote:
|
Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers.
|
DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is? This is just a nothing term from you that sounds mildly imposing. What does it mean when the "Oligarchical Financiers" are ruling the middle class? Please tell.
Quote:
|
Eitherway. Your wrong. Whoever told you that pile of garbage that you just typed out is absolutely wrong. Research Oligarchy.
|
Research
Bumbag
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm talking about the world. I think you will find that, although all different, a basic structure of economic development can be seen throughout the history of mans various civilisations. Obviously you would not see any "different stories behind them" because you don't think anything has actually changed.
Quote:
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.
|
No. There hasn't always been a small battle between labour and employers because their relation to the economy and society is a strictly capitalistic one, a recent thing by human standards of history. You utter, utter twit.
Quote:
|
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
|
?
What? When did I say anything about peasants having more political power than "wealthy financiers"? I honestly have no idea what you read in what I typed. You are insane.
Quote:
|
Every time you say "relation with the economy" you agree with me. That's all. Please acknowledge this.
|
Wealth does not mean your relation to the economy. The way you affect (not effect) the economy is your relation to it, not the amount of money you have. A person working in a factory relates to the economy as seller of labour and a producer of goods. This is how you define class, not how much money the person has.
Quote:
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.
|
Uh, this sounds suspiciously like you are stealing my words and throwing them back at me, but using them incorrectly. You've also gone from saying that wealth determines class, to wealth AND 'economy'... I'm also guessing you mean economic standing, because people don't actually own economies, they simply are part of them.
(I'll leave out "natural resources" because that is embarrassing. Oh, wait, do you mean the ownership of the means of production? The ownership of a nation's oil reserves, for example? Suddenly you have gone from "$70k a year means upper class"... to "$70k a year and owning the means of capital" which sounds like you sliding down the slippery slope of I 'was wrong but wont admit it while slowly changing my opinion')
Quote:
|
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.
|
You said that without unions there is no middle class. You also alluded to the fact that unions are something that we will see less of now that there are Death Panels here to genocide them into oblivion, does that mean that your middle class will disappear?
Quote:
|
5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.
|
Uh, the difference between 25 and 50 is more than 5... It's actually 25. You know, I googled Detroit Unemployment rate, and the first hit was from the huffington post
Anyway, let's say we raise the figures of Detroit's unemployment rate to 50%, this still does not equal a worldwide depression, does it?
Hybrid Mode
