correlation between the size of the middle class and opinion toward capitalism?

[Lowtech]

The reason I ask is because, I theorized that the larger the "middle class" and or "petit bourgeoisie" the less aware the working class is as a whole that they are unessicarrily exploited.

Are there historical examples of stark imbalance of wealth directly leading to the working classes revolting?

And if so, does this also support the theory that modern capitalism was the result of the working class attempting to overthrow fuedalism yet not fully removing the true cause of exploitation, leading to simply a diferent kind of subjugation of the many by the few?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

The answer to this is so obvious that I'm almost disgusted. The less people suffer, the less they will sacrifice for a change.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The answer to this is so obvious that I'm almost disgusted. The less people suffer, the less they will sacrifice for a change.Not necessarily. Otherwise Haiti would be having open revolution now and Egypt and Tunisia would have been the last places to have uprisings in North Africa.

Suffering people will often cling even harder to the scraps they have. I think people will sacrifice for change if and when they believe it's possible and worth it. That's why revolutions come in surges, in my opinion: the ball begins rolling, or there is intense crisis, and people realize that they might have a chance at something different. But then once people begin thinking that the barricades won't hold and that they'll have to figure out how to get work again, how to pay rent again, then they will begin to retreat.


The reason I ask is because, I theorized that the larger the "middle class" and or "petit bourgeoisie" the less aware the working class is as a whole that they are unnecessarily exploited.I think there's some truth to this although I don't think it's necessarily the size of the middle class. The petit bourgeoisie was larger than the proletariat in the early years of industrialization but there were also very sharp proletarian uprisings in this time.

I do think though that the ability of the ruling class to present the petit-bourgoise as the "norm" or "natural" population does help make workers feel more isolated. This happens culturally because most novelists and artists have a petit-bourgoise relationship to their artistic production and so you see tons of novels and movies where the protagonists are upper-middle class professionals. This makes people who don't fit into that feel like they are lacking and marginal.

Maybe I'm off base here, but there must be something going on considering how the US emphasizes the myth that "we're all middle-class" and in Australia there is an analogous myth that everyone is working class and so there are no class problems like Europe.


Are there historical examples of stark imbalance of wealth directly leading to the working classes revolting?Sure, many uprisings have began as bread riots. In the US the urban riots in the 1960s were recognized in official government documents as being partially the result of housing grievances and inequality.

But inequality doesn't automatically mean that there will be a revolt, let alone that those doing the revolting have a desire or possibility to actually revolutionize society and take control themselves.


And if so, does this also support the theory that modern capitalism was the result of the working class attempting to overthrow fuedalism yet not fully removing the true cause of exploitation, leading to simply a diferent kind of subjugation of the many by the few? I don't know about that. The working class (as a major force capable of taking over society) was largely created after these revolutions - at least the ones before 1848.

The plebeians and artisans and "sans-culottes" (SP?) MADE the revolutions possible, but ideologically and organizationally, it was still bourgeois sections of society who took the lead and could offer a different way of organizing society. But that way of organizing society still involved exploitation, it was just more indirect than the exploitation of the feudal era.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

When we analyze latin America we need to remember that the U.S has put down pretty much every attempt at meaningful change. It has gotten to the point that i'm starting to believe that the rise of the drug cartel and general apathy was caused by the extreme decay of a system not allowed to die.

[cynicles]

Not necessarily. Otherwise Haiti would be having open revolution now and Egypt and Tunisia would have been the last places to have uprisings in North Africa.

Egypt huh?

[Lowtech]

The answer to this is so obvious that I'm almost disgusted. The less people suffer, the less they will sacrifice for a change.

I appreciate your comment. People suffer in the form of exploitation that is experienced both in a tangible sense (poverty, working poor) and mathematically (artificial scarcity).

"income inequality" or "concentration of wealth," essentially; 20% of the population retaining 80% of value cannot occur without artificial scarcity.

seeming to suffer less than you could under poverty etc. does not change the fact they are exploited. And no economic practicality exists for exploitation. Especially none for the magnitude observed today.

[Lowtech]

The plebeians and artisans and "sans-culottes" (SP?) MADE the revolutions possible, but ideologically and organizationally, it was still bourgeois sections of society who took the lead and could offer a different way of organizing society. But that way of organizing society still involved exploitation, it was just more indirect than the exploitation of the feudal era.

great response, I need more time to read it all. I wanted to mention however, although organization provided by capitalists appears structurally diferent to that of fuedalism, it acomplishes the same goal and still, to the contrary of what they would have you believe, is not a practical hierarchy.

There is no economic validation for totalitarian structures (businesses) designed to retain value (profit oriented).

[MarxSchmarx]

I was curious about this an looked up the following numbers from a few countries based on Pew's research poll.

It's a very crude snapshot, but here's what it is:

Country %supporting capitalism Fraction in middle class
Russia 47 0.3
Japan 38 .9 (self reported, also dated)
UK 61 .71 (self reported)
Pakistan 48 .11
Lebanon 62 ??
Poland 53 ??
Spain 47 0.5?
Mexico 34 .3
Egypt 50 .3?
USA 67 .47
Germany 69 0.54
Brazil 75 0.53
China 72 0.10
The fraction of middle class residents is based on the first number that seemed legit when doing a google search for country_name + middle class percentage. A single question mark represents a number I don't know if it's really sound or current, a double question mark means I couldn't find any numbers.

Over all there doesn't seem to be much of a link between the size of the middle class and capitalism, although maybe there's a tendency towards countries with modest middle classes (~50%) also showing modest support for capitalism (~50%) but this is heavily skewed by Japan and China's very divergent profiles - one a huge middle class society with a distaste for free markets and another a tiny middle class society with a lot of enthusiasm for markets. Maybe people could spew in some of the numbers.

there are obviously a lot of ways to structure this analysis (within country/by region/ etc...) but at least at this level it seems hard to say there's a strong trend one way or another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As always, comrade, you have a knack for statistical tidbits.


I do think though that the ability of the ruling class to present the petit-bourgoise as the "norm" or "natural" population does help make workers feel more isolated. This happens culturally because most novelists and artists have a petit-bourgoise relationship to their artistic production and so you see tons of novels and movies where the protagonists are upper-middle class professionals. This makes people who don't fit into that feel like they are lacking and marginal.

Maybe I'm off base here, but there must be something going on considering how the US emphasizes the myth that "we're all middle-class" and in Australia there is an analogous myth that everyone is working class and so there are no class problems like Europe.

At one point, British Labour proliferated the "everyone is working class" myth for its supporters. I don't think the middle class carrot myth has worked in the US for decades.

The marginalization in the US culture does have a much greater impact, that stick against those who don't fit into the "middle class" profile.

[Lowtech]

The fraction of middle class residents is based on the first number that seemed legit when doing a google search for country_name + middle class percentage. A single question mark represents a number I don't know if it's really sound or current, a double question mark means I couldn't find any numbers.fascinating.

do you suspect there is less opposition to capitalism in the countries with a larger middle class, or at least more ignorance of the level of inequality the world is subjected to?

[MarxSchmarx]

fascinating.

do you suspect there is less opposition to capitalism in the countries with a larger middle class, or at least more ignorance of the level of inequality the world is subjected to?

Well, those are two different things, right?

I think as to whether a larger middle class favors or opposes socialism, I guess my conclusions is that, to the extent that this may be measurable, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they impact a society's receptiveness to either capitalism or socialism.

As to the second point, it strikes me most westerners are quite aware of the stark inequalities between people in, say, Darfur and people in Denmark. I'd say many if not most in the global north, as well as rich people in the third world, are more indifferent ("it has always been like that") than ignorant. Part of this may be ignorance of just how much it sucks to be really destitute - if well to do people had to live the life of a pauper or a third world peasant, maybe they wouldn't be so inclined to shrug.