Philosophy and Theology: Middle Class versus Working Class Politic

Print Page | Close Window

Middle Class versus Working Class Politic

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16204
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 12:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Middle Class versus Working Class Politic

Posted By: Leonidas IV
Subject: Middle Class versus Working Class Politic
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:47

Seeing as all I've studied for the last year and half has been revolutions and the reasons for them, I feel inclined to give the historical overview. Most of the revolutions in the 20th Century were indeed due to working class revolt. However, in history, this appears to be the exception more than the rule. The 1848 revolutions which stormed over Europe were probably more important than the Russian Revolution of 1917 in forming our modern Western World. Historical revolutions have been about the middle classes trying to break the monopoly on power of the ruling elite. The moneyed classes were trying to get to power that previously only the aristocracy had had. The workers at this point were always too busy trying to earn bread to revolt.

The difference between a revolution and a revolt is that the revolution succeeds, whereas a revolt is put down. In history, an angry mob of hungry peasants has often been leaderless and easily put down. Even with a leader, such as Wat Tyler's 1381 revolt, the workers were halted. The American revolution of 1775-83, a successful example, was led by the moneyed middle classes of the Jeffersons and the Washingtons.

The change came in the 20th century because the gulf between workers and middle class became bigger and bigger, until the 'great unwashed' had enough of the abuse. The affluence brought by the industrial revolution meant that the middle classes were satisified, and began to take on the characteristics of the upper classes they had once strived to join. They became politically apathetic. This left 20th century revolution to the workers. However, I'll say it again: This is the exception more than the rule.

Do you guys agree or disagree?

-------------
www.redboard.co.uk

Replies:

Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 15:29

Originally posted by Jeonidas IV

The difference between a revolution and a revolt is that the revolution succeeds, whereas a revolt is put down. In history, an angry mob of hungry peasants has often been leaderless and easily put down. Even with a leader, such as Wat Tyler's 1381 revolt, the workers were halted. The American revolution of 1775-83, a successful example, was led by the moneyed middle classes of the Jeffersons and the Washingtons.

It is true that for the revolution to succeed you need a strong intellectual backing, with some middle class input. Afterall, look at how many of the Bolsheviks had middle class roots. Also, the revolutions in America, Russia and France had an ideological basis behind them. This gave them strength and perseverence. The English Peasants' Revolt was a knee jerk reaction to hard conditions, with no clear ideological plan for the future.

Originally posted by Leonidas IV

The change came in the 20th century because the gulf between workers and middle class became bigger and bigger, until the 'great unwashed' had enough of the abuse. The affluence brought by the industrial revolution meant that the middle classes were satisified, and began to take on the characteristics of the upper classes they had once strived to join. They became politically apathetic. This left 20th century revolution to the workers. However, I'll say it again: This is the exception more than the rule.

The thing about the revolutions over the past few hundred years is that they only had a limited window of opportunity to occur. Industrialisation concentrated people and power into the cities, making a revolution from these quarters more potent. But industrialisation did gradually raise the real income and standard of living for people within a nation. As long as strong government was in place to keep order, the populace were kept in check as their standard of living increased. Eventually it increased to the point that extreme ideologies such as communism and fascism lost their appeal. Remember, only in extreme circumstances do extreme ideologies have any chance of success.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas IV
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 15:57

Right. But some revolutions did work on the basis of the mob. The Viet Minh were most effective because they were facilitated by the working class. My point is that the middle classes are the true revolutionaries, as they have time and education to plan and devise their strategies. What you say about rising standard of living is true. There is not much scope for revolution these days, but it does seem strange that historically, those most affected by adverse conditions didn't start the process of removing the problem.

-------------
www.redboard.co.uk

Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 16:06

Originally posted by Leonidas IV

Right. But some revolutions did work on the basis of the mob. The Viet Minh were most effective because they were facilitated by the working class. My point is that the middle classes are the true revolutionaries, as they have time and education to plan and devise their strategies. What you say about rising standard of living is true. There is not much scope for revolution these days, but it does seem strange that historically, those most affected by adverse conditions didn't start the process of removing the problem.

That is true that an intelligentsia is often required to provide the organisation, direction and leadership needed to make the revolution a success. A mob alone follows knee jerk desires, lacks a coherent direction and has little in the way of sustained momentum.

About the Vietnminh, I would be careful about using Vietnam as an example. While class conflict and distribution of wealth played an important role in the Vietnam Wars, the overriding motivator of Vietminh/Viet Cong solidarity was a desire to rid the nation of foreigners. They were nationalists first, communists second (if at all in the case of many members).

-------------

Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 16:35

I trying to think of a single revolution in the 20th century that was orchestrated by the bottom class in society.

For example the Russian Revolution was working class. But the Russian working class were the industrialised prolitariate, skilled workers, educated and earning a good wage. There were several lower and much more numerous classes than them such as peasants, unskilled labourers. The Russian Prolitariate were the equivent of a modern day upper middle class.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 17:36

Revolutions are occurring unnoticed every year somewhere in the world. It is a credit to humanity that most are changes that occur without much bloodshed. Here are a few that I feel worthy of note.

The dismemberment of the soviet system�followed by 10 years of chaos, followed by the reestablishment of social order and the return to more stability in the lives of its citizens.

The recent astounding change in the US when the democrats broke the republicans monopoly. ( an example of a peaceful revolution)

The civil war now raging in Iraq where factions are trying to gain control of a nation that is in free fall. (An example of a violent revolution)

The change in Latin American politics, probably 3-4 changes worthy of the name revolution.

The examples I give are only those that I�m familiarly with. My point is, that people are revolting and demanding change �but through the legal ballot, because of better communications radio, TV, Internet, blogs and groups like ours facilitate.-

Could this mean that we are becoming more civilized or are we getting too soft for a bloody revolt?

PS remember , Hitler recognized the importance of elections but only when he could have Goebbles �educate� the voters ?