5 ms·

"The rise of these two groups — the working poor and non-working rich – is relatively new." Is it? Sounds like classic feudalism to me.

limeyx 10y ago
Or victorianism !
xiphias 11y ago
Yes, and it was always the case for people in not-so-lucky countries. Still it's new for U.S. centric people, because USA had a good headstart.
- dragonbonheur 11y ago
  It's not new for the USA. Slave owners did not have to work for a few generations while slavery lasted.
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    Founding or running a slave plantation both required a lot of work. Just because one thing about someone is repugnant doesn't mean that everything else is. Most plantation owners worked at their disgusting trade.
  - dagw 11y ago
    My understanding is that most slave owners where 'middle class'. Sure they could afford a few slaves to help out with the heaviest work on the plantations, but certainly not enough to completely free them of having to work themselves.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      That still leaves some good thousands of rich slave owners. Places like Savannah weren't built for poor middle class...
      - dagw 11y ago
        I'm sure most where rich enough to have time and money to spend on leisure, but not rich enough to never have to work.
        coldtea 11y ago
        With 10 slaves IN the house, taking care of cleaning and everything? At most they had to handle "administrative" tasks for their estate. Hardly work compared to what people (slaves or not) did at the time.
        dagw 11y ago
        With 10 slaves IN the house, taking care of cleaning and everything? Exact numbers aren't easy to come by, but at least based on numbers I've found for North Carolina[0] it seems that the majority of slave owners owned less than 10 slaves in total with 2-4 being most common number of slaves slave owners owned. Now obviously the slave owners work and working conditions was absolutely and obviously trivial compared to that of their slaves, but that is hardly the same is not working. My is working conditions are probably far more comfortable than that most of the plantation owners, but I still claim to work for a living. [0] http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-antebellum/5347 http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-antebellum/5347
        coldtea 11y ago
        >My is working conditions are probably far more comfortable than that most of the plantation owners, but I still claim to work for a living. Are they though? They weren't supposed to solve hard (thinking-wise) business and algorithmic problems, or sit tied to a PC and program 8-12 hours a day. If anything Southerners were considered leisurely compared to the Northerners.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    s/slavery/company town/
    - jdavis703 11y ago
      Not the same at all. Remember that slaves were kdinapped from their home, shipped thousands of miles, saw their women raped to make more "product" and had their descendants forced into the same system. If you want to opt out of the corporate system you can in today's world, without worrying that slaves catchers and their dogs will be sent after you, and you will be tortured if they catch you.
      - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
        So it's the same. Instead of spending money on shipping them thousands of miles, making sure their women are raped and hiring men to force their descendants into the system, you just give them some money and fill some blanks. Result is the same - cheap work done for you. I'd even say slaves were really expensive and required much oversight and trouble for the value they provided.
willvarfar 11y ago
"As the French economist Thomas Piketty reminds us, this is the kind of dynastic wealth that’s kept Europe’s aristocracy going for centuries. It’s about to become the major source of income for a new American aristocracy."
arethuza 11y ago
"classic feudalism" I thought that in classic feudalism the lords ("non-working rich") most definitely did have to work to keep their positions - they had to supply men and fight for their king personally when required. Edit: You can arguably still remnants of this in parts of the British Army - particularly cavalry regiments.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Go back and read your Roman history. The rest of the book's not all that great (too dense, no exposition), but the first chapter of A.H.M. Jones' biography Augustus lays out the conflicts of ~ 75 BCE to ~ 1 AD, particularly the conflict between the two principle political parties, the oligarchical optimates and the proletariate populares, as well as their respective political objectives. It's quite contemporary: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/NZiWbL8pzjr https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/NZiWbL8p... <quote> It was the agrarian problem that sparked off the violence that was ultimately to destroy the Republic. Tiberius Gracchus' bill, enacted in 133 B.C. for distributing the public land, after leaving a generous allowance to the occupiers, in small lots to poor citizens, excited such furious resistance among the senatorial landowners that a group of them lynchded Gracchus. This was the first in a series of violent clashes between two groups who called themselves the _optimates_ and the _populares_. The nucleus of the _optimates_ was the small clique of nobles (men whose fathers, grandfathers, or more remote ancesters had been consuls) who more or less monopolized the highest offices and dominated the Senate, but they had wide support among the propertied class, even, as Cicero says, propserous freedman; otherwise they could not have maintained their unbroken hold on the higher magistracies. They were conservatives, who regarded the rights of property as sacred, and therefore resisted bitterly any attempts to redistribute land or cancel debt. They were upholders of the constitution and of religion, which could be used to block any revolutionary legislation. Though at times they had to yield to popular pressure, they always remained the government. The _populares_ were a much less well defined group. Their leaders were individual politicians or very small groups of politicians, who at intervals attempted to legislate in the interests of the people, by which they meant the common people. Most of them were also nobles, and their usual weapon was the tribunate of the plebs, which was the normal legislative office --- when the Senate wanted a law passed it normally requested the tribunes to put it to the plebeian assembly, and a tribune could pass a law without the assent of the Senate --- and possessed other formidable powers, such as an all embracing veto and the right of impeaching the most senior magistrates (after their year of office) before the people: it was also an office to which it was easy to be elected, since there were ten tribunes a year. The _populares_ developed a regular programme of legislation. First came the distribution of smallholdings to landless citizens. These were at first offered to all. Later, when Marius began to recruit landless peasants into the army, the distribution was limited to time-served soldiers, who obviously had a superior claim. The next point in the programme was the provision by the state of corn for the proletariat of Rome at a price that they could afford. From time to time the _populares_ were interested in the problem of debt, which frequently meant agricultural indebtedness. They were early successful in introducing the secret ballot into voting in the assembly, for legislation, elections and trials. They also stood up against the execution of Roman citizens without a lawful trial; the Senate was very prone to ignore this elementary right of the citizen in what it deemed to be political crises. Most _populares_ advocated the grant of citizenship to the Italian allies. They were generally interested in the welfare of the provincials; most of the extortion laws were promoted by _populares_. Finally, they substituted _equites_ (citizens owning 400,000 sesterces who were not senators) for senators as jurors in the criminal courts. </quote> (Quoted in greater length above.)
Hytosys 11y ago
Of course, you're right. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." —Guess Who
- bryanrasmussen 11y ago
  whoa, the Guess Who where much more radical than I thought.
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  Groucho?
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    No, Burton Cummings.

limeyx 10y ago

Or victorianism !

xiphias 11y ago

Yes, and it was always the case for people in not-so-lucky countries. Still it's new for U.S. centric people, because USA had a good headstart.

dragonbonheur 11y ago
It's not new for the USA. Slave owners did not have to work for a few generations while slavery lasted.
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  Founding or running a slave plantation both required a lot of work. Just because one thing about someone is repugnant doesn't mean that everything else is. Most plantation owners worked at their disgusting trade.
- dagw 11y ago
  My understanding is that most slave owners where 'middle class'. Sure they could afford a few slaves to help out with the heaviest work on the plantations, but certainly not enough to completely free them of having to work themselves.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    That still leaves some good thousands of rich slave owners. Places like Savannah weren't built for poor middle class...
    - dagw 11y ago
      I'm sure most where rich enough to have time and money to spend on leisure, but not rich enough to never have to work.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        With 10 slaves IN the house, taking care of cleaning and everything? At most they had to handle "administrative" tasks for their estate. Hardly work compared to what people (slaves or not) did at the time.
        dagw 11y ago
        With 10 slaves IN the house, taking care of cleaning and everything? Exact numbers aren't easy to come by, but at least based on numbers I've found for North Carolina[0] it seems that the majority of slave owners owned less than 10 slaves in total with 2-4 being most common number of slaves slave owners owned. Now obviously the slave owners work and working conditions was absolutely and obviously trivial compared to that of their slaves, but that is hardly the same is not working. My is working conditions are probably far more comfortable than that most of the plantation owners, but I still claim to work for a living. [0] http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-antebellum/5347 http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-antebellum/5347
        coldtea 11y ago
        >My is working conditions are probably far more comfortable than that most of the plantation owners, but I still claim to work for a living. Are they though? They weren't supposed to solve hard (thinking-wise) business and algorithmic problems, or sit tied to a PC and program 8-12 hours a day. If anything Southerners were considered leisurely compared to the Northerners.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  s/slavery/company town/
  - jdavis703 11y ago
    Not the same at all. Remember that slaves were kdinapped from their home, shipped thousands of miles, saw their women raped to make more "product" and had their descendants forced into the same system. If you want to opt out of the corporate system you can in today's world, without worrying that slaves catchers and their dogs will be sent after you, and you will be tortured if they catch you.
    - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
      So it's the same. Instead of spending money on shipping them thousands of miles, making sure their women are raped and hiring men to force their descendants into the system, you just give them some money and fill some blanks. Result is the same - cheap work done for you. I'd even say slaves were really expensive and required much oversight and trouble for the value they provided.

willvarfar 11y ago

"As the French economist Thomas Piketty reminds us, this is the kind of dynastic wealth that’s kept Europe’s aristocracy going for centuries. It’s about to become the major source of income for a new American aristocracy."

arethuza 11y ago

"classic feudalism" I thought that in classic feudalism the lords ("non-working rich") most definitely did have to work to keep their positions - they had to supply men and fight for their king personally when required. Edit: You can arguably still remnants of this in parts of the British Army - particularly cavalry regiments.

dredmorbius 11y ago

Go back and read your Roman history. The rest of the book's not all that great (too dense, no exposition), but the first chapter of A.H.M. Jones' biography Augustus lays out the conflicts of ~ 75 BCE to ~ 1 AD, particularly the conflict between the two principle political parties, the oligarchical optimates and the proletariate populares, as well as their respective political objectives. It's quite contemporary: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/NZiWbL8pzjr https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/NZiWbL8p... <quote> It was the agrarian problem that sparked off the violence that was ultimately to destroy the Republic. Tiberius Gracchus' bill, enacted in 133 B.C. for distributing the public land, after leaving a generous allowance to the occupiers, in small lots to poor citizens, excited such furious resistance among the senatorial landowners that a group of them lynchded Gracchus. This was the first in a series of violent clashes between two groups who called themselves the _optimates_ and the _populares_. The nucleus of the _optimates_ was the small clique of nobles (men whose fathers, grandfathers, or more remote ancesters had been consuls) who more or less monopolized the highest offices and dominated the Senate, but they had wide support among the propertied class, even, as Cicero says, propserous freedman; otherwise they could not have maintained their unbroken hold on the higher magistracies. They were conservatives, who regarded the rights of property as sacred, and therefore resisted bitterly any attempts to redistribute land or cancel debt. They were upholders of the constitution and of religion, which could be used to block any revolutionary legislation. Though at times they had to yield to popular pressure, they always remained the government. The _populares_ were a much less well defined group. Their leaders were individual politicians or very small groups of politicians, who at intervals attempted to legislate in the interests of the people, by which they meant the common people. Most of them were also nobles, and their usual weapon was the tribunate of the plebs, which was the normal legislative office --- when the Senate wanted a law passed it normally requested the tribunes to put it to the plebeian assembly, and a tribune could pass a law without the assent of the Senate --- and possessed other formidable powers, such as an all embracing veto and the right of impeaching the most senior magistrates (after their year of office) before the people: it was also an office to which it was easy to be elected, since there were ten tribunes a year. The _populares_ developed a regular programme of legislation. First came the distribution of smallholdings to landless citizens. These were at first offered to all. Later, when Marius began to recruit landless peasants into the army, the distribution was limited to time-served soldiers, who obviously had a superior claim. The next point in the programme was the provision by the state of corn for the proletariat of Rome at a price that they could afford. From time to time the _populares_ were interested in the problem of debt, which frequently meant agricultural indebtedness. They were early successful in introducing the secret ballot into voting in the assembly, for legislation, elections and trials. They also stood up against the execution of Roman citizens without a lawful trial; the Senate was very prone to ignore this elementary right of the citizen in what it deemed to be political crises. Most _populares_ advocated the grant of citizenship to the Italian allies. They were generally interested in the welfare of the provincials; most of the extortion laws were promoted by _populares_. Finally, they substituted _equites_ (citizens owning 400,000 sesterces who were not senators) for senators as jurors in the criminal courts. </quote> (Quoted in greater length above.)

Hytosys 11y ago

Of course, you're right. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." —Guess Who

bryanrasmussen 11y ago
whoa, the Guess Who where much more radical than I thought.
bbcbasic 11y ago
Groucho?
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  No, Burton Cummings.