3 ms·

I read it, though not closely, and am still unclear what is the "real class war". The educated-but-alienated professional elite against the oligarchs? I'm just

I read it, though not closely, and am still unclear what is the "real class war". The educated-but-alienated professional elite against the oligarchs? I'm just guessing. Also, he kind of loses it in the final paragraphs, which weakened my impression of the rest.

nl 7y ago
>I read it, though not closely, and am still unclear what is the "real class war" The real class war is between the 0.1 percent and (at most) the 10 percent—or, more precisely, between elites primarily dependent on capital gains and those primarily dependent on professional labor. It's pretty clearly defined. It's the group that makes their money primarily from investment returns vs those who make their money primarily from wages/salaries/payments for skills.
- neonate 7y ago
  Ok, so I guessed right. Thanks, I missed that bit.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  That would bring us back to the proletariat again. Although today these workers do indeed have production capital, which is expressed through their knowledge and education in many cases.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I would say that capital gains and professional are more variables than hard coded aspects as the lines may be drawn differently in a context. With an actual warrior elite vs merchantdom you can subsitute "spoils" vs "profits". Both blocs depend upon both skill and capital in that case and find themselves in tension. Feudal societies distrust merchants and often consider them beneath even peasantry - but the merchants in turn may force respect and have undeniable advantages for funding the warrior elites. Similarly take the Antebellum US with the Southern Slaveholder "Aristocrats" vs the Industrialists. Both are capital dependent and rely upon lower classes although the later are far more skill demanding than the previous who make a virtue of idleness to those who can afford it. Even Soviets and other "nominal Communists" totalitarians who furiously insist that they aren't fascists due to the least relevant distinctions have similar factional elite branches despite their capital being social.
UncleSlacky 7y ago
It reminds me of the saying that most "revolutions" tend to involve the aristocracy (the 0.1%) and the bourgeoisie (the top 10%), the French revolution is a classic example of this. The status of the remainder of the population never really changes as a result.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  And if a revolution is the 10% trying to kick out the 0.1% so that they can replace them, well, only 1 out of 100 of the 10% can be the 0.1%...

nl 7y ago

>I read it, though not closely, and am still unclear what is the "real class war" The real class war is between the 0.1 percent and (at most) the 10 percent—or, more precisely, between elites primarily dependent on capital gains and those primarily dependent on professional labor. It's pretty clearly defined. It's the group that makes their money primarily from investment returns vs those who make their money primarily from wages/salaries/payments for skills.

neonate 7y ago
Ok, so I guessed right. Thanks, I missed that bit.
raxxorrax 7y ago
That would bring us back to the proletariat again. Although today these workers do indeed have production capital, which is expressed through their knowledge and education in many cases.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I would say that capital gains and professional are more variables than hard coded aspects as the lines may be drawn differently in a context. With an actual warrior elite vs merchantdom you can subsitute "spoils" vs "profits". Both blocs depend upon both skill and capital in that case and find themselves in tension. Feudal societies distrust merchants and often consider them beneath even peasantry - but the merchants in turn may force respect and have undeniable advantages for funding the warrior elites. Similarly take the Antebellum US with the Southern Slaveholder "Aristocrats" vs the Industrialists. Both are capital dependent and rely upon lower classes although the later are far more skill demanding than the previous who make a virtue of idleness to those who can afford it. Even Soviets and other "nominal Communists" totalitarians who furiously insist that they aren't fascists due to the least relevant distinctions have similar factional elite branches despite their capital being social.

UncleSlacky 7y ago

It reminds me of the saying that most "revolutions" tend to involve the aristocracy (the 0.1%) and the bourgeoisie (the top 10%), the French revolution is a classic example of this. The status of the remainder of the population never really changes as a result.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
And if a revolution is the 10% trying to kick out the 0.1% so that they can replace them, well, only 1 out of 100 of the 10% can be the 0.1%...