• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do we really need or want a middle class in capitalism?

point1percent

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
134
Reaction score
50
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

Given today's structures and technology a middle class is less by choice than necessity, if we want to be efficient in a real world or even theoretical way. There is room to maneuver in
how income is allocated and then redistributed. Government measures are vastly positive initially, but the effects are quickly negative, when the government tries to do and micromanage too much, redistributes large amounts and wanders into the production of private goods.
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto

"Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
"

While I've neither read the book, nor consider communism the best approach, it must be acknowledged that the aspirations you mention - the dream of becoming rich, or the corresponding discontent with what we already have, which is not-so-subtly fed to us from childhood in all forms of advertising and much of our culture and society at large - certainly do help to perpetuate the current systemic injustices: How can a person reasonably object to someone cruising around in their luxury yachts while others starve, if they yearn to do the same thing? Perhaps not quite the "bribed tool of reactionary intrigue," but it seems even Marx might have agreed with you that their disappearance might be mostly beneficial to society.

Indeed I've seen the argument made that much of the harm inflicted by the Soviet Union on its people resulted from efforts to shape society through that lense of binary class distinctions. Probably not a good idea.
 
Last edited:
You're forgetting that this is consumer capitalism. For the industry owners to profit, there has to be a class of people with expendable income yet who don't have political affluence to change the game. That's the middle class. The lower class can mainly only afford inflexible goods (food, etc.), so they are not the biggest asset to consumer capitalism.

It's been argued that we are transferring out of consumer capitalism in America right now and are transitioning into a form of service based capitalism where people work in service jobs and then use their income to pay for other services. It's still a form of consumer capitalism because it relies on service consumption for the economy to thrive, but the difference is that the means of production is more and more distant (foreign countries, outsourcing, etc).

It would be harder for a Marxist revolution to take place here because the means of production aren't even here for people to disrupt. It's one of the theorized reasons why the government is becoming more and more autocratic, because there is less capital risk in it doing so.
 
Given today's structures and technology a middle class is less by choice than necessity, if we want to be efficient in a real world or even theoretical way. There is room to maneuver in
how income is allocated and then redistributed. Government measures are vastly positive initially, but the effects are quickly negative, when the government tries to do and micromanage too much, redistributes large amounts and wanders into the production of private goods.

Without consumers (aka the middle class), there will not be anyone to buy the capatilists products.
 
Without consumers (aka the middle class), there will not be anyone to buy the capatilists products.

Marx warned us of that, but he was somewhat ahead of our technology in that prediction and possibly pessimistically removed from human nature.
 
Capitalism neither favors nor disfavors the middle class and how much it's needed is irrelevant because there will always be a middle class because capitalism creates opportunity. Granted, the laziest and most worthless might not see or admit that opportunity exists but there will always be a middle class because MOST people do see it and take advantage of it. Hell, millions and millions of people sign up to come here every year to take advantage of the opportunity this country presents and yet the most vocal left wing socialist weenies will ignore it and cry about their lot in life for being born here.
 
That's called Feudalism; we tried it a while back and decided we didn't like it.
 
Without consumers (aka the middle class), there will not be anyone to buy the capatilists products.

Agreed, but there other additional reasons to want and need a middle class.

It is possible, and I would state More Likely, to inherent enough wealth to be a Capitalist.

The Accident of Birth does not give someone a natural skill set of being able to manage money and invest wisely. Some Aristocratic inherited wealth Capitalist will have it, or learn it, others will not.

Some Aristocratic inherited wealth Capitalist will invest poorly, and squander away their fortunes, and they, or more likely, their children will be dropping into the working class, a demonstration of downward social mobility.

Some of the Worker class will have the aptitude, interest, and talent to manage money and invest wisely, i.e. be a high functioning Capitalist.

But! Without a significant sized, competitive rewarded, and robust Middle Class, there is no upward social mobility, bringing new blood, insight, competition, and techniques into the Capitalist class.

Without a middle class, the Capitalist class stagnates, and devolves, and the whole of society will starve in the dark because of it.

Without the HOPE of achieving upward social mobility, the Workers, particularly those with talent, skill, and ambition, will turn to crime, and/or revolt.

You cannot long have a working capitalist society without a strong middle class, it has been demonstrated time and again!

-
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

I'm not certain you're serious so I'll give the basic premise of your post a pass.

The middle class doesn't shrink or expand. The middle class is a bracket of income earners that is centered on the median income statistic. That's what happens to the middle class, it rises or falls based on median income. During the Obama administration, median income has steadily fallen an as a result the middle class hasn't shrunk but it has slid with respect to the income levels of it's members.
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

I'll go with three.

Moe, Larry and Curly. Says it all.
 
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto

"
While I've neither read the book, nor consider communism the best approach, it must be acknowledged that the aspirations you mention - the dream of becoming rich, or the corresponding discontent with what we already have, which is not-so-subtly fed to us from childhood in all forms of advertising and much of our culture and society at large - certainly do help to perpetuate the current systemic injustices: How can a person reasonably object to someone cruising around in their luxury yachts while others starve, if they yearn to do the same thing? Perhaps not quite the "bribed tool of reactionary intrigue," but it seems even Marx might have agreed with you that their disappearance might be mostly beneficial to society.

Indeed I've seen the argument made that much of the harm inflicted by the Soviet Union on its people resulted from efforts to shape society through that lense of binary class distinctions. Probably not a good idea.


Interesting opinion. Of course Marx lived at a time when people did struggle. Today, in the OECD countries, basically everyone has their fundamental needs met. Maslow's hierarchy of needs lists, in order, physiological, safety, love, self-esteem, and self-actualization and of these only the first 2 require money. The other needs get confused by not just advertisers but politicians trying to mobilize supports by telling them how poor they are. In Marx's time the proletariat were workers who earned little and got all of it through work. Now those people are middle class, or at least in the middle quintile if they actually work the equivalent of one full time job. And the lower 2 quintiles get a large % of their income not from work but from government benefit paid precisely because they work so little.

The recent CBO report on the PPACA seems to concur. The lower quintiles will drop the number of hours they work by the equivalent to 2.5 million jobs. At an guesstimate average of $30K/yr, this means they are leaving voluntarily $75 billion on the table. I think that Marx would not consider these people proletariat when they voluntarily abandon work.
 
The Accident of Birth does not give someone a natural skill set of being able to manage money and invest wisely. Some Aristocratic inherited wealth Capitalist will have it, or learn it, others will not.

Some Aristocratic inherited wealth Capitalist will invest poorly, and squander away their fortunes, and they, or more likely, their children will be dropping into the working class, a demonstration of downward social mobility.

Some of the Worker class will have the aptitude, interest, and talent to manage money and invest wisely, i.e. be a high functioning Capitalist.

But! Without a significant sized, competitive rewarded, and robust Middle Class, there is no upward social mobility, bringing new blood, insight, competition, and techniques into the Capitalist class.-

I think that you are hinting at something that bothers me. It is one thing to raise taxes progressively on people who presumably earned it but it is another thing to raise estate or inheritance taxes. Either no politician talks about this or both parties like the idea of continuing a classed society based on the conservative idea of birth and ancestry. Conservatives who value hard work and self reliance and liberals who value equality should both seriously look at what happens when we allow so much wealth to be inherited. You can not have any equality when a descendent of, say, Michael Jordan, is guaranteed money for life. What would the world be like if everyone started from scratch? Of course, that is impossible since some would still have better genes, better education through private schools, and a better start as a young adult but do they need more?
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

We seem to have 3 classes now. Capitalists who live on investments, workers who work a full work week but don't save enough to get to the investment stage, and the lower class who can't really be called workers as they generally work less than full time and rely on government subsidies. Much of Latin America was like your 2 class society with rich landowners and peasants but there wasn't any investments or sufficient consumers with money to spend.
 
I think that you are hinting at something that bothers me. It is one thing to raise taxes progressively on people who presumably earned it but it is another thing to raise estate or inheritance taxes. Either no politician talks about this or both parties like the idea of continuing a classed society based on the conservative idea of birth and ancestry. Conservatives who value hard work and self reliance and liberals who value equality should both seriously look at what happens when we allow so much wealth to be inherited. You can not have any equality when a descendent of, say, Michael Jordan, is guaranteed money for life. What would the world be like if everyone started from scratch? Of course, that is impossible since some would still have better genes, better education through private schools, and a better start as a young adult but do they need more?


Any Wealthy person who cares about his progeny will give them a completely paid for good education, not cash, an opportunity to work, a job, not cash, and an absolutely ruthless requirement for them to perform competitively at that job, or lose it.

If you love your children, or grandchildren, you give them resources, and opportunities, not the option to have no responsibilities.

BUT!, I would not want the Government forcing wealthy people to do that, and I certainly would not want the Government to end up with the money, if it doesn't go to the decedents.

There is no spoiled, drug-addled, irresponsible, wastrel, playboy grandson worse than the best government agency.

You would do the world more good to take out your total assets in cash, and use it for your funeral pyre, than let the government take it.

-
 
Last edited:
Any Wealthy person who cares about his progeny will give them a completely paid for good education, not cash, an opportunity to work, a job, not cash, and an absolutely ruthless requirement for them to perform competitively at that job, or lose it.

If you love your children, or grandchildren, you give them resources, and opportunities, not the option to have no responsibilities.

BUT!, I would not want the Government forcing wealthy people to do that, and I certainly would not want the Government to end up with the money, if it doesn't go to the decedents.

There is no spoiled, drug-addled, irresponsible, wastrel, playboy grandson worse than the best government agency.

You would do the world more good to take out your total assets in cash, and use it for your funeral pyre, than let the government take it.

-

Well, I support a the bulk of one's estate going to charity. If my children are not self-sufficient then I failed as a parent. There are people in the undeveloped world that perhaps could use the money but it is very hard to distribute unearned wealth so that it doesn't have some unintended consequence. Maybe burning it is the best use.
 
Well, I support a the bulk of one's estate going to charity. If my children are not self-sufficient then I failed as a parent. There are people in the undeveloped world that perhaps could use the money but it is very hard to distribute unearned wealth so that it doesn't have some unintended consequence. Maybe burning it is the best use.

Burning cash is counter inflationary. Hence it raises the value of all the remaining currency and helps everyone who's earned any money. You can't get much more universally distributed that that!
 
So realistically the middle class is just plain old working class, they have somehow made themselves slightly more relevant to the capitalist class and earn more money than others in their class. The whole nature of the game is for the working class to make themselves as relevant as possible to the capitalist class to gain monetary reward. Those that succeed in this and manage to not squander their earnings on beer and the latest pop fashions can eventually make their way into the capitalist class. Until then they are and will always be just working class.
 
So realistically the middle class is just plain old working class, they have somehow made themselves slightly more relevant to the capitalist class and earn more money than others in their class. The whole nature of the game is for the working class to make themselves as relevant as possible to the capitalist class to gain monetary reward. Those that succeed in this and manage to not squander their earnings on beer and the latest pop fashions can eventually make their way into the capitalist class. Until then they are and will always be just working class.


Those middle class people you have so much contempt and condescension for, well, they make the system work.

Without them, your capital is useless. Without them, you are nothing.

Without your Capital, they would still make happy lives for themselves and their families. Sure, their lives might be a bit simpler, have less advanced medicine and communications, but then it would also have less toxins and surveillance.

For eons, humankind lived without Capitalism and the advanced technology it provides, and the restrictions, poisons, and abuses it enables.

The verdict on whether you and the evils you bring, are worth the benefits, is still being measured.

In this era of economic turmoil, you and many other "Capitalists" seem to be forgetting that with the great honor and power given to those blessed with leadership of our tech-society, comes an even greater responsibility.

You have no power beyond the strength of our own two hands, if we decide to ignore your keyboard!

Fail U.S. in that responsibility, and you will find out just how common and replaceable you really are...

-
 
Last edited:
So realistically the middle class is just plain old working class, they have somehow made themselves slightly more relevant to the capitalist class and earn more money than others in their class. The whole nature of the game is for the working class to make themselves as relevant as possible to the capitalist class to gain monetary reward. Those that succeed in this and manage to not squander their earnings on beer and the latest pop fashions can eventually make their way into the capitalist class. Until then they are and will always be just working class.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist" class.
 
screw whats best for capitalism. We should want whatever gets us the most prosperity for the most folks out of simple compassion. Any system that doesn't serve the interest of the populace at whole isn't a good system for that sort of moral reason.
 
Those middle class people you have so much contempt and condescension for, well, they make the system work.

Without them, your capital is useless. Without them, you are nothing.

...

-

I disagree. The middle class does not make the system work, capital makes the system work.

Take your average Joe, let's say he is an inventor and has developed a prototype for the next generation of iJunk. Well, who paid for his facilities and salary that enabled him to develop this iJunk? But, let's just say he did it in his garage. How is he going to bring this iJunk to market? He has no money to continue development and ultimately distribution. Do you have any idea how much money that costs? The average Joe has barely enough to make ends meet after he has squandered all his money on beer. He desperately needs someone with a lot of capital to get this iJunk to market. But, when meeting with a capitalist, all the worker really offers is an interesting idea that is still not proven in the marketplace, and brings empty pockets to the bargaining table. That is the main problem with the middle class, they think they do everything and are entitled to all the proceeds, but in fact they do very little and ask the capitalist to do all the heavy lifting, take all the risks and then foot the entire bill. Then they want all of the profit because it was their idea.

Realistically, it is the capitalist who takes the shoddy work of the working class and develops and manages it until it can be suitable for the marketplace. Without the capitalist the worker has no reason to work.
 
Isn't the foundation of capitalism basically about capital and those that have it own the means of production and pay those who don't have capital to work and produce? So, basically we only need two classes, the capitalist class and the worker class. So what is this middle class and why is it relevant? What bothers me is that this middle class keeps harping on equality but they certainly don't want to be equal with the working class, they only want to be equal with the capitalist class and could care less about the working class below them. But they do not have the capital to be part of the capitalist class. Obviously they want something they don't rightfully deserve. Wouldn't society be much better off without these troublemakers?

utter failure to understand capitalism.

for one the middle class is those who are median income,which is misunderstood y many,however the strong middle class idea is that more are highly skilled and highly paid,instead of making the lower end of the payscale.


2 people are payaed their worth in production,or usually leave.capitalism employs peple to make money.people with more desired skiulls make more because they earn more.this isnt always 100O% the case,as if a certain profession gets overloaded with laborors,their wages decrease as too many fight to stick their hands in the same cookie jar,causing employers to pick the best labor at the cheapest cost.also note overall productivity to wages is innefective,as productivity can increase through machines and electronics,while pay is based on individual employee productivity.


therefore middle income is simply the middle.the middle can invest and work their way into investing.the simple 2 class system wouldnt work unless america wished to adopt feudalism,or soviet style comunism,either way capitalism promotes people to progress,not to be an elite or non elite.
 
Back
Top Bottom