The source, essence and role of the middle class i

The source, essence and role of the middle class in society

Now you can order the paperback collection of my sneers "Into one line. Mocking passages. Favorites," on Amazon (Nizovtsev Yury), as well as the two collections of my most significant and popular articles - "Word and Deed" and " New Approach to the Basic Concepts and Laws of Social Development” and others in the paper format.

If society before the advent of capitalism, as it is today in underdeveloped countries, was essentially divided between the oppressed and the oppressors, represented by the rich and powerful on one side, and the oppressed, primarily working people at the philistine level, on the other, then the developed property relations, which provided scope for energetic and educated individuals, who were needed for the development of technology and culture and, as a result, could become more fully realized individuals, formed the so-called middle class, which we will characterize below.

The definition of the middle class is well-known.
It is a social group of people occupying an intermediate position between the poor and the rich, possessing a stable income, property, and a certain level of freedom of choice.
Such definition of the middle class is rather incomplete, since it has not been revealed where and when it came from, why and when it will disappear, and its essence and role in society have not been disclosed.
Therefore, it is necessary to start its analysis from the original source.
At the initial stage of civilization's development, when property relations had already emerged, society was automatically divided into power structures with corresponding enforcement and legal applications, the working population, a small number of specialists and artisans, as well as critics of such a social structure, the most famous of whom was Plato, who believed it possible to create a just people's state in which antagonistic social relations were excluded.
However, instead of Plato's people's state without contradictions between social classes, the foundation of all states to this day is the opposition between rich and poor, somewhat mitigated by a certain number of relatively independent individuals, and this independence and solvency is generally supported by the development of certain knowledge and skills.
That is, at that time, in addition to government representatives, a certain independence was enjoyed by specialists of all kinds, whose knowledge and skills enabled them to earn a stable income, allowing them to maintain a fairly high standard of living. But their numbers were small compared to the overall population.
Nevertheless, Aristotle rightly believed that they make society more stable: "A state composed of middle-class people will have the best form of government... They do not covet the goods of others, as the poor do, and others do not encroach upon what belongs to them, just like the poor covet the property of the rich" [1].
With the advent of capitalism, whose slogans were "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," neither of these three things was achieved, but over time, it was possible to significantly expand the buffer between the oppressors and the oppressed in the form of the middle class.
In 2015, Credit Suisse, the Swiss bank, calculated that 66% of the population in Australia belonged to the middle class; in Italy, Britain, and Japan, about 55%; in the United States, 38%; in China, 11%; in Russia, 4.1%; and in Africa and India, 3% [2].
This middle class, of course, is not an oppressor, but serves it, receiving appropriate bonuses, some freedom of action and living in some prosperity. Thus, he sets an example for ordinary people (philistines) who have the illusion of joining him without any revolutions and, so to speak, "going out into people," on which social democracy stood and still stands.
In fact, the structure of modern society is not a combination of three layers: rich, poor and middle class.
If we briefly list, so to speak, the classes and layers of modern society, then they can be designated as follows: the power elite with the appropriate force and legal applications; informal opposition to it; creative persons in the field of technology, science, art and management; observers, or a kind of thinkers-philosophers who have their own view of the course of events; as well as the mass of all the rest, the so-called philistines, the spectrum of which is very wide - from the intelligentsia, dependent on those in power, to workers in the production of goods, merchants, service workers, small entrepreneurs, pensioners, housewives and other clerks, who are usually concerned only with their own well-being.
However, it is impossible to draw sharp boundaries between the designated classes and strata of modern society, as members of one group can be classified as belonging to another—for example, officials can be classified as belonging to the ruling elite—while at the same time, their lower ranks are typical philistines.
More details about the strata of society within the state are set out in my article "On the essential differences between a people, population and nation" [3].
Capitalism, with its emphasis on machine production and, consequently, the invention and development of increasingly productive technologies for the sake of ever-higher profits, was forced to expand access to education for the population, in order to select the most capable individuals through various schools and universities for use in science, technology, and culture.
The primary source to add these specialists, scientists, technicians, production organizers, and managers was the working population, some of whom, through their studies, were able to determine their abilities and, over time, were assigned to fields of organization, management, science, technology, as well as culture with a focus on education and population development.
However, the Industrial Revolution primarily affected European countries, leaving the rest of the planet's population in a state of savagery or clan-feudal relations that prevented social mobility and, consequently, the development of culture, science, and technology.
Only now, with great difficulty and very unevenly, are these backward countries attempting to embrace population development. However, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of their populations not only lack education and access to culture, but are simply starving.
Therefore, all states in underdeveloped countries are still divided into those in power, the rich, the nobles, the service personnel who serve them, and the rest of the population, who seem to "steep in their own juices," while those who have somehow managed to obtain an education or a specialty leave for developed countries.
Therefore, talking about the formation of a middle class in these countries is quite problematic.
This process of the middle-class expansion occurred only in developed countries, but it was multifaceted.
One segment of the population, well-educated and possessing clear abilities or even talents, became industrial managers, inventors, engineers, university professors, researchers in various fields, lawyers, writers, and so on, making significant contributions to the development of technology, science, and culture. They can be classified as specialists of one kind or another, possessing a greater or lesser degree of creativity.
But, almost all of them, due to their employment with more interesting things, combined with a good income due to their high qualifications, are rather apolitical, that is, they are interested little by the international situation, relations between classes, various kinds of propaganda. Naturally, they believe that with any power they will not disappear, even if she foolishly relies on an artificial intelligence.
Most people who have received a good education, in the course of specialization, quickly become convinced that they do not have any talents or even pronounced abilities, and there is no great desire to use them, even if they had them, but there is a desire to live comfortably, having the appropriate space for rest and entertainment without special worries, choosing the job that can provide them with such opportunity, especially since a significant portion of these people are very smart, have a good memory, sufficient communication skills and the ability to adapt to any situation without contradicting those in power.
Therefore, instead of creative pursuits in science, they are left with conducting experiments using predetermined algorithms, systematizing the results, or attempting to manage any process, simulating creative activity.
In teaching, they deliver the same lectures year after year, teach similar lessons, not pursuing innovation independently, but following established teaching methods.
A significant portion of these intellectuals find themselves in the legal profession, where no special talents are required, but a good memory and dexterity in handling laws provide the opportunity to achieve a decent standard of living.
An explanation for the similar behavior of these educated, often intelligent, but focused on their own well;being people can be found in the prevalence in their consciousness of an egocentric mood that is somewhat higher than the altruism of their self-consciousness. Therefore, they seek satisfaction from life, often even neglecting their existing abilities, in adjusting to circumstances that give them the opportunity to live incomparably better than the philistines.
Another group of educated people with high levels of altruistic inclinations compared to self;centered ones become critics of those in power due to the injustice of the system they believed they had established and supported. They were divided into a passive opposition, such as social democrats, and revolutionary-minded individuals who tried by any means necessary to rouse the masses to overthrow the oppressors.
Interestingly, the guardians of the people in the form of social democrats quickly find contacts with the power elite, offering her to carry out at least some reforms in time in order to justify their interaction with the authorities only for the benefit of the working masses. True, they themselves receive various bonuses from the authorities for this, providing them with a completely comfortable life.
This behavior of these "critics" of power is explained by the fact that their altruistic mood, quite close to the self;centered component of consciousness, interacts so with the egocentric component of their consciousness - quite high, that they believe to strive to satisfy the demands of the masses of the good life, not forgetting also themselves, and for this they try to reconcile the oppressed with the oppressors, and some of them really believe in achieving that utopian state, at which both the sheep will be whole and the wolves will be full.
The egocentricity of potential revolutionaries is much weaker than that of "critics" of the authorities, and it are overshadowed by an altruism of such a level that they aim to make everyone happy at once. Therefore, they are crudely pragmatic, believing that oppressors can be overthrown by force, without considering what will happen next. They do not understand the course of history, trying time and again in different eras to rouse the masses to fight against the oppressors, which always ends in a return to the same antagonistic system with the oppressors and oppressed.
The significant portion of people who consciously chose a military or related specialization and received higher education harbor a predominantly egocentric mood, and the weakening of altruism in their self-consciousness marked by a predisposition to aggression coupled with unscrupulousness, which manifests itself in a tendency toward conformism that is incompatible with self-respect.
However, all this provides them with what they need: rank, high salaries, the opportunity to command soldiers, and, in wartime, to sit back at headquarters.
A lower level of the animal component of consciousness, with its egocentrism, as well as self- consciousness, with its altruism, compared to creative persons produces businesspeople with a somewhat predominance of the animal component of consciousness, coupled with a high level of mental abilities, who have not sunk in their self-consciousness to the level of politicians and other parasitic deceivers who comprise the power elite.
Businesspeople are skilled in many ways, striving to take an unconventional approach to business activities, but they by no means neglect themselves, and their selflessness typically boils down to charity to reduce tax losses.
Therefore, businessmen, if we turn to their individuality, just like creative individuals, are curious, persistent, have a high level of dominance, in connection with which they are very enterprising, quite smart, although all these qualities of their individuality are inferior in quality to the individual characteristics of creative individuals, as a result of which businessmen are not so categorical in relation to the subject of their activity, and in the event of several failures they can abandon it.
Their personalities are characterized by good mental abilities, intellectual curiosity, conscious hard work, and a conviction in the appropriateness of their actions. All this contributes to unconventional solutions in their field of activity, bordering on creativity. However, a significant degree of self-confidence and unscrupulousness, coupled with an extremely weak tinge of kindness and compassion, which they replace with charity, makes them ruthless scoundrels in critical situations, and in life, they are usually nothing more than egotists.
Therefore, they differ little from the philistines, caring only about themselves. Except that due to the rather high level of dissatisfaction of the animal component of consciousness, they are more energetic, tenacious, and successful.
But what about rich people in general, you might ask? They seem to definitely be smart, creative, energetic, resourceful, quick-witted, and have a good memory. Otherwise, they wouldn't have become rich.
Rich people are indeed diverse, but they nonetheless fall into the same social strata mentioned above. And so, the rich aren't always oppressors and parasites.
Those in power or high-ranking officials are, in essence, common thieves who acquired their wealth through exploiting their positions. For example, all the US presidents, some of whom appear on the dollar bill, became millionaires, most of whom weren't millionaires before their presidencies. Not to mention other high-ranking officials!
A small minority of wealthy people are undoubtedly creative. For example, these include inventors who sold their patents for widely popular inventions and thereby became millionaires. These include directors and producers of blockbusters, famous writers, and artists.
Critics of the government are also no strangers to wealth. Moreover, they typically come from very wealthy backgrounds and often convincingly oppose those in power, having received an excellent education. For example, Charles Fourier, the famous founder of palaces for living and working and coiner of the term "feminism," was the only son of a wealthy Besan;on merchant and owned a colonial goods store until 1793. V. I. Lenin's father was also a wealthy civilian general.
Thus, the essence of the middle class is mainly reduced to the nature of the philistine, since in both, the egocentrism of consciousness prevails over the altruism of self-consciousness with a general weak development of self-consciousness, which entails them in a life that is not associated with problems, but associated with prosperity. However, members of the middle class, due to their education and specialization, claim greater wealth and access to higher cultural values.
All this in itself determines the role of the middle class in society, which boils down to a buffer between the oppressed and the oppressors, giving the philistines the hope of acquiring the same comparatively high well-being, which to a certain extent stabilizes society, as was noted in ancient Greece.
However, the emergence of artificial intelligence is destroying this idyll, rendering obsolete almost all specialists incapable of creativity, counter workers, programmers, and other clerical workers who can only work according to preset algorithms, something artificial intelligence handles far more successfully.
Therefore, a trend toward the disappearance of the middle class is already emerging, and then, if an artificial intelligence truly takes center stage, toward the disappearance of all ordinary people, as dreamed of by Bill Gates, Soros, and other non-humans who desire to walk on virgin soil, cleared of what they consider superfluous people.
Bibliography
1. Aristotle. 1948. The Politics. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
2. Credit Suisse. Global Wealth Report/ 2015.
3. Nizovtsev Yu. Introduction (On the essential differences between a people, population and nation). On the essence of a people in the frameworks of the state (collection). 2024. [Electronic resource]. Access mode:  Amazon. © Yury Nizovtsev).