Forgive me, but this dispute doesn't begin to rise to the level of "academic".

"Academic" in the sense of little practical or useful significance in terms of Vitaliy's theory.

You have yet to cite an example of who was "middle-class" in ancient Egypt, and how those living conditions can reasonably be described as "middle-class" -- unless "middle-class" means nothing more than that said person has resources which fall somewhere between the very poor and the rich, and says nothing about purchasing power, disposable income, leisure, home ownership, access to resources, etc.

I've already said that's the only definition since drawing points of demarcation for income and purchasing power is arbitrary. Generally who is and isn't a member of the middle class is culturally specific. Either way, there is absolutely no requirement of disposable income, leisure time, home ownership and all the other things you enumerate. Those are YOUR criteria. Not sure where you get the idea of some agreed upon definition of middle class among social scientists -- there is no unanimity. I've said this 8 different ways.

Middle class in Ancient Egypt? I've been referencing ancient Greece, but very well, how about the Scribes. They'd probably qualify.

I thought "middle class" became an accepted term because it's much easier to say than "upper lower class"

Anyone else reading David Graeber's book on Debt? I'm nearly finished and for me its been extremely refreshing (although not particularly uplifting). But then again I'm a fan of the anthropological perspective of looking at the specific traits of cultures rather than always getting stuck with vague notions of "us" and "them".

The premise of the book is that in terms of human civilizations, there is an inherent tendency to though "debt cycles", and for us to understand the current situation we need to stop being deluded by "economics" and start understanding things in terms of the current system of debt. The "elites" don't control any "economic system" so much as they manage the tools to maintain our current form of debt society. I don't want to go too deep into it because Graeber says it much better than me.

For a start its good to check some video interviews with him https://www.google.ee/search?q=david+graeber+debt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=david+graeber+debt&hl=et&client=firefox-a&hs=qki&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ei=mOaSUOunJ-LW0QXnmYDgAw&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2bd86b71c539dd16&bpcl=37189454&biw=1916&bih=1070

Forgive me, but this dispute doesn't begin to rise to the level of "academic". You have yet to cite an example of who was "middle-class" in ancient Egypt, and how those living conditions can reasonably be described as "middle-class" -- unless "middle-class" means nothing more than that said person has resources which fall somewhere between the very poor and the rich, and says nothing about purchasing power, disposable income, leisure, home ownership, access to resources, etc. -- i.e., has nothing to do with the way the phrase "middle-class" is actually used by economists and social scientists.

1) Ancient societies, as far as I know, rarely, if ever, consisted of tens of millions of people

Exactly; before the existence of mass societies, there was no basis for a middle-class, as we understand the term today and as social scientists define it. Similarly, the conditions for a middle-class don't exist in pre-industrial societies, where almost no one had leisure time and disposable income. You can choose another definition, but then we're no longer talking about the modern notion of "middle-class", applicable to life today.

I don't understand this point. Doesn't the developed world still need TV's and refrigerators?

The profit margin on TVs and fridges is very small in the developed world. The big money is in industrialization and resource exploitation in emerging nations and (of course) "financial services" and market manipulation. The oligarchs have discovered they don't really need a prosperous middle-class to make money.

EDIT: It's worth noting here that while manufacturing jobs enjoy no protectionism from the state -- employers are free to take the jobs abroad, to the lowest bidder -- certain sectors enjoy extraordinary protections. Law, medicine, engineering, financial services, etc. would attract large numbers of highly qualified foreign practitioners willing to work at far lower than prevailing wages, if they were allowed to compete here. But they're not allowed to compete -- these professions have enough political clout to prevent it, and consumers have no choice but to pay the prices demanded by the guild. So the idea that the market necessarily dooms all workers is clearly false. It only dooms workers with no protections from the state.

Do not worry, I am not :-)

This is the era of uncertainty. If I have no doubt at all, I sense something is prolly wrong. That is I feel uncomfortable if I think I can see anything so clear.

At the moment you think you are the old experienced meerkat looking with big eyes into the trailer, prolly you are in a bigger trailer.

Do not worry, I am not :-)

@stonebat The problem with that essay is that in America and other places you can't own land. You can only rent it from the government. See what happens when you stop paying your property taxes.

Where middle class was in Greece, Egipt, etc, with numbers and percents in total population compared with simple farmars and workers who worked like mad 12 hours a day to get basic food for family.

You won't find many historians saying there was no middle class until the 19th century.

Problem is, "Middle Class" is a fuzzy term with no agreed upon definition other than the social class between the upper and lower class. Mitt Romney says it's people making 250k/year. Modern Americans can't even agree on it and the issue gets really muddy when you start talking about antiquity. I think one thing that categorizes Middle Class of ancient times is that its members work for a living -- versus a noble class that doesn't. Modern day elites on the other hand also often work right? And sometimes modern elites work for more than 12 hours a day. I'm sure Mitt Romney is no stranger to 12 hour days. So the comparisons break down quickly. In some instances in ancient history, your definition of simple farmers who work 12 hour days may in fact qualify as middle class since the simple Bronze Age farmer 1) isn't a slave 2) isn't starving and 3) owns land (maybe). The Bronze age elite might have a life expectancy of 45 years, have rotten teeth, and be illiterate. That doesn't sound like Mr. Romney now does it?

But to say there weren't at least 3 distinct social levels in ancient societies seems like an argument someone would make who has never opened a history book. In Ancient Greece there were merchants, land owners, skilled tradesmen, scholars, and religious authorities. Some had voting rights some didn't. There were slaves, freemen laborers and royalty as well. Are we really going to say all these groups should be categorized in two crude social classes?

I don't have charts, if I did, I'd personally be suspect of them because of the centuries gone by and way historians piece together the historical record. It'd typically be speculative at best and based on the archaeology and fragmentary nature of cultural artifacts.

So can you.

There never was a Middle Class.

http://americanenergycrisis.blogspot.com/2012/08/there-never-was-middle-class.html

@zigizigi The middle class is not something invented at the end of the 19th century. The middle class was clearly part of ancient Greek life going back to 700 bc. Ancient Egypt, the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent. Thousand of years before the birth of Christ.

To understand why they eliminate middle class you have to look at the history. The problem with capitalism is that its profit seeking nature needs constant growth and expansion which will eventually devour planetary resources. It needed to be stopped. "They" understood it in 19th century to which Marx and Maltus belong. That's why socialism was invented and working class revolution was proposed as a cure for capitalism's ever growing planetary cancer.

But when the marxist project sponsored by some financial elite circles came to power in Russia that scared the shit out of the capitalist elites. They understood that it was serious and they could lose everything they had in a blink of an eye. That's why the INVENTED middle class as a solution. There was no such thing in the end of 19th century. There were rich ruling elite and poor men working for them in sweatshops on a minimum wage like Chinese these days. That's the logic behind capitalism - maximize profit, pay workers less - gain more. But then there was Soviet Union that turned Russia from a country with 90% or rural illiterate population into the 2nd largest industrialized economy of the world under a few decades of Stalin's rule and gave free education to everyone. Of course the Western capitalist elite needed to compete against that that out of the fear of revolution. The solution was simple: we would turn that poor Chine.... err... American worker having nothing into an OWNER. We would share some of our profits with working class and give them a house and a car so that they feel more like us and they would have something to lose. And we would scare them with commies that could come and deprive them from PROPERTY that they now own. That was the idea behind the middle class. But originally it was NEVER meant to be there.

Now there's no Soviet Union as a competitor. So why keep this class of small owners? Why share profits with them? For what purpose? Just for them not to revolt? Fuck that, they'll hire some PMC guys and put the rebels into FEMA camps, that's cheaper.

So, capitalist elite needs no middle class. So does financial elite that wants to shut down capitalism. And it it imminent. It's coming. Rather sooner than later. Because capitalism is a planetary dead-end, it only leads to resource depletion, wars and global catastrophy. They don't want that.

But no one in their right mind wants to lose a house and become a bum. That's why middle class needs to be fleeced by trickery. There's gonna be a shock, a "crisis" that they will blame it upon. It is crisis that came and took your house and car. These are the greedy Wall street guys to blame, yadayada. That's why Ben prints money like they're going outta style and buys mortgage securities. They collect all possible debt they can collect. So if you don't understand the logic of history and how current events fit into it - you're in trouble. You're gonna get fleeced. If you have any debt and your house is mortgaged it's not yours. It's gonna be theirs in the nearest future. They did it in 2008, they're gonna do the same now, only on a MUCH larger scale.

So, it is true, middle class is doomed. There will be the super-rich and the super-poor, and that's it.

PS Invest in physical precious metals guys if you have something to invest, that's the only chance to maintain your wealth in the upcoming turmoil. Sorry, if it's kinda long but there no way to understand it unless by analyzing a very long-run, few centuries long agenda ;)

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

LOL for the tits size :) Nice humor! Anyway, I hope that when troubles will get really big, many people will suddenly get interest in the real things of their life. At that point it will not necessary that everyone has a deep understandings about problems and solutions, it is sufficient that a few very smart and good people appear in society and a lot of hungry people go around without to know what to do. A new revolution will happen and things will be better. (For a while, of course)

I really believe that the criminal plans of elites can be defeated. It will be the desperation that they will cause which will kill them in the end. Marx told it, didn't he?