And, moreover, one particular nation-state. But still, the scholarship you find in American Interest tends to be high quality. I can respect a sincere concern with quality argumentation, even if the reasoning is motivated and even if I don't entirely sympathize with that motivation.
> Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely
The second sentence is entirely accurate. However, the article doesn't claim that communists (or capitalists) of the 20th century were trying to nurture "the middle class". Rather, the article (carefully) claims:
"virtually all states—whether capitalist or communist, industrialized or developmental, great power or post-colonial—aimed to legitimate themselves by serving the interests of middle classes whose size they sought to expand... Both capitalist and communist accumulation strategies were based on the nurturing of industrial laborers".
I think the article's characterization is fair, in-so-far as you can say anything at all about such a broad group of political projects as "all capitalists and also all communists"! WRT your first sentence specifically, the communist project did aim to "nurture" industrial laborers; the purported means was abolishing class, of course, but all the same.
We can't expect to read articles as if they are the neutral truth (which doesn't exist anyway). That's why we need a free press expressing a diverse bunch of ideas.
A weak point in left thought to my mind is its widespread spontanaeism - the notion that once people just see how well other approaches work they'll naturally adopt them. While true to some extent I think it also rests on a sort of utilitarian rationalism and skates over the problem of incumbent actors operating in bad faith. So people either tend to avoid that question altogether (utopianism) or posit extreme solutions that take no account of tactical/strategic factors (ultras). If you delve into the work of statists like Bill Lind, in contrast, you don't have to look too far before coming on discussions of the practicalities of repression and how to implement it while maintaining strategic superiority.
The AI analysis is OK from that perspective - kinda like classical mechanics does a decent job of predicting local astronomical phenomena despite its explanatory limitations.
Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.
Well, you could say lift them up into what? The middle class is in the middle between (stereotype warning) powerful idle elites and downtrodden industrial wage slaves/serfs. The Communist Manifesto sketches the idea of the future society out quite loosely, but it boils down to 'hey, we could actually provide a middle class lifestyle for everyone by rethinking property relations' - Marx talks about everyone putting in some work but also having meaningful amounts of leisure time . Presumably the heroes of a future communist society would be those who maximized consumer rather than producer surplus after externalities had been accounted for.
The goal wasn't to drag everyone down to the lowest pits of the working class, but to afford everyone the freedom from day-to-day economic insecurity and the dignity middle class people have historically enjoyed, without allowing new elites to coalesce. Think of post Kruschev Soviet media where there's a sort of technological and economic self-confidence on display.
Ditto with skills, tests. Don't care, just as long as i'm above others.
A lot of people don't REALLY want to abolish slavery or heirachies. What really want is to ensure they're considered the masters.
No question that mentality exists, I'll argue that it's a very small minority of eg millionaires in any society that hold such a view.
There are around 11 to 13 million (not including primary residence) millionaires in the US; or around 4.5% to 5% of the adult population. The typical millionaire in the US is worth about $3 to $4 million. While it's a very large group of people spread across the country, they do have a few things in common.
The majority acquired that status from working extremely hard for a very long time, usually either operating and or selling relatively small businesses with no more than between a few dozen up to a hundred employees, or slogging away for decades piling up invested wealth slowly over their lifetime.
The millionaire class in the US is numerically overwhelmingly dominated by those types of outcomes and has been since the industrial revolution.
Extreme wealth on the other hand obviously is concentrated in a few thousand persons with unusual outlier situations, usually around very large business concerns. My suspicion is that group is dramatically more likely to have a master of the universe mentality.
I went to school with their children and their wealth was not shown in any obvious way. We were all equal.
To maintain their wealth required long hours, hard work and generally being fair to everyone around them. Within the same area, we had people who didn't have the same level of wealth but considered themselves superior because they were lawyers, or bank managers or other professionals. These carried an air of distinction and superiority and many considered the "millionaires" as plebs.
One cannot generalise about any group based on some specific characteristic like money. Each of them is an individual and though some can and do take up airs, others do not. I have a son to whom I have lent money so that he can get ahead and he has always shown himself responsible, including paying me back. The way he is going, he will be a millionaire long before I am. I have another son to whom I will not lend any money to, as he has shown that he cannot handle the responsibility. They were both brought up the same way, only one took up the challenge to be financially proficient.
Different people will act and react in different ways and you cannot paint any group of people with the same brush.
I'd say it's the majority of millionaires that I've met (all successful small business owners).
They all worked very hard for their wealth and built it over a lifetime, as you said, but every single one of them relished screwing over others and being better than others. They worked like they did for their egos, and not much else. And all of them are virulently committed to making sure they stay on top, even if the top is sinking.
"""the social group that has the highest status in society, especially the aristocracy. "it is important that the children of the upper class attend the ‘right’ school" """
I could have the same goods as you, but we'll find a way of distinguishing ourselves based on accent, assuredly. Speaking as a Brit.
If anything we should be striving to limit the power of artisotricacy type groups (whether in dynastical political families, special interest group form, oligopolistic industry cartels with political pull, etc, etc).
I don't see anything especially wrong with that as long as said distinction isn't built on some kind of vertical hierarchy which involves downwards oppression/discrimination.
People can be vastly different yet still consider each other as equals. The only reason we think of this as a contraction is that for the longest time humans have solely organized themselves in vertical hierarchies where the "top" is supposed "the best" going down to the "bottom" with the supposed "worst".
That's why so many people are conditioned to always strife for the top, for them it's the goal of the game, but a games goal can be changed, just like its rules.
Maybe you look down on me because I don't even have a HAM radio license, maybe somebody else considers himself superior because he knows a lot about wines, maybe other person thinks she's cooler because she knows everything about 80s punk bands...
In developed countries even the poorest are infinitely better off than the upper class in medieval times, safe for the aspect that they're not richer than their peers. That seems to be a very important factor for happiness.
Precisely. And the Communists did one thing grossly wrong - they substituted the Capitalist class with the Communist "Elite". It was from an older owner to a newer owner. The people saw little difference in who they were required to work for.
A new Communist thought is that of worker collectives. The idea is that they are better than unions, with the capitalist class continually picking and clawing at any reforms. With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife. And it is one step closer to the proletariat owning the means to production.
Oh and if you quit using their services and then try to later, they will collect. But yeah, this is the "bad" side of capitalism - you not only will be automated out of a job, but will have decisions automated. And seriously - of course they will be decided against your favor. The capitalists didn't get in their place by loosing money.
And yet, I get downmodded for talking communism. It's about time someone talks of different economic theory. We've gone down long enough of "trickle down", and it doesn't work - or it works beyond the elite's dreams.
You don't have to argue with them - you can always take your money elsewhere. Big corporations are already AIs (although slow and made of people) that are optimized for one thing - their customers.
Many people have a fundamental liking to be in positions of power. What system are you proposing?
> With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife.
I'm sure you've been to Linux/OSS meetup. Linus rules with an iron hand, as does Guido for Python. Why does that eliminate strife? IRL, forking is not relatively painless.
The unfortunate problem with most systems yet devised is that they fail to account for humans actively subverting them and coopting them.
Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.