[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]
Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.
Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)
Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)
But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.
