George Orwell covered this basic point in `1984` (published in 1949):
> The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again.
It's pretty common to Christian, especially Protestant, theology and culture.
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
And that principle is the often (most?) quoted part of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
A few years later, the U.S. Constitution banned titles of mobility. We are probably overdue to follow up with nixing professional titles and titles for government officials (Mr. President, Your Honor, etc.).
It's not clear to me that Orwell was saying that. And neither of the passages I vite are talking about laws as such. The Declaration of Independence was certainly extralegal, and perhaps it is more foundational than any given body of law, even.
That's a pretty political bent on things, especially if you are considering the protestant world view:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." (book of Ephesians)
The text (and theology) clearly divorce the outcome from the work being done. Frankly a plan reading of the text would be sympathetic to socialism (also see the day of Pentecost, the parable of the workers, etc..). It's very tortured to suggest that somehow this is actually a libertarian "pull yourself up" world view.
I know, the idea that we'd all be born into more or less equal stations and afforded the more or less the same opportunities, is a thought too frightening to behold amiright?
Or tip the balances of power between the 3 groups.
It seems in the last 10+ years, social media empires and big tech have done just that. It seems to me, the High turned the Middle and Low against each other.
So the idea behind this is what? That you shouldn't trust the revolutionaries because they dont have your interests in mind? That its hopeless? This model of the world is just run of the mill statusquoism trying to make people too despondent to tear down hierarchy, not some deep truth.
To be honest I dont know if Orwell agreed with the position of the high or not, but the fact people repeat this propaganda of the "high" from 1984 is absurd.
You absolutely shouldn't trust the revolutionists who tell you to die for their causes. Revolutions and chaos in general make most people's lives worse off, hence why they tend to happen when peoples' lives are so bad that they can't possibly get worse than status quo.
That doesn't mean revolutions are bad from a system point of view, they serve as reboots for a system plagued with memory leaks.
Orwell's biography is so famous that we can guess the basics of how he would answer this: revolutionaries don't necessarily have your interests in mind; it's not hopeless; oppose the status quo; don't be blinded by ideology; be honest before being political.
Which biography are you referring to? I’m seeing a few. I didn’t know it was famous and never thought to check, but would definitely like to read now that you mention it.
P.S. it’s always a treat to stumble on a non-moderator comment from dang
Oh, by biography I just meant his life story. I didn't have a specific book in mind.
Orwell is famous for having been early to break with political allies whose tactics he abhorred, even though they were fighting for his side. He had a genius for intellectual honesty, which made his writing exceptionally clear. If there's a clearer writer in English I wonder who it is.
I've read it as we repeat a cycle where people are always far up on top and the only way to break that cycle is to be content with more or less everyone being in or near the middle.
Or put another way: So long as there is a high that people can day dream about becoming then there will never be equality for the majority of people. Otherwise people will get into the high places, slam the door shut as soon as they can, and the fighting and day dreaming will continue.
I agree with your sentiment and I am probably on the lower end of the middle class now, coming from a working class family, but I can't find a way to avoid that someone will get more than me by simply not caring about obeying the rules.
If you have more resources you can buy your exemptions from the law.
Probably from someone who can be "bought" because that money is a significant amount compared to what usually earns.
I hoped in this third Industrial revolution to free us up from labor, but it looks like people don't get it well when you tell them "your job doesn't exist anymore" even if it's generally a good thing.
"The Fourth Industrial Revolution" is one of the most successfully lobbied and marketed instruments of our time. It has preoccupied governments and distracted them from addressing existing inequalities.
Alternatively it can be seen as a lesson for the low to not allow the middle to use them as a weapon. If they want to avoid this same result they'd need to take over their own revolution, not be led by the middle.
By Orwell’s definition you can’t depend on The Low to defend themselves
> The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives
On the large scale, I think Orwell's view is correct. The pattern always repeats itself.
However on the individual level, you can reap the benefits of the revolutions and will die before the next cycle, so there's always at least some incentive to challenge the status quo.
It doesn't change the fact that it's hopeless on the large scale.
Technology has the potential of flattening the social hierarchy somewhat. Or more likely it gives some an out even if they can't get the social status they want -- like making it easier for one to live a life cut off from immediate social circles (and status competition). Anonymous online association is an example that comes to mind.
> That you shouldn't trust the revolutionaries because they dont have your interests in mind? That its hopeless?
If you've read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, chronicling his experience in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the socialists, I think that's a reasonable interpretation of his position.
> The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again.