What's in a word/class.

[Brian37]

Ok, I struggle with words, as everyone knows here.

But regarding class conflict in European/Russian history. I struggle with words denoting class and power.

Like "Bolshevism"

"Proletariat"

And "Bourgeoisie"

I do get confused, I have to admit. But please correct me if I am wrong. Aren't these all labels denoting different geographies and classes, as in class warfare?

Couldn't one argue that Autocrat, Plutocrat and Oligarch all simply be different flavors of people with wealth, power and influence?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ok, I struggle with words, as everyone knows here.

But regarding class conflict in European/Russian history. I struggle with words denoting class and power.

Like "Bolshevism"

"Proletariat"

And "Bourgeoisie"

I do get confused, I have to admit. But please correct me if I am wrong. Aren't these all labels denoting different geographies and classes, as in class warfare?

Couldn't one argue that Autocrat, Plutocrat and Oligarch all simply be different flavors of people with wealth, power and influence?

‘Bolshevism’ doesn’t refer to class, but to a particular political movement.

‘Proletariat’ means the working class, while ‘bourgeoisie’ refers to the middle class. None of these words are geographical in any meaningful sense.

The answer to your second question is ‘yes’ (although wealth is only a necessary condition of a plutocracy, not the other two).

Boru

[Brian37]

Ok, I struggle with words, as everyone knows here.

But regarding class conflict in European/Russian history. I struggle with words denoting class and power.

Like "Bolshevism"

"Proletariat"

And "Bourgeoisie"

I do get confused, I have to admit. But please correct me if I am wrong. Aren't these all labels denoting different geographies and classes, as in class warfare?

Couldn't one argue that Autocrat, Plutocrat and Oligarch all simply be different flavors of people with wealth, power and influence?

‘Bolshevism’ doesn’t refer to class, but to a particular political movement.

‘Proletariat’ means the working class, while ‘bourgeoisie’ refers to the middle class. None of these words are geographical in any meaningful sense.

The answer to your second question is ‘yes’.

Boru

Fine, but the more I compare all those words, they all still seem to amount to excuses to grouping to gain an advantage of power.

It all strikes me as humans grouping to gain an advantage.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Bolshevism’ doesn’t refer to class, but to a particular political movement.

‘Proletariat’ means the working class, while ‘bourgeoisie’ refers to the middle class. None of these words are geographical in any meaningful sense.

The answer to your second question is ‘yes’.

Boru

Fine, but the more I compare all those words, they all still seem to amount to excuses to grouping to gain an advantage of power.

It all strikes me as humans grouping to gain an advantage.

All except ‘autocrat’, which is power held by a single person. No grouping necessary.

Boru

[Brian37]

Fine, but the more I compare all those words, they all still seem to amount to excuses to grouping to gain an advantage of power.

It all strikes me as humans grouping to gain an advantage.

All except ‘autocrat’, which is power held by a single person. No grouping necessary.

Boru

No, sorry, that autocrat, like any other power, still has to pander for support, and needs funding, once they get that power. If they fail to garner that support, and keep rivals at bay, they are as subject to revolution as any other form of power. Power regardless of label, has to be funded in some way, open society or closed. 

Revolutions in our species history have gone in both directions, from closed states to open states, and from open states to closed states. The labels don't matter. Power is just that, power. And there are countless examples in human history worldwide, where power keeps for a while then fails and gets replaced by another power.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All except ‘autocrat’, which is power held by a single person. No grouping necessary.

Boru

No, sorry, that autocrat, like any other power, still has to pander for support, and needs funding, once they get that power. If they fail to garner that support, and keep rivals at bay, they are as subject to revolution as any other form of power. Power regardless of label, has to be funded in some way, open society or closed. 

Revolutions in our species history have gone in both directions, from closed states to open states, and from open states to closed states. The labels don't matter. Power is just that, power. And there are countless examples in human history worldwide, where power keeps for a while then fails and gets replaced by another power.

But that’s not the same thing. An oligarchy and (usually) a plutocracy involve the sharing of power, whereas an autocracy does not. 

Boru

[Brian37]

No, sorry, that autocrat, like any other power, still has to pander for support, and needs funding, once they get that power. If they fail to garner that support, and keep rivals at bay, they are as subject to revolution as any other form of power. Power regardless of label, has to be funded in some way, open society or closed. 

Revolutions in our species history have gone in both directions, from closed states to open states, and from open states to closed states. The labels don't matter. Power is just that, power. And there are countless examples in human history worldwide, where power keeps for a while then fails and gets replaced by another power.

But that’s not the same thing. An oligarchy and (usually) a plutocracy involve the sharing of power, whereas an autocracy does not. 

Boru

Again you are still missing my point. I can accept that distinction, but it still amounts to group support. 

The autocrat/plutocracy still needs to maintain their power by convincing those below them they deserve the power. If they fail to provide, just like if a zookeeper fails to feed the tiger/lion, for long enough, the animal will turn on them. 

I think that is human nature in all political/government structures regardless of label. Humans can be oppressed by an iron fist for sure. Even in open societies like in the west, it is hard for a poor person or middle class person to fight a wealthy person in court. But in both open and closed societies, power is power, and if those powers, in either case are not providing enough support to keep their power, when given the chance, under the right conditions, those below that top power will turn on that power if they can.

[no one]

Sheeple are easily convinced.
Those in power, rely on the stupidity of said sheeple.

[Ranjr]

A blutocrat is a brut who tries to steal your goyl.

[arewethereyet]

B37 - Asks question

B4 - Answers question

B37 - I don't like that answer

wash, rinse, repeat