The Class War

Dates are approximate times of events not of

The works describing them.

@ 1200 BC “The rest now took their seats and kept to their own several places, but Thersites still went on wagging his unbridled tongue– a man of many words, and those unseemly; a monger of sedition, a railer against all who were in authority, who cared not what he said, so that he might set the Achaeans in a laugh.” Homer, “Iliad”

@ 750 BC “About this time, Menestheus, the son of Peteus, grandson of Orneus, and great-grandson of Erechtheus, the first man that is recorded to have affected popularity and ingratiated himself with the multitude,” Plutarch “Lives” “Theseus”

@ 650 BC “After this event there was contention for a long time between the upper classes and the populace. Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich. They were known as Pelatae and also as Hectemori, because they cultivated the lands of the rich at the rent thus indicated. The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their children with them. All loans secured upon the debtor's person, a custom which prevailed until the time of Solon, who was the first to appear as the champion of the people. But the hardest and bitterest part of the constitution in the eyes of the masses was their state of serfdom. Not but what they were also discontented with every other feature of their lot; for, to speak generally, they had no part nor share in anything.” Aristotle, “Constitution of Athens” Book I

@ 600 BC “Since such, then, was the organization of the constitution, and the many were in slavery to the few, the people rose against the upper class. The strife was keen, and for a long time the two parties were ranged in hostile camps against one another, till at last, by common consent, they appointed Solon to be mediator and Archon, and committed the whole constitution to his hands. The immediate occasion of his appointment was his poem, which begins with the words:… Indeed, he constantly fastens the blame of the conflict on the rich; and accordingly at the beginning of the poem he says that he fears 'the love of wealth and an overweening mind', evidently meaning that it was through these that the quarrel arose.” Aristotle, “Constitution of Athens” Book I, Part V.

@ 450 BC “During seven days the Corcyraeans were engaged in butchering those of their fellow-citizens whom they regarded as their enemies; and although the crime imputed was that of attempting to put down the democracy, some were slain also for private hatred, others by their debtors because of the monies owed to them. Death thus raged in every shape, and as usually happens at such times, there was no length to which violence did not go; sons were killed by their fathers, and suppliants were dragged from the altar or slain upon it....Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places where it arrived last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions... and the atrocity of their reprisals.... Corcyra gave the first example of these crimes... of the revenge exacted by the governed- who had never experienced equitable treatment, or, indeed, aught but violence from their rulers- when their hour came; of the iniquitous resolves of those who desired to get rid of their accustomed poverty, and ardently coveted their neighbors' goods; and the savage and pitiless excesses into which men who had begun the struggle not in a class but in a party spirit, were hurried by their passions.... In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority.... Reckless audacity came now to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question was accounted inability to act on any.... The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition.... The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of the political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish; and, recoiling from no means in their struggle for ascendancy, engaged in the direst excesses.... Religion was in honor with neither party, but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation.... The ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down, and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.... Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.... The whole Hellenic world was convulsed.” Thucydides” from Durant’s “Story of Civilization” volume 2, “The Life of Greece”

@ 350 BC “The argument seems to show that, whether in oligarchies or in democracies, the number of the governing body, whether the greater number, as in a democracy, or the smaller number, as in an oligarchy, is an accident due to the fact that the rich everywhere are few, and the poor numerous. But if so, there is a misapprehension of the causes of the difference between them. For the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a democracy. But as a fact the rich are few and the poor many; for few are well-to-do, whereas freedom is enjoyed by any, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the oligarchical and democratical parties respectively claim power in the state.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book III, Section VIII

@ 1505 “I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.” Machiavelli, “The Prince” Chapter IX.

@ 1505 “He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.” Machiavelli, “The Prince” Chapter IX

Growing up in the US, I always assumed that Class War and the Domino Theory were inventions of Marx without any historical basis. It came as something of a surprise to me to discover that the idea of Class War goes back about as far as History reaches. Outside the walls of Troy the Kings of the ancient Greeks were plagued by Thersites criticizing their wealth and abuse of the poor. Theseus in establishing Athens had to deal with a populist leader. The Peloponnesian wars (431 to 404 BC) were an ancient example of the Domino effect. Oppressions of the poor by the wealthy leading to revolutions and outrage. This was not the first Domino Revolution to rage through the Classical world. Approximately 200 years earlier from roughly 650-500 BC, Tyrants rose throughout much of Greece. Many of these tyrants overthrew Oligarchies as peoples dictators. This was the time of Solon and he gifted Athens with a moderate change in Constitution and refused to assume the power of a Tyrant or Peoples Dictator. This established in Athens as distinct from most of the rest of the Greek City States a tradition of moderate government. Though Athens would experience a sort of dictatorship under Pisistratus, his sons would be overthrown just before the wars with Persia. Later, by electing Pericles for term after term throughout his life, Athens again experienced a sort of President for Life.

Marx in assuming that such a Domino effect would sweep through the Capitalist nations of the world was betting that history would repeat. He was also betting that 2500 years of social evolution and the political cultures which resulted from that would not modify the outcome and that the Western Capitalist countries would not have any leaders to compare with Solon of Athens. In the US, it’s first President, George Washington imitated Solon’s example of refusing dictatorial power. Though he may have been inspired by Cincinnatus of Rome also famous for retiring to his farm rather than keeping absolute power.

After the frontier had been exhausted so that the more ambitious and energetic among the poor no longer had the opportunity which this guaranteed, the US began to see symptoms of class war. This occurred first in the North where urbanization was much more advanced than in the South. Lincoln’s election was proceeded by a period of economic instability which is classic in the historical patterns of revolution. He had all the classic marks of a populist leader/dictator. History did not allow him to demonstrate what he would have done next. Would he have kept power and possibly made the Presidency hereditary in his family? Would he have followed Washington’s example and stepped down after his second term.

This developed in Europe as well, and the modern Communist and Socialist movements were initiated. In facing this modern version of class war, the US ended up being led through the worst parts by the Roosevelt’s. Teddy Roosevelt of “Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick” fame was a classical example of the aristocrat who comes to power as a peoples protector. He was called a traitor to his class. His reforms and support of workers helped prevent the violent revolution which would otherwise have been inevitable. Forced or inspired by the example of Washington he stepped down from power.

Franklin D. Roosevelt broke Washington’s rule. Justified by WWII he held power for four terms. The public reaction when he died so frightened Congress that they passed the 22^nd amendment.

This amendment is probably the wisest single change which has been made in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights. Three times since Washington the US has flirted with a President who had all the markings of a President for Life. The third call was so close that the Constitution was amended to prevent further flirtations from becoming too serious. It is easy to take such an analysis as an attack on these men. These men are rightfully considered great and numbered among our most beloved Presidents. Let us consider the words of Machiavelli in “The Prince”.

Lincoln, and the two Roosevelt’s were champions of the nobler cause. In what is also a classic pattern, the Roosevelt’s, aristocrats themselves took up the mantle of the peoples cause.

Here Aristotle is probably defining the best legislators as those who did not assume dictatorial or supreme authority. That is to say those who did not become presidents for life by whatever name.

Throughout history wealth has gradually concentrated into a few hands. Those few then abused the poor to such a degree that the poor rose up and butchered them in various ways, frequently quite horrible ways. The people have generally been led by a populist leader who then became Dictator, Tyrant, Caesar, Emperor or in modern times President for Life. Why do the wealthy always repeat the same errors and reap the same fruits time after time?

Psalms 90:10

People only live about 70 years and after that generation dies out, the next generation seems to go through the same things that they did. This might have something to do with living memory. As one generation dies out, the lessons of its youth are forgotten and the same mistakes are repeated. In 1776 the US declared independence from England and the Revolutionary War ensued. 1860 saw the Lincoln elected and South Carolina secede from the Union and the Civil War. The 1950s produced the Civil Rights movement. 1917 saw the October Revolution in Petrograd. 1989 sees the first multi-party elections and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Longer life spans may change this pattern. In 1929 the US went through the great depression. Beginning in the 1990’s the legal safeguards to prevent such an occurrence began to be dismissed as hampering he economy and in 2002 the market bubble burst again.

Just as people are limited by their experience of the times in which they live, they are limited by their social status and class. The Wealthy see only that which is in their interest, the Poor see only that which is in their interest.

The Wealthy as a Class

It is the sad duty of the political philosopher to trash the wealthy as a class. If you read history, you will find patterns repeating themselves over and over. One is the pattern of class war made famous by Marx. Solon’s reform of the laws of Athens was largely a matter of balancing the power of wealth versus the brute force of the poor citizens.

Aristotle said that for a Republic to survive it must avoid the creation of a pauper class.

Rome ruled the world for centuries, and during that time it saw the periodic massacre of the wealthy by the emperors who derived their power from the pauper class.

This really sounds like a defense of the wealthy, after all, Solon reformed Athens laws to forestall revolution and save them. The Caesar’s murdered them without mercy, confiscating huge estates and fortunes on a periodic basis.

They were guillotined ruthlessly in the French Revolution, and butchered without mercy in the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

That is the problem, this happens over and over and over again, and the wealthy keep on repeating the same mistakes.

They never learn. As a class, the wealthy are the most contemptible element of any society.

Allowed to exercise the power of wealth without restraint by the state they grow like a cancer until the state is destroyed and they perish.

Wealth is created by money flow. Augustus spent money freely, and the economy of Rome boomed, Tiberius ran a tight fiscal ship, major banks failed, the economy faltered, and he was forced to rescue them with grants from the state.

The wealthy, in a competitive free market society contribute to the flow of wealth.

The wealthy do not like a competitive free market society. They hate competition because it cuts their profits. They want monopolies. They want low labor costs. They want to achieve the one-way flow of money.

They want money to flow from others to them. If allowed to do this, money flow stops. Eventually there is not enough money outside of the coffers of the wealthy for commerce to occur. This changes the supply of money in society by economic class. The supply held by the wealthy increases without any increase in real wealth in society as a whole. When money supply increases inflation occurs. The Roman Emperors corrected this by periodically massacring large numbers of the wealthy, confiscating their estates, and spending the money on public works. Reintroducing the money into the other levels of society. The wealthy, being typical of the wealthy as a class, apparently preferred this to a more reasonable form of taxation.

When this happens, the creation of new wealth by money flow ceases. It is the circumstance of money flow, creating competition to get a share of that money that drives a growing economy. The wealthy, if allowed to do so, will create a system that halts the creation of new wealth.

What do the wealthy gain from halting the creation of new wealth and creating the conditions that assure they will be periodically massacred? The answer is sillier than you will believe. They gain imaginary wealth.

Inflation is when you make twice as much, but have to spend twice as much to buy anything. This happens to the wealthy with great regularity. They double their fortune, and then have to spend twice as much to buy their mansions, their wines, and other luxuries because they are bidding against other members of the wealthy class. All money held by the wealthy is worth less, dollar for dollar in purchasing power than money held by the poor because the prices of the things they spend money on are inflated by the amount other wealthy persons can afford to spend. The wealthy can only increase in real wealth if they individually build a bigger fortune. If the wealthy as a class become richer the increase in wealth is imaginary. They fail to recognize this as inflation. They fail to realize that their gain in wealth is imaginary. Yet it is.

Most of this money is in assets like stocks. On paper a wealthy person may be worth 80 billion dollars. Let him attempt to sell that stock and get the money and immediately the value of the stock goes down. He ends up worth a fraction of what he was supposed to be worth.

Inflation varies with socioeconomic class. The wealthier you are, the less each dollar you own is worth.

Those dollars represent a share in the total wealth of society. They represent ownership in the productive capacity of society. As such their real value is dependent on the real value of that productive capacity. Cause it to drop, and real wealth drops as well. No matter how big the dollar value is.

Productive capacity is a function of market size. If the size of the market drops, so does the production of wealth as a whole.

The workers are the market. If they cannot afford to buy what is produced, market size shrinks. When market size shrinks total wealth shrinks. When that happens, the shares in that total wealth held by the wealthy shrink in real value.

If the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, the poor can buy less and less. The market shrinks, there is no market for existing levels of production and the means of production shrink. The value of the holding of the wealthy actually decreases. The rich get poorer in the long run if the poor get poorer.

This is all relative, and the total inflation experienced varies from individual to individual depending on individual holdings. Nonetheless, if the wealth of the wealthy increases without a similar increase in market size caused by wealth of the lower classes increasing as well, overall the growth in wealth is inflationary and unreal. In a free market economy, the real wealth of the wealthy cannot increase unless the wealth of society as a whole increases.

So the wealthy destroy the potential for creating new wealth, condemn themselves to periodic massacre, and do it all for imaginary money. This is why it is the duty of political philosophers to trash the wealthy as a class. No stupider, more self destructive, more contemptible part of society exists.

Mencius is possibly the most famous of the apostles of Confucius. Just as Paul never new Jesus, Mencius never knew Confucius. He lived about a hundred years later and became the chief advocate of Confucian ethics in his time. He had this to say about profit and politics,

The wealthy as a class possess more money and have jobs available to them which pay more money than can be related in any rational manner to actual accomplishment. This creates a disconnect between merit and reward. A violation of natural law, and whenever natural law is violated there is a price to pay. In order to get those good jobs the wealthy must fit in with other members of their class. Fitting in, mindless acceptance of the mores of the group, is tremendously important to the wealthy. Few persons born to wealth dare to ever think for themselves, speak honestly, or behave in any fashion that is not marked out for them by their class. This pressure to mindless conformity has repeated itself throughout history.

This pressure to mindless conformity reduces the children of the most able men of society, the men who created vast fortunes to begin with, to the most worthless, vain, and useless class in society within a generation or two. Thus throughout history the wealthy class has been the model for comic theatre.

Having said this, you might think that I advocate the destruction of the wealthy.

Not so. The wealthy for all their faults are a necessary part of society. (Besides, the poor are just as stupid as they are.) In any state there will be large accumulations of wealth and power.

In a communist society this is held by the state and administered by bureaucrats. In a corporation this is divided among shareholders and administered by officers. If this power is administered by a bureaucrat he will administer it for his own gain. To gain greater rank, achieve more perks, or otherwise serve political vanity. When administered by officers of a corporation, short term profit, greed, is the only motivation. A rich individual is a human being. The possession of large amounts of wealth by individuals places a human face on the power of money.

These persons possess the power as individuals to take up causes, champion rights, and change the world. They are an important part of the human potential for greatness. As a class they are the most contemptible element of society. As individuals they are frequently the most admirable. The wealthy in order to accomplish anything must learn to think of themselves not as a class but as individuals. If they act to advance their class, they do not become wealthier but only see inflation. If they act as individuals, not as members of their class they will actually increase their individual fortunes and actually become wealthier, they will possibly be a positive force in society. It is only by seeing themselves as individuals and not as members of their class that the wealthy can overcome the tremendous disadvantages that their position in society imposes on them. Cultural mores have evolved to promote this kind of thing, as in the saying, “From those to whom much is given, much is expected”. For those members of the wealthy class who will mindlessly conform to the mores of their class, conformance to a noble set of mores will maintain them in relative safety and help prevent revolution.

In this context, “The Bell Curve“, completely independently of anything said about race, is almost a criminal act. It engages in a sort of science fiction speculation that the US is becoming increasingly divided into economic classes sorted by merit best measured as IQ. It also suggests that IQ is strongly hereditary. This creates a sense of entitlement by birth independent of personal merit. Those who embraced “The Bell Curve“ did so largely because of its emotional appeal. It subverts the mores and social norms which help the ‘upper‘ class remain a relatively positive element in society and reinforces those vicious and immoral tendencies which have marked the most degraded and inhumane periods of history.

There is a difference here between mindless obedience to peer pressure, and obedience to virtue and authority. Both operate in this situation to make the ‘natural aristocrat’ a monstrous threat to social stability.

Hobbes condemns this kind of attitude in “Leviathan”, Chapter XV.

The attitude which “The Bell Curve” engenders in the wealthy Class is an attack on the very existence of the Social Contract.

It must be said that the authors of “The Bell Curve” did not advocate any of these evils. They simply described what they thought was happening in America. In the last chapter of “The Bell Curve” they hearkened back to a better time when IQ was more evenly distributed through various classes in society. It is not the facts presented in “The Bell Curve” which are an abomination. It is the feelings which those facts and the authors interpretation of those facts encourage in the wealthy that are an abomination.

Locke argues that there is a limit to the amount of money that an individual can use. This is true if you think of human needs being only clothing, shelter, and food. If you recognize a higher need, the need to accomplish something in a life. Then there is no limit to the amount of wealth that a human can use, as there is no limit to the cost of great deeds. I do not care in the least if in this century America sees its first trillionaire. There is no upper limit on the amount of money that a person can administer wisely. The fact that people are richer now than ever before in the history of the world is a good thing, not a bad one.

Another point is that people need their dreams. One of these dreams is making it big. Seeing others who have achieved great wealth spurs people to try for it themselves. This stimulates growth of new technologies, the creation of new forms of wealth, the real creation of new wealth. On an individual scale the effect is weak. Multiplied by hundreds of millions of individuals it becomes a mighty engine driving the creation of new and novel forms of wealth. Without the wealthy presenting an example that this is possible, this engine cannot exist.

What is needed is not an attempt to destroy the wealthy or to place a cap on income or how much wealth an individual can acquire. What is needed is a limit to poverty, associated with a requirement of healthy psychology; an association of gain with effort and work. For our society to endure we must make desperate poverty virtually nonexistent.

If our society were wise, then the wealthy would be using all the power of their money to ensure that every American had bread and circuses earned not by rioting in the streets but by their willingness to work. The wealthy would recognize that wealth gained by them as a class without proportional gains in the rest of society is inflationary and unreal. The wealthy would realize that a graduated tax system is a way of controlling that inflation, but that minimum wage increases are a better way. If the minimum wage is increased without inflation it increases the size of the market and the value of the shares of production owned by the wealthy. Today, providing people with the basics of life, food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment in the form of cable TV and internet access is far, far less expensive as a proportion of total national wealth than ever before in history. It is also much less expensive to the wealthy than any kind of revolution or the armed guards and police forces needed to stop desperate people.

The poor as a class.

Poverty and Crime go together. This has been obvious since the beginnings of Civilization. There is a great deal of contention on what the causes are. Some say that the poor are poor because of their natural limitations, and others that they are limited because they are poor. One of the most contentious issues involved is that of IQ. Liberals will maintain that IQ is real and must be taken into account when a criminal with a low IQ is about to be executed because he could not understand his actions. The exact same Liberal in his next breath will maintain that IQ does not exist, and low IQ’s do not make people unable to understand their actions and thus likely to be criminals when discussing poverty and crime. This is how Liberals “think”.

There is a correlation between low IQ’s and greater risk for criminal behavior. The people locked up in our prison system are generally not the sharpest tacks in the drawer. This is a fact which exists independent of the causes of this correlation and it is a fact that must be dealt with. People with low IQ’s are at greater risk of criminal behavior because they do not understand the consequences of their actions as clearly as people with higher IQ’s. Thus the sense that when the mentally handicapped commit a murder they are not responsible for their actions. They do not understand why it is wrong. The Death Penalty Information Center http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ estimates that as many as one third of people on death row are mentally retarded. IQ does not just exist when talking about the mentally handicapped and then stop existing when you reach a slightly higher IQ level. It is a continuum which exerts its effects in changing ways as it changes. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) found a consistent IQ difference between delinquents and non-delinquents of about 9 points. Wolfgang, Figlio and Sellin. (1972) found average IQ‘s of boys with police contact to be 101 while that of boys without such contact was 108. West in England (1982) and Moffit, Lynam and Silva in New Zealand (1994) also found this link between crime and IQ.

A person who is mentally retarded might see 1 move ahead. A person with a slightly higher IQ might see 2 moves ahead. A person with an average IQ might see 4 moves ahead. Each increase allows that person to understand the world around him a little better and to make a slightly better life for himself.

Persons with low IQ’s frequently do not see the consequences of their actions and make miserable lives for themselves. Thus there is a correlation between IQ and poverty. In fact it appears that it costs more to do business with the poor than with the middle and upper classes.

Consider interest rates. High interest rates are required for high risk borrowers because more of them will default and not pay their loans. Interest is tough to understand and people with low IQ’s will borrow unwisely and as a group be higher risk. Loans will cost them more than the same loans to middle class borrowers because they have to pay the cost of those who default on their loans or the loaners will go bankrupt and no loans at all well be available.

Consider vandalism. The poor are frequently frustrated and unhappy, so they vandalize property in their neighborhoods. Landlords have to either pay more for constant repairs to their property or allow the property to degrade into slums. The poor cannot afford to pay the kind of rents that the high rate of vandalism makes necessary to maintain the property.

Take shoplifting. Petty crime is associated with low IQ’s and poverty. The crime rate in poverty stricken areas is higher. Shop owners have to pay for iron bars, more security, and the loss due to shoplifting. They have to charge higher prices to people in such neighborhoods or they cannot stay in business because the cost of doing business is higher.

It just costs more money to do business with the poor. The poor because of the behaviors associated with poverty cannot buy the basics of life for the same prices that the middle class can. People doing business with the poor have to charge more for the same things because it costs more to do business with the poor. The behaviors are related to a difficulty in understanding the consequences to themselves and their neighborhoods of what they are doing.

The Poor do not understand this. It seem obvious to them that the higher prices they have to pay for the goods they need are just the rich slumlords charging them more because they cannot afford to shop anywhere else. This makes them feel morally justified in vandalizing their neighborhoods, stealing from local businesses, and borrowing money they can never repay. When the Poor live together in neighborhoods, they reinforce each others behavior and a culture of Poverty develops which is almost impossible to escape. Life becomes even more miserable and desperate than it was before.

Despite this real difference in ability that IQ creates, most people with low IQ’s manage to live basically average lives. “The Bell Curve” notes that the majority of people in the lower 20% of IQ’s live normal law abiding lives. The difference between criminals in this group and law abiding citizens in this group is not IQ, but something else.

The most likely candidate is culture. Culture is a great leveler. It takes a genius to come up with a new idea, but most of the time, people of average, even below average intelligence can imitate it. A genius invents a knife, then everybody learns to make knives. A genius invents agriculture and soon everyone is farming. People of low IQ’s can imitate successful behavior they do not invent. Culture also can influence the development of IQ and actually raise the IQ’s of disadvantaged population groups. Culture can include things like early nurturing behaviors, diet, and others all of which influence the development of IQ.

The Poor who are poor because of culturally normed behaviors which promote poverty do not believe or understand this. Frequently they insist that their ‘culture’ is just as good or better than that of other classes. In fact psychological profiles or attempts to describe a criminal mental type include exaggerated or unjustified self-esteem. Left to themselves the Poor will tend to create a culture which destroys their chances of a better life. A proposal to address these problems is presented in the section of this book proposing a practical plan for guaranteeing a right to work at a minimum wage to all Citizens.

As in the discussion of the Wealthy as a Class, we discover that the Poor if they have a sound set of cultural values do not become criminals and the Wealthy if they maintain a high set of cultural norms do not become villains. The stupidity of the poor makes their lives miserable and desperate unless countered by sound cultural values. The stupidity of the wealthy creates the conditions for revolution and rip the Social Contract apart every few generations unless countered by sound cultural values. The stupidity of the Wealthy is more dangerous to the majority of Citizens than the stupidity of the Poor.

1898
(A Song of the Dominions)