In the text literature, mention is made of different levels of civilization during the earlier epochs of history. And in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels speak of earlier epochs of history when there were ”various orders” within society, making up ’complicated arrangements of social gradation’. From ancient Rome through to the middle ages there were ‘subordinate gradations’ within the social ranks, from patricians to slaves, and feudal lords to serfs.
The modern bourgeoisie of the time is said to have ‘simplified’ the class antagonisms, which are an inherent by product of class distinction. And along with the in house friction within the bourgeoisie, the same took place within the proletariat class. After many stages of development, the class struggle of the proletariat became a political party.
Much is said of the antagonisms within and between these classes. However, other than a few brief comments about the aristocracy, there is little, if any, detail about the aristocracy of those times. Whom this ’third’ class consisted of, and what they stood for is not clearly laid out. Its as though it is made up of some invisible group of innocent bystanders.
As there is continued talk of the middle class within the USA becoming, if not already have become, obsolete, I see a similar situation today. The current 1% can be equated with the aristocracy, the 99% consisting of less middle class as time passes, leading to the dwindling of the bourgeoisie, and a ‘dangerous’…proletariat ‘class’ left to revolt.