# High, Middle and Low. [1984; George Orwell]



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

I'd been reading 1984 by George Orwell (great book), and there's something stated inside that struck my interest.

"Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world. The High, the Middle and the Low. They had been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered.

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 consious 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 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 lost either their beliefs 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."

The book than continued to say that this cycle describe above had finally become obvious to many observers, and thus, arouse the schools of thinkers who stated that "history is a cyclical process and inequality was the unalterable law of human life." etc.

Here are my questions;
1.Do you think that this system still exist?
If so, can it be changed?

2. Do you think that this system should be abolished completely? Why/why not?

3. If you think that this system exists, what kind of people do you think represent the High, the Middle, and the Low?

4. Do you think that inequality is an unalterable law of human life?

5. What are your opinions and thoughts on this system?


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

Certainly still exists today, especially in the United States, which can arguably be identified as an oligarchy.

I believe it can be changed if people accept that it exists in the first place. People understands that there are problems, but refuse to admit what the problem is.


I won't elaborate much further on my answers since I'll admit I'm just too lazy to, but I'll say that much about the topic.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

Donkey D Kong said:


> Certainly still exists today, especially in the United States, which can arguably be identified as an oligarchy.
> 
> I believe it can be changed *if people accept that it exists in the first place.* People understands that there are problems, but refuse to admit what the problem is.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on that--the general population of people are prone to turn away from reality and sought false reassurances that things aren't as bad as they seemed, or exaggerate issues to a disturbing extent.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> I agree with you on that--the general population of people are prone to turn away from reality and sought false reassurances that things aren't as bad as they seemed, or exaggerate issues to a disturbing extent.


Or take Prozac


----------



## Hidden from Sight (Jan 3, 2014)

1. Do you think that this system still exist?
Most definitely, although the lines between the middle and "high" classes have blurred a little and are more accommodating of a high-middle class. Nonetheless, the general system still remains as it has for thousands of years.

If so, can it be changed?
Perhaps, it depends on how long we (humans) want to wallow in a cycle of cynical thought with the hopeless attitude that _nothing_ can be _changed_ just because it has always been. Reactionary at best.

2. Do you think that this system should be abolished completely? Why/why not?
Personally, I would like to see the system move a little closer to full egalitarianism. Achieving full egalitarianism in a short time (akin to a few decades) is out of the question, but small steps can be taken and little bits of progress can be made. They already have been, but they are hard to notice. Why? If we were able to move from the near-egalitarian tribes to inequality-classed societies based around sedentary living, I'd think we can move to egalitarian sedentary living sometime before we go extinct.

3. If you think that this system exists, what kind of people do you think represent the High, the Middle, and the Low?
I'm not sure what kind of answer or description you are looking for here, I'll skip this one for now.

4. Do you think that inequality is an unalterable law of human life?
As long we keep telling ourselves it is while wallowing in our own self-pity, it will always be.

5. What are your opinions and thoughts on this system?
It helped when order was needed to transition from small tribes to progressively larger and larger (city) states, but this system keeps growing more and more outdated with each day that passes, creating more problems and hampering progress unnecessarily.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

CloudySkies said:


> Or take Prozac


Or pray that god gives a miracle.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

Hidden from Sight said:


> 1. Do you think that this system still exist?
> Most definitely, although the lines between the middle and "high" classes have blurred a little and are more accommodating of a high-middle class. Nonetheless, the general system still remains as it has for thousands of years.
> 
> If so, can it be changed?
> ...




I agree with you, except that I'm a little baffled by the bold part. Self-pity regarding what, precisely? Or are you referring to self-pity in general?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I think that a lot of it is unfortunately human nature. 

Human beings seem to be hierarchy minded creatures, much like are primate cousins who also seem to prefer living in hierarchy type environment, or I suppose any social creature really.
I guess the trick would be to change it so that it can be a more healthy version of it, that is more beneficial for everyone. Not just a few. 

But it seems the lust for power always waits just over the horizon.


----------



## Hidden from Sight (Jan 3, 2014)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> I agree with you, except that I'm a little baffled by the bold part. Self-pity regarding what, precisely? Or are you referring to self-pity in general?


That's a half-ass explanation on my part. I was implying that (at least from my direct observations) many people see humanity as having always been unequal, after which they retreat into a state of pitying the rest of humanity for remaining that way and pitying themselves for being unable to make any noticeable differences in that pattern of inequality. What I was also trying to say was that pity doesn't resolve or change anything.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

CloudySkies said:


> I think that a lot of it is unfortunately human nature.
> 
> Human beings seem to be hierarchy minded creatures, much like are primate cousins who also seem to prefer living in hierarchy type environment, or I suppose any social creature really.
> I guess the trick would be to change it so that it can be a more healthy version of it, *that is more beneficial for everyone*. Not just a few.
> ...


That's something I always wondered about. Is it even possible for a system that can benefit /everyone/ to exist?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> That's something I always wondered about. Is it even possible for a system that can benefit /everyone/ to exist?


Well, I was sort of generalizing and just saying what came into my head without really thinking about it too in depth...

I suppose if you were to take all of the variables into account then no, it probably is not possible. Who is to even say what is beneficial? Perhaps merely more choice and fairness in the matter? There will always be a ying and yang nature to the universe I guess.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

CloudySkies said:


> Well, I was sort of generalizing and just saying what came into my head without really thinking about it too in depth...
> 
> I suppose if you were to take all of the variables into account then no, it probably is not possible. Who is to even say what is beneficial? Perhaps merely more choice and fairness in the matter? There will always be a ying and yang nature to the universe I guess.


I greatly agree with you when you pointed out that avarice is human nature. Humans naturally look out for themselves, and 1984 was written as a warning to prevent a totalitarian regime from occurring. I personally think that, however, despite the warnings given, the world is slowly evolving and heading towards a terrifying totalitarian future. The High, the Middle and the Low system should be kept to a certain extent to have some order, that's undeniable.
Yup, and I also agree about the Ying yang nature, nothing is completely flawless.


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> * 1.Do you think that this system still exist?*
> Yes, it's evident that all states today have social, economic, and political hierarchies.
> 
> * If so, can it be changed?*
> ...


.


----------



## anarchitektur (Feb 11, 2011)

*1. Do you think that this system still exist? If so, can it be changed?*

Since the dawn of civilization, there has always been the upper and lower classes. The advent of the middle class, on the other hand, is a relatively recent development by comparison. However, just as quickly as it came, the middle-class seems to be dying out-- home ownership is on the decline, the cost of education continues to skyrocket, and "white collar" jobs are increasingly being outsourced. People who were on the higher end of the middle-class are still grabbing at the coattails of the upper class, while the rest of the middle-class has begun to slide backward and meld with the lower/working class.

*2. Do you think that this system should be abolished completely? Why/why not?*

Sure, but you'd have to abolish government to do it.

*3. If you think that this system exists, what kind of people do you think represent the High, the Middle, and the Low?*

*High:* They own the land, the capital, the raw materials, and the means of production.

*Middle:* Typically college-educated professionals, who often own (or will eventually own) their own home, have health insurance, and disposable income.

*Low:* Minimal education (high school, vocational school, etc.), typically rent rather than own a home, often uninsured, fill menial labor and "blue collar" jobs.

*4. Do you think that inequality is an unalterable law of human life?*

We're all equal in the eyes of God, but beyond that, equality is a fairy tale.

*5. What are your opinions and thoughts on this system?*

It is what it is.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

an absurd man said:


> .


*3. If you think that this system exists, what kind of people do you think represent the High, the Middle, and the Low?*
High: Political elite, industrialists, some celebrities(I don't think these are in any way intrinsically important however), academic elites
Middle: Professionals, entrepreneurs, lower politicians, academia, celebrities
Low: Working class, unemployed


What about religion? Do you think they exist in this hierarchy? Or are they unrelated? 


*5. What are your opinions and thoughts on this system?*
It's not ideal, but it's what we currently have to work with. I see two ways of approaching a classless cosmopolitan world: 1) use neurotechnology to alter humans' brains 2) allow humanity to organically evolve toward that stage by promoting its ideals. Both have their pros and cons of course.

Sorry for the trouble, but this really fascinates me now. Do you think that the two solutions you stated will ever happen? What are the pros and cons of each?


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

anarchitektur said:


> *1. Do you think that this system still exist? If so, can it be changed?*
> 
> Since the dawn of civilization, there has always been the upper and lower classes. The advent of the middle class, on the other hand, is a relatively recent development by comparison. However, just as quickly as it came, the middle-class seems to be dying out-- home ownership is on the decline, the cost of education continues to skyrocket, and "white collar" jobs are increasingly being outsourced. People who were on the higher end of the middle-class are still grabbing at the coattails of the upper class, while the rest of the middle-class has begun to slide backward and meld with the lower/working class.
> 
> ...



Do you think abolishing the government to destroy such system is ideal? Or do you think having the government around will create a better future?


----------



## anarchitektur (Feb 11, 2011)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> Do you think abolishing the government to destroy such system is ideal? Or do you think having the government around will create a better future?


I think it's irrelevant at this point; it's too ingrained into people's mentality... they can't imagine a world without "leadership." Absent a cataclysmic event that wipes out modern infrastructure, it will always be there.

Government isn't without its positive aspects, but as a government gets too big and too far removed from its constituency, it becomes more of a problem in need of a solution rather than a source of solutions for problems.

I guess my point is that people are gonna get screwed in either scenario, so people tend to prefer the one where they feel like they'd have a shot at a better life. Mostly it's just pining for greener pastures.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

anarchitektur said:


> I think it's irrelevant at this point; it's too ingrained into people's mentality... they can't imagine a world without "leadership." Absent a cataclysmic event that wipes out modern infrastructure, it will always be there.
> 
> Government isn't without its positive aspects, but as a government gets too big and too far removed from its constituency, it becomes more of a problem in need of a solution rather than a source of solutions for problems.
> 
> I guess my point is that people are gonna get screwed in either scenario, so people tend to prefer the one where they feel like they'd have a shot at a better life. Mostly it's just pining for greener pastures.


What do _you_ prefer?


----------



## anarchitektur (Feb 11, 2011)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> What do _you_ prefer?


I'm fine either way, as long as no one bugs me.


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

ArtOfBreaking said:


> *What about religion? Do you think they exist in this hierarchy? Or are they unrelated? *
> Oh yea... those guys.... it seems as though there are a small percentage of religious figures and organizations who have significant influence and can be considered part of the "High". Most seem to be part of the "Middle".
> 
> *Sorry for the trouble, but this really fascinates me now. Do you think that the two solutions you stated will ever happen? What are the pros and cons of each? *
> ...


There may be several other pros, cons, and solutions but this is what comes to mind for me.


----------

