Economic definitions of class are not necessarily "polemical", and certainly no more so than this spirited attack on the same.It is a polemical attempt to take something as widespread as income distribution frequency, and jump to the conclusion that changes that lead to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few constitutes a society that is afflicted by
From the author's viewpoint, classes are bad. He therefore describes a society that
has economic classes as "ridden", or suffering from the presence of classes. He may
be right, but the logic of confusing economic concentration with classes is thin.
I did explicitly say that I was only talking about some definitions of class in "my own society". We surely don't need to define class and talk about the diversity of definitions in different societies in order to answer the language question.Emma's description shows the validity of cuchu's point: "social class" does not mean the same thing in the US that it means in countries that actually have a hereditary nobility. The plumbers in the United States who would not consider themselves "middle class" are few indeed. Most building laborers would also call themselves "middle class"; the group below "middle class" is not "working class" (for those are regarded as the same thing here), but "the poor".
Seeing as everyone else has introduced their off-topic twopennorth: it is a noxious state of affairs. By definition, it is unequal, and therefore unjust.GWB is correct. Back to the thread topic.... the writer uses 'class-ridden' to
mean that a society has classes, or is afflicted with the horrible state of having classes. The implication is that this is a noxious state of affairs.
I fully agree, and as I started the off-topic side comments, I invite you to read theEconomic definitions of class are not necessarily "polemical", and certainly no more so than this spirited attack on the same.