But when people have common backgrounds, interests, or
social characteristics, they certainly have a tendency to exhibit homogeneous behavior. This is not to say they are dishonest, they just share common influences and desires. We have often discussed the tendency of individuals to have views that correlate highly with their category. Class, by the way, is not necessarily economic, as I imply in my remarks. It can be regional, educational, vocational, or political. But these factors are very often economically correlated as well.

Also, lower, middle and upper economic classes are an oversimplification, some sociologists prefer 5 or even 7 classes. In economics, what you have is a continuous spectrum, not blocs. But for purposes of analysis, I have proposed 3 socio-economic classes. I crib them directly from Orwell's 1984, and use much of his reasoning.

Orwell's hero, Winston Smith, joins the resistance and reads their manifesto, although later it is implied that it is actually a planted document, black propaganda, written by the Party to demonize their enemies and entrap rebels. Still, I believe that Orwell was not just being facetious, and that he saw a kernel of truth in that analysis. I accept that interpretation.

But be that as it may, I am not the only student of history to believe this, many others of varied political persuasions have also noted it, that see social evolution as the result of class struggle. Don't be put off by the Marxist jargon, the founding fathers believed the same thing, they called them "factions". As far as I can tell, the concept goes as far back as Thucydides, and the Romans developed it into a detailed science. Classes rise and fall as social conditions change, they often have competing interests, and they frequently come into conflict. And since economics plays such an important role in human life, the issues are usually economic.

Without some sort of guiding principle like this, we would interpret all of history as simply good guys vs bad guys.