A Middle Class

[Pogue]

Do you think it exists? What're your theories about what dimensions it has?

Many people use it as a slur for a certain attitude or background. I have. But I think if it exists, it only refers to people like managers at work who earn a wage and sometimes not a good one but are on the side of the workers. Possibly coppers too.

What do you guys think?

I posted this is theory not learning because I'm not learning, but discussing.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I often use it as a derogatory term but I don't really know what I mean. I suppose I'm referring to a certain breed of middle class arrogance and snobbery. Can't stand it. Well is there any differentation between the working class and middle class in terms of wage slavery. Most middle class people still sell their labour but for a better price.

[Pogue]

I often use it as a derogatory term but I don't really know what I mean. I suppose I'm referring to a certain breed of middle class arrogance and snobbery. Can't stand it. Well is there any differentation between the working class and middle class in terms of wage slavery. Most middle class people still sell their labour but for a better price.

But you've used middle class and not defined it. Middle class is not a class for most people, its an attitude or lifestyle. Alot of people might call alot of people I know middle class because they have a mortage and live in the suburbs or whatever but then they all have jobs as nurses, etc, which is selling your labour (and nurses aren't paid that well either). I'd say if its a class, it could only refer to those people who sell their labour but side with the ruling class, like the police and the management (people like foremen).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yeah I don't think there is a definition for it. Not one that covers everyone anyway.

[benhur]

\ But I think if it exists, it only refers to people like managers at work who earn a wage and sometimes not a good one but are on the side of the workers. Possibly coppers too.


It may also refer to people who neither work nor employ others to work.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It may also refer to people who neither work nor employ others to work.

How would that work? I know my friend claims to be middle class and her parents are both retired. The sad thing is that they have more money than my family does and both my parents work.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It may also refer to people who neither work nor employ others to work.

What unemployed people?

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is useful to define the middle class, but such a definition would not be particuarly helpful in the grand scheme of things. Because it is used in many different ways, it would not be sufficient to come up a working definition and apply it to the uses other people have for this term. As there is no set definition, I would suggest using how you see fit, but also making this clear what you intend by this term each time you bring it up.

My own personal understanding would be that there is a middle class now, and it is this which needs to be addressed by Marxist/Anarchist class theory with regards to the wealthiest nations. Yes the rich poor gap is increasing, but as long as there is a perception of an increasing middle class, people both in and approaching this class are not likely to see the need for change.

I consider the middle class to be typically employed (but not employing) within the tertiary industries. Often it is those people essential towards production (teachers, doctors, other civil servants etc), but who typically enjoy a lifestyle out of reach of many of the working class. There is a trend towards higher levels of further education, avoidance of certain social pit-falls, and an ability to self-replicate.

I am not saying that the middle class has the interests of the working class at heart; often people within it show disdain for those outside of it, but it is not the case that their wealth is approapriated solely on the basis of someone elses labour.

Teachers in the UK for example start on around 20k and can earn up to 35-40k as a senior teacher, and perhaps 80k ans a headmaster. Assuming they progress slowly towards seniority in their specific area, but not towards headship. They will earn somewhere between 26-32k a year (these are all rough guesses, but they are not massively off). this can provide for a family, but it does not afford a decadent lifestyle, especially considering the uniiversity education which is a requisite of such a position. It is a necessary role directly undertaken by someone who is a worker to some extent, however they are also possessing of certain things not available or attainable for many working class people such as a further education, a degree of job security, benifits and sometimes union representation.

The question is then, are the middle class a class enemy or class ally? I would think hard about how we define them before writing them off as an enemy because they have much in common with the working class; they work for a wage from a boss. Attacking the middle class is viable, but we must be careful not to pretend that we do not want to provide a similar level of existence for the working class. The key is to make clear that this is at the expence of the super-rich who produce nothing, and not at the expence of the moderately-well off who enjoy that which we seek to provide for all at the expence of their labour.

Recap the themes I think should be included in a working definition;

Employed in tertiary industry (in a necessary role?)
A product of further education
A degree of stability and security not common to the working class
Lacking the luxurious lifestyle of the super wealthy
I am sure there are many otehrs but I am drawing a blank right now. Perhaps a wage cap?

Anyway, as far as a struggle goes, it is working class rights that are to be fought for, if this crosses over onto to middle class rights then fair enough.

Improvements for the working class are to come at a price for the capitalists, not the middle class; if the middle class are those facing the brunt of wealth redistribution then something has gone wrong. I think this is as far as it matter without going into specifics.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Middle class is a con started by the ruling class. Its yet again another division tactic to keep us all apart. I guess it is just a lifestyle difference, but middle class is just a term to use against mangers, foremen ext... beacuse they impliment the rules of the ruling class.
When i think of middle class i think of someone with a safe 'suit' job, posh car, detached house, and private education... but now with loans and credit cards ext, the material things are achievable at the cost of your soul.
But middle class as a whole, i think its just snobbery. We are all working class, we are all human, and all our blood is red.
Ive even heard phrases such as 'higher working class' or 'lower middle class' and such bollocks, who is putting this phrases out there? Its all bollocks, we need to stick together and stop lableing ourselves out of communities...
Sorry, rant over now ;);)

[benhur]

What unemployed people?

Yeah, unemployed but they have enough money to survive without having to work; nor do they employ workers. Such people fall into neither category.

[nightazday]

with many jobs of labor going oversees and/or replaced by mechanical technology I do not know the accurate number and ratio of the proletariat in mainland America

[Hoxhaist]

the middle class, I think are a diversion to divide the working class and reward a subset of the workers into thinking they are getting closer to being in the ruling class until the elite creates the section of "upper-middle class" to create another rung in the ladder to stop anyone from getting to the top and being able to share in the wealth

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think it's ok to say that there is a middle class, but appreciate that the term is troublesome.

I agree with the sentiment above that the unemployed as workers too, infact I think it goes above this definition also, i tinhk that workers are defined by their relationship to the means of production, if they don't have control of their own lives - ie they sell their wage for a living, then they are workers. So the working class is best defined as those who are counterposed to those who own the means of production. - this definition of a woker then includes house peoples, child-reaers (who are afterall raising the next generation of workers at no cost to the bourgiose) the unemployed etc.

I'ts as simple as this; there are two main classes one class seeks better living/working conditions, less hours and more pay, these are the workers, the other class, the boss class, ruling class, bourgioisie (call them what you will) have an interest in keeping the former class downtrodden, working them longer hours for more profit and giving the workers less pay.

So where does the middle class fit in, well I think there isn't such a thing as a 'third class' because the middle class still have to sell their labour to exist, so are workers, they are appointed to positions of privildge only via patronage of the ruling class and that position of privildge can be taken away as easily as it was granted. - Because of this fact many 'middle class' individuals seem opposed to working class interests and work actively against improvements in working class libing/working conditions

This being true i'd suggest that the middle class is best defined as those elements of the working class for whom seeking better working and living conitions isn't a goal because they are ina posiiton of power (granted by the ruling class) to live comfortably, and insofar as this is true, they share the ruling class ideolgy and oppose workers sturggles.

But in a time of revolution, these people may well be our allies, unlike our rulers, they arn't outside of class consciouness.

[Patchd]

It'll probably be useful if people state what definition they're using for "middle class". Are they using it in the sense that the middle class are privileged workers (high earning office workers, high earning school teacher etc...)? Or would they use it in the sense that the middle class are the bourgeoisie, are those who own the means of production and distribution?

[Bilan]

I don't think there is a middle class. How would a third class relate to the means of production, if it does not sell, nor does it buy the labour of others?
Judging it on income is meaningless, as an income is not how class is determined. Class is a relationship to production - hence, the proletariat is a class which must sell its labour, and the bourgeoisie is a class which lives off the labour of others.
The only middle class, then, that I can see existing, would be one which does both.

The way it is used, however, is completely different, and more importantly, completely meaningless. It's an ideological term, and it used to give the appearance of an egalitarian, or bordering on, society. For example, Menzies (famous Australian Prime Minister) used to describe the middle class as the silent majority, whom 'aren't struggling to pay the bills, but aren't living in luxury either'. This is, however, judged on income (as the middle class usually is). But this 'idea' is ridiculous, because it is not a class, it is an income bracket which is a constant state of flux (especially in periods like the one we're in now). In booms, this class would rise. In crisis, it would fall. But its essential relationship to production would remain unaltered.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this does not constitute a class, it constitutes an income bracket, which is not the same.

It is an argument which is based on appearance, of which the majority can relate too. This fictitious class is used in the same way as nationalism (in the context of national liberation especially), it unites people by seperating them, and puts a façade over the existing structures of the society and creates new ideological ones which can fit with the image. This 'idea' of the middle class ruptures when the contradiction between the dominant ideology and the material existence of a society becomes clear - such as in periods of crisis.

The Middle class is not real.

[Devrim]

The Middle class is not real.

You are right. It is a sociological theory which divides the working class.

Devrim

[Bilan]

It's not just the working class it divides, it unites an entire countries upon a fictitious idea. It's not limited to the working classes separation, but also, to the bourgeoisie's. Though, it doesn't harm them, but strengthens their ideological grasp.
It divides society through uniting it.
Debord put it really well when he said, "Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of generalized separation."*


*(This is not in reference to the middle class as such, but clearly mirrors the nature of the idea of the middle class)

[Jazzratt]

Bilan and Devrim have it pretty much spot on. I'd add that, in quite a lot of countries, the "middle class" is what a lot of people aspire to be and/or believe they are and this belief feeds the pernicious myth invoked by the ruling class that "we are classless for we are all middle class". A myth which has obvious negative connotations for the left and makes for yet another hurdle in organisation.

[Rascolnikova]

I think that if we reject the idea of a middle class, it's important to notice that the proletariat includes a subset who have something quite substantial to loose. I prefer to think of this as a labor aristocracy, but I also don't think of that as nearly so derogatory a term as everyone else seems to.

I think the (extremely) rare factory worker who owns a house and land outright* may not be obviously served by socialism, but I'm inclined to believe that most of them could be convinced to join us anyway because capitalism creates such horrendous conditions for human relationships--and most people care about that a great deal, even if they don't recognize it as such. Thus, my neutrality towards the "labor aristocracy" and/or willingness to invoke the term.

Whatever you want to call this group, they do have many effectively "middle class" characteristics, and their interests do not align perfectly with either those of the proletariat or those of the bourgeoisie.


*or more frequently, the sheltered academic, salaried professional, etc.

[Mindtoaster]

The middle-class does not exist, it is simply an income bracket between workers with high wages, and lower income business owners. The idea of the "middle-class" as a class on its own has been created by the bourgeois and peddled by the media for the sole purpose of confusion among members of the working class. In the USA working class = lower class. Would you rather identify as a member of the lower class, or the middle class? The illusion helps make workers more content with their poverty.

Also bear in mind, that the petite-bourgeois is not a class either; it is still a part of the bourgeoisie and not a part of the imagined "Middle-class". Though they may be occasionally kinder to the workers then the upper-strata of the bourgeoisie, and though some may come over to our side int he event of revolution (Marx, Engels, etc...), they are still our class enemies and should be treated as such; not as part of some imagined "middle-class".

[PCommie]

I always assumed the middle class was the same as the proletariat/working class. I think using "middle class" as a derogatory term is a bad thing to do because it somehow puts us above them, when the middle class is generally considered to be the proletariat.

-PC

[Brother No. 1]

The "middle class" is,if it was defined, would be the middle of the class struggle. Their not the beouisge but their not the peasntry or the Proletarian. As their name states their in the middle of the thing. The middle class gains a middle amount of money,for they most likely has the middle jobs, so they dont gain to much but they dont gain to little. But in American the middle class is misunderstood and the Americans think their all middle class.

[ZeroNowhere]

This seems to be another misconception. The unemployed are still a part of the working class.

Also, the class division based on income is total bogus. Its time people stop using such terms as upper, middle and lower classes because its meaningless for everyone apart from capitalism apologists who keep hinting that "the middle class" can always go to the "upper class", same for lower class to middle class.
Thanks, I suppose. While socialists used to be able to use the term 'middle class' to refer to the petit-bourgeoisie (Engels did it from time to time, I'm fairly sure that Marx did too), by now there's no real reason to use it, since the 'income-based class' thing became as popular as it is, and said income-based class crap is a strong blow against socialism, and pretty much breeds misconceptions about it. Especially since 'working class' is now used by the media from time to time to refer to people who would qualify as the 'lower class' in the IBCS, which would imply that all we want is to take from the rich and give to the poor. It also, carrying forward the grading of the school system, helps people to know their place, and divides the working class, encouraging competition. It also obscures the ownership of the means of production, replacing it with merely income differences, which means that even potential socialists may end up, restricted by their view of class, merely at the left hand of capital, where dissent goes to die.

[Blackscare]

To me "middle class" is actually a mindset that most accurately applies to anyone who, while not being a member of the super-rich capitalist class, is still established and comfortable enough in the economic/social system of a given time to have a vested interest in it's survival. This is in contrast with those of the non-capitalist classes that are either indifferent or hostile to the current system because they have nothing of value that is intrinsically tied to the current system.

Summed up, it is a counter-revolutionary outlook based on the material interests of those who benefit from but do not control the economy.


I think this is the clearest perspective on the middle class, since it avoids the potential problems of nuance present in relation to production or income-based delineation of class.

[Devrim]

To me "middle class" is actually a mindset

So class isn't actually class at all.


a mindset that most accurately applies to anyone who, while not being a member of the super-rich capitalist class, is still established and comfortable enough in the economic/social system of a given time to have a vested interest in it's survival.

So it doesn't have anything to do with the relationship to the means of production, but more to 'subjective' factors.

What does 'established and comfortable' even mean. They seem like very relative concepts to me.


This is in contrast with those of the non-capitalist classes that are either indifferent or hostile to the current system because they have nothing of value that is intrinsically tied to the current system.

But some of the strongest supporters of the system come from the poorest segments of society.

There is not a direct connection between class status and ideology.


I think this is the clearest perspective on the middle class, since it avoids the potential problems of nuance present in relation to production or income-based delineation of class.

I don't think it is clear at all. I am not only sure who you would define as middle class using this idea.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

The middle class is one of the classes when class is defined socially not based on economic relations.

[Bilan]

The middle class is one of the classes when class is defined socially not based on economic relations.

Classes are relationships to production. If it is not this, it is not a class.

[revolution inaction]

Classes are relationships to production. If it is not this, it is not a class.

For people using a socialist definition of class. but when people refer to the middle class you know thats not what they are doing.

[Bilan]

For people using a socialist definition of class. but when people refer to the middle class you know thats not what they are doing.

And they're incorrect. People misusing a word is just that, a misuse.

[revolution inaction]

And they're incorrect. People misusing a word is just that, a misuse.

For non political people in the uk it is the only way the work is used, and since the meaning of words is defined by the way they are used it is not an incorrect meaning of the word but an useless concept that it is used to describe.

[Floyce White]

Yes, I must agree with Devrim. Psychological/subjective definitions are no definitions at all.

As I see it, either a family owns things used by others, or they do not. Upper or lower class only. Classes are sets of families, not sets of individuals. For this reason, individualistic attitudes or opinions are irrelevant.

[Invincible Summer]

The middle-class does not exist, it is simply an income bracket between workers with high wages, and lower income business owners. The idea of the "middle-class" as a class on its own has been created by the bourgeois and peddled by the media for the sole purpose of confusion among members of the working class. In the USA working class = lower class. Would you rather identify as a member of the lower class, or the middle class? The illusion helps make workers more content with their poverty.

Also bear in mind, that the petite-bourgeois is not a class either; it is still a part of the bourgeoisie and not a part of the imagined "Middle-class". Though they may be occasionally kinder to the workers then the upper-strata of the bourgeoisie, and though some may come over to our side int he event of revolution (Marx, Engels, etc...), they are still our class enemies and should be treated as such; not as part of some imagined "middle-class".


This.

Also, I believe that "middle class" is just a term used by capitalist society in order to perpetuate the illusion that we can all "move on up."

It also doesn't help that the image of "working class" in Western countries always equates to the image of a grime-covered miner or the teenager working at a fast-food place, and anything that is not this is "middle class."

[Bilan]

For non political people in the uk it is the only way the work is used, and since the meaning of words is defined by the way they are used it is not an incorrect meaning of the word but an useless concept that it is used to describe.

The word has nothing corresponding to it. It refers to something that does not exist. The word, is thus, meaningless.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Everyone in America sees themselves as middle class.

Schoolteachers making $30k a year think they're middle class.

Small Business owners making $180k a year think they're middle class.

I think it's a self-image thing a lot of the time.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Obviously there is some validity to it. It's not like the capitalists came up with the term and it just caught on, it is in fact a reflection of material reality.

Moreover, any conversation of class which is restricted to this or that imperialist country is by default narrow in that it is the viewpoint coming from a ultra privileged narrow strata of workers.

[Bilan]

Obviously there is some validity to it. It's not like the capitalists came up with the term and it just caught on, it is in fact a reflection of material reality.

What a solid argument you've presented.
It must be valid, because the capitalists didn't just make it up, it is therefor a reflection of material reality. Rubbish.



Moreover, any conversation of class which is restricted to this or that imperialist country is by default narrow in that it is the viewpoint coming from a ultra privileged narrow strata of workers.

Change the fucking record.

[AvanteRedGarde]

There was another term that was used by Lenin which might help put this conversation beyond the infantile, "there is no such thing as XXX, its a bourgeoisie lie meant to divide the working class"-track. Semi-proletarian

Almost half of Americans own stock. They are obviously not part of the proletarian in its strict sense, even if the conversation is restricted with the borders of this or that country.

[Bilan]

Solid argument.

[Blackscare]

So class isn't actually class at all.Basically, yes.

Defining it as an income bracket alone would exclude from the group of possible revolutionary elements (assuming the middle class is thought to be inherently antagonistic to the working class) certain groups, such as a segment of academics, who would certainly have a place in any society and thus would not always be reactionary.

Basing it purely on relationship to production (in a post-industrial society, "employment hierarchy" may be a better term) confines the middle class to shop-owners and others who own their own means of production. This of course excludes affluent employees within corporations, etc, who are clearly "middle class" in nature while not owning any means of production.

The idea of a "middle class" is a very vague one, that was sort of the point of my post. To frame it in loose terms that describe the reactionary elements in all of these seemingly mutually-exclusive definitions was my goal.



So it doesn't have anything to do with the relationship to the means of production, but more to 'subjective' factors.Yes.


What does 'established and comfortable' even mean. They seem like very relative concepts to me.Affluence. You seem to be stuck in the mindset that the "middle class" is some fixed or concrete entity. Very 19th century, in my opinion. To me, the two major classes are the working class and the capitalist class. The intermediary strata are much more nuanced and hard to define.

My outlook is based on the idea that the middle class is a class of reactionaries, so I try to sift out those among the more affluent who are potentially sympathetic to revolution while avoiding the exclusion of obvious middle class elements based on overly simple definitions (relation to labor, income, etc).



But some of the strongest supporters of the system come from the poorest segments of society.The middle class may be reactionary, but it and the capitalist class aren't the only sources of reaction. I think in most people's minds the middle class carries with it a degree of affluence. My goal isn't to define all reactionaries, it's to define the middle class mindset.



There is not a direct connection between class status and ideology.I tried to make that point in the previous post, hopefully I cleared up my point in this one.



I don't think it is clear at all. I am not only sure who you would define as middle class using this idea.It may be more murky than a simple answer based on income or production, but I believe it's more honest (because it take into account the inherent vagueness of the middle class and tries to compensate for it, rather than picking a definition and ignoring inconsistencies).

"Non-capitalist with a reactionary outlook based in material interest that is tied inherently to the present system" is my definition. It excludes workers who are reactionary, capitalists (obviously), and relatively affluent yet potentially revolutionary elements.


I fully understand that what I'm saying is vague, my point is that attempts to render the middle class a more "black and white" entity are flawed.




Devrim
Blackscare

[Devrim]

I don't think it is clear at all. I am not only sure who you would define as middle class using this idea.
It may be more murky than a simple answer based on income or production, but I believe it's more honest (because it take into account the inherent vagueness of the middle class and tries to compensate for it, rather than picking a definition and ignoring inconsistencies).

Er...actually, I meant that as a cue to give examples. Not for explaining why something was vague by necessity.


"Non-capitalist with a reactionary outlook based in material interest that is tied inherently to the present system" is my definition. It excludes workers who are reactionary, capitalists (obviously), and relatively affluent yet potentially revolutionary elements.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that this is a class based purely on its ideology. As I understand it, and please correct me if I have misunderstood you, you are suggesting that two people may be in the same job, and have the same relationship to the means of production yet if one has 'a reactionary outlook', she is a member of the 'middle class' and if the other is 'potentially revolutionary' they are not a member of this middle class, and are therefore a member of an as yet undefined class.

I am sorry, but to me this seems completely absurd. The idea that class is determined not by relationship to the means of production, but by ideology is a totally rejection of class analysis.

Would you use the same 'ideological test' to classify workers. If a postman is a fascist, for example, do you think that that in some way makes him non-working class.

This is the logic extension of your argument.


My outlook is based on the idea that the middle class is a class of reactionaries, so I try to sift out those among the more affluent who are potentially sympathetic to revolution while avoiding the exclusion of obvious middle class elements based on overly simple definitions (relation to labor, income, etc).

But this is tautological in that you are defining the middle class as those who are reactionary. If you define the middle class as 'Non-capitalist with a reactionary outlook...exclud[ing] workers who are reactionary, capitalists (obviously), and relatively affluent yet potentially revolutionary elements', of course the middle class is reactionary because that is the qualification for being part of that class.

It is the complete rejection of a real class analysis, which is based on the relationship to the means of production.


Defining it as an income bracket alone would exclude from the group of possible revolutionary elements (assuming the middle class is thought to be inherently antagonistic to the working class) certain groups, such as a segment of academics, who would certainly have a place in any society and thus would not always be reactionary.


But a didn't define it as an income bracket at all. I presume that I earn more money than the guy who owns the small liquor store below my apartment block. Yet according to any class analysis based on the means of production, he is a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, and I, as a worker, am a member of the working class.


Basing it purely on relationship to production (in a post-industrial society, "employment hierarchy" may be a better term) confines the middle class to shop-owners and others who own their own means of production. This of course excludes affluent employees within corporations, etc, who are clearly "middle class" in nature while not owning any means of production.

I don't think so. The relationship to the means of production is not only the formal ownership, managing something even if you don't own it yourself, is also a relationship to the means of production.


The idea of a "middle class" is a very vague one, that was sort of the point of my post.

Yes, it is vague to the point of being absolutly meaningless and tautological.

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

i middle class and i care about the working class and many revolutionaries like che, ulrike Meinof, (if you consider her a revolutionary and not you know what). Came from middle class families so don't be grouping us in one streotype and that go for the rich as well, not all them greedy pigs. they love giving money to support the working class, that what i would like to do with my billions because with that kind of money i would use it to build hospital for the poor and get them clean drinking water and contribue money to alternative media like free speech tv and link tv. so wealth can be used for something great just depends on the person. but sadly in this society the majority of capitalists are bastards siting on there high ass

[Bilan]

You're part of a non-existent class?

[Rascolnikova]

Means of production provides clear definitions, but fails to recognize basic distinctions important to people's everyday lives. By the the "relationship to means of production" measure, these three people are of the same class background:

a) Owns a large first world home and a variety of expensive toys, has a college degree, and works in skilled manufacture, repair, or research--nuclear weapons, for example. If you're going to define this as petit-bourgeois, please explain how that labeling relates to Marx's insistence that the petit-bourgeois is an unsustainable class bound to sink into the proletariat and disappear.

b) Works long hours in a call center in the US for less than a living wage; will probably never own property and is often uninsured, but rents an apartment with modern conveniences, owns and drives a private car, and often consumes entertainment. May obtain some college education and/or property ownership by taking on about an 80 hour work week.

c) Works in textile manufacturing in the third world 10-16 hours a day; has virtually no free time, a low literacy level, minimal access to electricity or modern plumbing, let alone health care, and essentially no disposable income.


It may be useful to hold to Marx's definition rather than adopting something closer to common usage, but it seems to me that, one way or another, leftists need modern theory and language that deals with these distinctions in an insightful and relevant way.

[The Red Next Door]

yeah, whatever i guess

[Comrade Anarchist]

in my opinion the middle class in america has become the working class. the poor in america that are not totally up a creek poor get free handouts from the government. They are given what they need but they dont contribute based on their ability.

[Rascolnikova]

They are given what they need

Clearly written by someone who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

[absurdao]

I've been raised in the middle class. The middle class is largely descended from the merchant class, and much of the middle class still acts as such. I'd say more members of the middle class work desk jobs than members of the working class, though there are obviously manual labor jobs that pay middle class wages. The middle class is less inclined to work menial, undesirable jobs than the working class. The middle class is demonized to some extent by both sides, but more by the rich - the middle class is a thorn in the side of the rich, who would like to push them down the economic latter so that the rich may exploit them and make more money, paying their workers less (as evidenced by the shrinking middle class). The middle class' historical role as the merchant class is demonized in much the same way as the jews, who were the money-lenders in old societies because Christians were prohibited from having such jobs. This lead to anti-semitism, for the reasons described above - mainly, the rich don't want to have to pay their workers much, and they want their workers to answer directly to them. The middle class are definitely not members of the elite, and are subject to many of the same evils caused by the elite (think of the middle class factory workers who lost their jobs and social standing when companies like GM went overseas). They could be viewed as a more idle section of the proletariat, but while they're never as visible in social uprisings, they're almost always sympathetic to the cause, and are typically present in some form or another. For example, there were members of the middle class who took part in the Spanish revolution of 1936, and think of all the middle class people who take part in NGO's.

[gorillafuck]

in my opinion the middle class in america has become the working class. the poor in america that are not totally up a creek poor get free handouts from the government. They are given what they need but they dont contribute based on their ability.
Are you fucking kidding me?

[StalinFanboy]

I once heard the Middle Class referred to as the "house Negroes" of the working class.

[redcoyote89]

Regardless i feel it must be accepted as a reality. The middle class exists in a sort of pergatory as they still do not own their own labor. Plus the middle class often carries a very conflicted concept of their value. Its a tough question to deal with because the middle class' interests conflict with that of the working class.

[Nwoye]

well the term "middle class" is simply a result of class distinctions being based off of income distribution - a bit of a misleading trend. but even going by marxist definitions, there are still situations where the lines between classes are blurred, due mainly to educated professionals, small business owners, and managerial positions.

[KurtFF8]

The middle class certainly isn't some fiction created by the capitalist class. It is a real social position that in places like America are quite important in the political discourse. Obviously the term is often misused by all parties involved (from far leftists to proponents of "The American Dream").

I suggest a book called The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Class-Majority-Americas-Secret/dp/0801487277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244149167&sr=8-1) by Michael Zweig. He does a good job at explaining class relations in America, including how a Middle Class actual does exist in the form of management/small business owners in capitalist countries. (Granted he seems to be a social democrat of sorts, so he falls short of calling for an end to capitalism, but it's a good read nonetheless).

I also wrote an entry to the leftist blog at PoFo, perhaps it could be useful:
Link (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1899639&sd=d#p1899639)


The "Middle Class" and the United States

By KurtFF8

During the 2008 election (and all elections and political discourse in the United States), the "middle class" is always what the parties and political leaders are trying to appease. The middle class is something that is often talked about in American media, but usually without ever really answering "what is the middle class?"

There is a common conception that 90 some percent of Americans place themselves in the middle class, which most also acknowledge cannot be the case. Even some leftist political parties like New York City's Working Families Party (http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/) argue they are fighting for "good middle class jobs" and striving to help their members achieve the famous "American Dream."

This leaves us to ask the obvious question of: what exactly is the American Middle Class?

A quick Google search lead me to an article on MSNBC that tried to answer (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272238/) this very question. It turns out that they don't actually attempt to answer the question they set out to answer, they instead give an anecdote of a family that live a "typical American lifestyle" (which of course often implies a white suburban lifestyle). This demonstrates the inability for the dominant discourse to really even begin to approach this question, as some sort of lifestyle is always appealed to instead of trying to look at people's actual positions in society, especially at the work place. This can lead them to some disturbing conclusions, take this article for example that asks Can middle class families make urban schools better? (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/tu-cmc042409.php) It should be obvious what the problems with this question are. The idea that the "middle class" is there because of some lifestyle they chose, and the effort they've put forward can lead to some nasty misconceptions about America's poor for example, but that's a different topic altogether.

The left views the middle class in terms of their relations in the economy, or their specific power relations within society. While there are a few who simply deny the existence of the middle class, that analysis leaves out small business owners and others who don't seem to fit in nicely into the capitalist/worker dichotomy.

There's a good book that tries to address this question that came out in 2000 called The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Class-Majority-Americas-Secret/dp/0801487277) by Michael Zweig. Zweig goes through and demonstrates the actual power relations that those who work in America really have, and makes the argument (quite well in my opinion) that the majority are actually in the working class when you examine the actual power they wield within society and how they act in the economy. He tries to move away from this idea that class is defined just by one's life style or whether one owns a car or not, because this would lead us to conclusions that offer little value. He shows that people actually will identify themselves as part of the "working class" if asked in certain contexts and I believe he brings the conception of middle class in America to be based highly on myth and misconception. (The Wikipedia article on the American Middle Class offers a section with this type of analysis).

Zweig does however fall short in his analysis by offering a solution of a stronger social democratic workers party that ought to be independent of the two party system to help strengthen the position of the working class within the capitalist system, but that's also an argument for a different post. His contribution is not only that he challenges the dominant discourse about class in America but shows through statistics, examples, and theory exactly why the dominant notion of "Middle Class" is significantly flawed.

This does not mean that a "middle class" does not exist, however. He, as well as others on the left, argue that there is a middle class. Even Marx talked about the middle class as ultimately having their interests aligned with the working class at the end of the day, as the capitalist class opposes both. However, workers can often find themselves in opposition to the middle class as well, as the middle class business owners, for example, also have an interest in suppressing wages and increasing exploitation.

This is another important contribution of Zweig's book: he recognizes the awkward position of the actual middle class as in opposition to both the capitalist and working classes. While he argues that the middle class can easier relate to the working class in their mutual opposition to the capitalist class: the middle class can also unite against the working class on issues like union legislation for example. This is why the middle class is not necessarily an ally nor an enemy of the working class, and it can depend on the historical development within a specific society whether it will side with one or another. (For example, fascists tend to draw a lot of support from the middle class, while allying themselves with the capitalist class).

[KremlinFriedChicken]

Middle-class is real.

If we were to do a Marxist analysis we would first start with the idea that there are two classes. Proletarians and Bourgeoisie. Proletarians do not have anything rather th an their labour power whilst the bourgeoisie have the capital or the means of production.

But what makes someone a bourgeoisie is not just the capital. If I had a factory and I gather up 20 other people and say to them "work WITH me in my factory and each one of you will earn 1/21 of the profits we make". That wouldn't make me a borgeoisie. But I still own the means of production. That is to say that I could at any time say "fuck you, this factory is mine, i ll give you 1/550 of the profits to each one of you and if you don't like it go somewhere else".

So being Bourgeoisie is not JUST about owning the means of production. It's about using these means to APPROPRIATE the surplus created by SOMEONE ELSE. That is by the way a great "discovery" by K. Marx. The fact that when you put someone to work for you AND they are successful, the success is only yours. Because the profit is yours. They take a certain wage...

Now, imagine me being a doctor. That is to say someone with nothing other than my labour power. I work for a boss and i get paid well. However, that doesn't make me borgeiosie... He can still fire me... he controls me... and in private hospitals and etc, the owner is actually profiting... even if he pays his staff well he still gains a LOT of money... so the staff (ie the doctors) SHOULD gain even more... but they don't.
So that guy is still a proletarian. He is in a weird way being taken advantage off... Lenin wrote about this type of worker...

Now who is middle class. That is someone who is in the middle of the aforementioned classes. I consider middle-class anyone who doesn't sell his labour power to anyone, doesn't profit off someone else but owns the means of production. So who is that? small-business owners. Peasants... self-employed professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc)...

There are a lot of these people...

But the wealthy managers and bankers and whatever, they are just workers. Labour aristocracy as someone mentioned before...

So middle-class is very much a reality. There are again inside this class divisions. Someone who owns a grocery store may not be as well paid as a famous self-employed doctor. So the first one might be lower-middle class and the second one high-middle class.

Yet, bourgeoisie and proletarian are different...

Hope I helped...

[Cynical Observer]

ok i came into this conversation late so i'll just give my description of middle class and wait for someone to yell at me:D

the middle class is the link between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. they are the managers at work, the foreman at a factory, the minor bosses in a corporation, they don't really run things but they control the workers on a smaller level and are paid for administration and management, so obviously managers of stores and establishments of the like would fall under middle class. they just carry down the orders from the ceo's to the workers, but they work along side the workers in their jobs and could be easily swayed to our cause, cuz they usually have a useless pig of a boss that they have to answer to too.
That being said, they don't really produce anything, and the work they do is useless (in todays society, managers would be useful in a communistic society, but without the authority and really more acting as "directors") i'm indifferent to them.

[ZeroNowhere]

ok i came into this conversation late so i'll just give my description of middle class and wait for someone to yell at me:D

the middle class is the link between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. they are the managers at work, the foreman at a factory, the minor bosses in a corporation, they don't really run things but they control the workers on a smaller level and are paid for administration and management, so obviously managers of stores and establishments of the like would fall under middle class. they just carry down the orders from the ceo's to the workers, but they work along side the workers in their jobs and could be easily swayed to our cause, cuz they usually have a useless pig of a boss that they have to answer to too.
That being said, they don't really produce anything, and the work they do is useless (in todays society, managers would be useful in a communistic society, but without the authority and really more acting as "directors") i'm indifferent to them.
And how exactly are they not workers? Also, managers do do some useful work, very much in the way that teachers occasionally actually teach stuff in schools.

[Cynical Observer]

And how exactly are they not workers? Also, managers do do some useful work, very much in the way that teachers occasionally actually teach stuff in schools.
they do work! i think you misunderstood me, they work but they are less important and vital than the working class, and their job is less about production and more about making sure production goes smoothly. That's not a bad thing i'm indifferent to the middle class as long as they will listen to reason.

[AK-1917]

Do you think it exists? What're your theories about what dimensions it has?

Many people use it as a slur for a certain attitude or background. I have. But I think if it exists, it only refers to people like managers at work who earn a wage and sometimes not a good one but are on the side of the workers. Possibly coppers too.

What do you guys think?

I posted this is theory not learning because I'm not learning, but discussing.

It is a term based on income, not class, but for the most part, at least in the US, it refers to the section of the proletariat that performs professional work, i.e. secretaries, accountants, etc.
I don't think that terms like this are all too important, they're used in bourgeois politics, polling, and not much else.

[ZeroNowhere]

they do work! i think you misunderstood me, they work but they are less important and vital than the working class, and their job is less about production and more about making sure production goes smoothly. That's not a bad thing i'm indifferent to the middle class as long as they will listen to reason.But what makes them stop being working class? As for being 'less important and vital', I don't see how 'making sure production goes smoothly' is any less important and vital than productive labour. "A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one."

[Cynical Observer]

But what makes them stop being working class? As for being 'less important and vital', I don't see how 'making sure production goes smoothly' is any less important and vital than productive labour. "A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one."
they are not working class when they have authority over other workers, then they are something else, i consider them a link between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. and they are less vital because they don't produce anything themselves, their labor has no value and work can go on without them, they just make things easier.

[ZeroNowhere]

they are not working class when they have authority over other workers, then they are something elseWhich is irrelevant, they still have to sell their labour power for a wage. Whether or not they have power over other workers has no bearing on their class status, any more than teachers aren't working class because they have power over students.


and they are less vital because they don't produce anything themselves, their labor has no value and work can go on without them, they just make things easier.Perhaps, but work can go on minus any one or two productive labourers as well. Managers help co-ordinate labour, which is an important function due to modern collectivized labour, in which the harmonious working of the individual activities is important.

[Il Medico]

There are a few petty bourgeois left, they are a dying breed though. As for the Suburb, white picket fence people, upper working class, managers, cops, government workers. All under the illusion they are classless and free. Really all they are is the bourgeois' lap dog, their most obedient workers (teacher's pet). They are pricks, but I think they can still be swayed over to the working people's cause.

[Cynical Observer]

There are a few petty bourgeois left, they are a dying breed though. As for the Suburb, white picket fence people, upper working class, managers, cops, government workers. All under the illusion they are classless and free. Really all they are is the bourgeois' lap dog, their most obedient workers (teacher's pet). They are pricks, but I think they can still be swayed over to the working people's cause.
he brings up a good point, and this is what i mean, they are the bourgeois' means of controlling the workers, or well one of their means anyway. they might still be working class but i make a distinction never the less

[AvanteRedGarde]

There are a few petty bourgeois left, they are a dying breed though. As for the Suburb, white picket fence people, upper working class, managers, cops, government workers. All under the illusion they are classless and free. Really all they are is the bourgeois' lap dog, their most obedient workers (teacher's pet). They are pricks, but I think they can still be swayed over to the working people's cause.

I find that pretty outlandish consider that America's working people can't even be won over to the working peoples cause.

[Il Medico]

I find that pretty outlandish consider that America's working people can't even be won over to the working peoples cause.
Where did I say that?:confused:
I said the 'Middle class' are mostly just upper working class people. Aka, workers that have their head so far up the bourgeois' ass that they can't see reality anymore, only this shit the cappies feed them. (Pun intended) I never said these people could not be won over to the worker's cause, in fact this is what I said, "They are pricks, but they still can swayed to the working class cause"

[ZeroNowhere]

Hm, so what do we call poor or averagely wealthy working class people who have their head so far up the bourgeoisie's ass that they can't see reality any more, only this shit the cappies feed them? Still the middle class, I would presume?

[ArrowLance]

My history teacher taught me that middle class referred to business men. Not owners of companies but managers and the such.

[Il Medico]

Hm, so what do we call poor or averagely wealthy working class people who have their head so far up the bourgeoisie's ass that they can't see reality any more, only this shit the cappies feed them? Still the middle class, I would presume?
The head so far up the ass thing was reference to the fact that since these workers are one of their tools of oppression, that they are better rewarded. These rewards cushion them from the reality the rest of the working class feels. The rest of the working class knows the oppression, just most don't know who is causing it.


My history teacher taught me that middle class referred to business men. Not owners of companies but managers and the such.
Never trust something your taught in "history" class. Most of it is propaganda. Ever noticed how most teachers attack anything to do with socialism, yet never fail to make excuses for imperialism?