What is the middle class?

[Pinko Panther]

I've been doing some research on the "middle class", and now I'm completely confused. I can't even find a simple definition.
So, what is the middle class, anyway? Does it even exist, or is it just a part of the working class? How can you tell if you are part of the middle class or not?
I need help...:confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well it depends on the context of "middle class".

Marxists define class by the relationship of people to production. Owners own the means of production, workers sell their labor and do not own the means of production. By this definition most people who call themselves "middle class" in the US are actually workers. When some marxists say "middle class" they mean the petty bourgeois - professionals: doctors, university teachers, lawyers and so on. I guess this comes from their position in between capital and labor and that during times of class struggle, this class tends to split with some supporting labor and others supporting capital.

The establishment defines class, arbitrarily, by income level. But this system means that a small business owner is the same "class" as a construction worker. So when most people in the US say "middle class" it is basically anyone who makes a certain range of money. When they say "working class" in the US, usually they mean people who do Manuel labor and get paid less than - say $40,000 a year.

To confuse things even more, the middle class traditionally meant the bourgeois (the 3rd estate) because they were not aristocracy and not peasants.

[Rouge]

They are the people above the working class and below the upper class in society. I find it quite sad that the worker class is considered the 'lower' class. And this is from Wikipedia: "Within capitalism, middle class initially referred to the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie. However, with the immiserisation and pedestrianization of much of the petit bourgeois world, and the growth of financial capitalism, middle class came to refer to the combination of labour aristocracy, profesinalism, and white collar workers."

[h0m0revolutionary]

I posted this on a thread earlier, might be of interest:

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.

[Pinko Panther]

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand now. Just one more thing:
Here in the US, "middle class" means people that live in the suburbs and have to work for a living. Is this true internationally? or do people have different ideas of class in other countries?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand now. Just one more thing:
Here in the US, "middle class" means people that live in the suburbs and have to work for a living. Is this true internationally? or do people have different ideas of class in other countries?

No that useage is a phenomia that I believe to be unique to American lexis. I'm going from Anthony Giddens on this one though, not somebody I would trust with any subject.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, the way "class" is defined in the US is, I believe, intentionally confusing and intentionally separated from how capitalism actually works.

Even saying someone lives in the suburbs means drastically different things within the US. In LA, both Compton and Beverly Hills are suburbs - but the people who live in each area have drastically different experiences.

[Catbus]

Class in the US is defined by income, and not by ones relation to production as it is by Marxist terms. To keep it short, the middle class is kind of the watershed between business owners and workers, where you find the higher paid workers and (relatively) less successful small business owners. Though, it's a lot easier just to pretend that it doesn't exist.

[Shin Honyong]

Middle class is a social construct because noone wants to be the "poor" guys nor the "rich" aristocrats.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Using a Marxian analysis, the middle class as we know it today in the U.S. would most likely include proletarian, petite-bourgeoisie and "managerial class" elements, as well as some of the bourgeoisie.

The problem is that the term is used far too frequently and loosely in the United States, making an exact comparison tricky.

[Black Sheep]

Marxists define class by the relationship of people to production. Owners own the means of production, workers sell their labor and do not own the means of production. By this definition most people who call themselves "middle class" in the US are actually workers. When some marxists say "middle class" they mean the petty bourgeois - professionals: doctors, university teachers, lawyers and so on. I guess this comes from their position in between capital and labor and that during times of class struggle, this class tends to split with some supporting labor and others supporting capital.

Yeah but not only by the relation to the means of production.Other criteria is relation to the two major classes and wage level.
For example workers' aristocracy, workers bought off by the capitalists.

But generally it's a vague term, often being mixed up with petit-bourgeoisie, self-employed people, intellectuals etc.

Other comrades will help you more.

[RedArmyUK]

I've been doing some research on the "middle class", and now I'm completely confused. I can't even find a simple definition.
So, what is the middle class, anyway? Does it even exist, or is it just a part of the working class? How can you tell if you are part of the middle class or not?
I need help...:confused:

The "New Middle Class" (in the UK) are a class of scumbags who should all be shot!:cubaflag:

[el_chavista]

The confusion is in mixing a Marxist and a non Marxist classification of people. Low-middle-high classification is according the money they earn. It's like using letters A .. F.

[Bilan]

As I said in the other thread,


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.
__________________

[Mindtoaster]

^

Bilan's answer is pretty much perfect.

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".

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think Bilan does a good job in his post of arguing against the mainstream sociological definition of the "Middle Class". Despite this I still think it is important in some (but not all) situations to separate from the proletariat and bourgeoisie, "middle classes". For example in analysing the laws of capitalism, Marx in capital abstracts from the real world into one made up entirely of workers and capitalists (and landowners). Of course for political purposes this is not the case (a good example would be in the 18th Brumaire).

Whilst we can all agree that the mainstream, sociological definition of the "middle class" as being based on an income bracket is incorrect, I think it is important to identify petit-bourgeois and "middle" classes with respect to the class struggle and political matters including the peasantry, civil servants, the petit-bourgeoisie proper and the various managerial, intellectual and professional strata.