Why and what for do you use term "middle class"?

[Искра]

Why do you use term "middle class"?
If you are a Marxist then you know that there are only 2 classes - the one which works (the working class) and the one which accumulates capital (the capitalist class).

But then a lot of people use term "middle class" for "American dream" type of family, for people with good job which is more intellectual then physical.

In Croatian language we make clear distinction between these 2.
#1 Class is called "klasa", for example working class (radnička klasa).
#2 Middle class in Croatian would be called "srednji sloj", which means middle layer, since there are many layer's of society and they depend on your financial state...

So, I'm interested why do people here use term "middle class", and if there's any good English alternative for word "class" in the "middle class"... since there are only 2 classes :)

I hope I wasn't to confusing for you...
Thank you.

[Axle]

You're right, the term "middle class" is pretty vauge, and stems from America's need to divide classes a little finer to distract people from thoughts of class struggle and class warfare. A middle class made it seem as though working class people, by entering another "higher" class, were coming closer to becoming rich, even if they hadn't really come any closer.

Its never meant anything. A person making $25,000 a year is considered working class in this country, while a person making $40,000 a year is considered middle class. When the upper class is making money in the hundreds of thousands or even millions, that gap is completely irrelevant.

The middle class are still proletariat.

[Smash DEM BMP]

For rich peeps.

[Muzk]

For rich peeps.


Doesn't make sense.


Anyways, for me the middle class are the kind of people who live their lives in a higher state - combined with being 'brainwashed' - because they have a better life. And, when you have this kind of third class, there's something they look down upon - the workers, who are 'stupid, lazy uneducated' people for them. Still, my subjective point of view based on the little bit of what I have seen of middle class society in my past experiences.
They don't really care about what happens to them - they don't question society. They just live in it, teach their children to 'learn' so they can get a good amount of cash

[Искра]

You're right, the term "middle class" is pretty vauge, and stems from America's need to divide classes a little finer to distract people from thoughts of class struggle and class warfare. A middle class made it seem as though working class people, by entering another "higher" class, were coming closer to becoming rich, even if they hadn't really come any closer.

The middle class are still proletariat. They just need to remember.

I think that middle class is a term used by "another class system", not Marx one. That system has poor class, middle class and rich class. That class system based on your financial status.

The middle class can be proletariat, but they don't have to be necessary. They can also be part of capitalist class, but with "no luck", which means that their capital is small. :)

[Agrippa]

Way too many Leftists use the term "middle class" as a pejorative - based on their moral rather than scientific understanding of economic stratification. Many use "middle class" to disparage individual aesthetic or cultural choices rather than economic condition. Marxists have already misappropriated the term "proletariat", using it as a synonym for "good" (same with newer terms such as "people of color", etc.) and with the popularity of "middle class" as an insult among the Left, the problem is getting worse.

There are multiple socio-economic classes in traditional Marxian analysis which could be considered "the middle class" - those would be the lumpen-proletariat, (such as cops, soldiers, drug-dealers etc.) the labor aristocracy, and the petit-bourgeoisie. However, it would be a mistake to lump these groups together as one homogenous "middle class", or to assume that "middle class" in this case simply means "bad" or "counter-revolutionary".

[Smash DEM BMP]

I find the middle class very pertuce does anyone else agree with me.
Down with the middle classes.

[bellyscratch]

Sorry for going off topic, but is anyone going to get rid of the obvious troll?

[Muzk]

Sorry for going off topic, but is anyone going to get rid of the obvious troll?

Let him defend himself

[Sarah Palin]

I think the ruling class uses the term "middle class" to further divide the workers. Axle was right in saying that the gap between $20,000 and $40,000 is irrelevant because the ruling class pulls down hundreds of millions of dollars. This is how they ensure that the revolution will be postponed until the next generation takes charge. Then they do the same thing. You can see it in Obama talking about reinvigorating the middle class, because he knows the gap is getting noticably wider.

[Искра]

But people on this forum use term "middle class" also, that's why I asked you :)

[Muzk]

But people on this forum use term "middle class" also, that's why I asked you :)


Probably as workers with a higher income - such as doctors?

Can't come up with a good example now.

[*Red*Alert]

I have always thought the "Middle Class" as described in contemporary economics to be the "Petit Bourgeoisie" of Marxian economic theory?

They are generally a social class of the self-employed such as shopkeeper's and professionals. Of course the definition could be expanded to include those in Executive pay grades (eg: the typical "Middle Class" SUV-owning family).

[Devrim]

'Middle class' is a purely sociological term. Many of the people who would describe themselves as middle class are actually workers.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think, and this is purely something I thought up, that the only people who could be meaningfully called middle class who those who sell their labour and don't get paid much but side with the ruling class, such as managers in workplaces, the police, the army, etc.

Its used alot in this coutnry to refer to basically anyone who lives in a nicer area with a nice house. So its naturally vague. I don't think you can see it exists as a 'class', I think it is mroe a lifestyle, a social outlook. I don't think alot of people who perhaps earn a wage belong to the working class in the sense of the day to day reality and vested interests of the class, but I recognise by Marx's definition they are working class. But for example someone selling their labour for 100,000 a month like a footballer or someone high up in a corporation is 'working class' but clearly isn't, they don't have that experience or reality and so I'd describe them as middle class.

Its a slur I like to use, but I also think it has some reality but probably 'class' is a bad word to use. I just use it to refer to priviliged people who clearly have an material existence of greater wealth than the vast majority of people who are solidly working class.

[ArrowLance]

Why do you use term "middle class"?
If you are a Marxist then you know that there are only 2 classes - the one which works (the working class) and the one which accumulates capital (the capitalist class).

But then a lot of people use term "middle class" for "American dream" type of family, for people with good job which is more intellectual then physical.

In Croatian language we make clear distinction between these 2.
#1 Class is called "klasa", for example working class (radnička klasa).
#2 Middle class in Croatian would be called "srednji sloj", which means middle layer, since there are many layer's of society and they depend on your financial state...

So, I'm interested why do people here use term "middle class", and if there's any good English alternative for word "class" in the "middle class"... since there are only 2 classes :)

I hope I wasn't to confusing for you...
Thank you.

I haven't read anywhere Marx claims there are only two classes, and I feel that limiting it to only two classes is oversimplifying things.

Marx talked about peasants, lumpen-proletariat, proletariat, petite-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Even more perhaps.

The petite-bourgeoisie, businessmen, store owners, management, some teachers and some professionals. Those are who I call middle-class. They are the people who, while they don't own the means of production generally, are so bribed by the bourgeoisie that they have little to no interest in revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have always thought the "Middle Class" as described in contemporary economics to be the "Petit Bourgeoisie" of Marxian economic theory?Not quite. The 'middle class' is used to mean people with a certain amount of income, rather than being based on social relations.
Anyways, I only use it to make fun of people who use it as an insult.

[x359594]

From an empirical rather than a theoretical view, in the USA the assumptions and imaginative limits of all public discourse are those of the "middle class" thanks to the mass media and advertising as well as the circumstances of fordist production. Moreover, the term "middle class" designates a psychological rather than an economic order.Just about everyone in the US claims to belong to this order, including workers and even homeless people. This seems to testify to the power of ideas over facts, so the ideology of a blue collar worker is not necessarily radically different from a salaried professional or ceo.

Concerning the content of this identity, middle class assumptions assert that individuality can't be reduced to its social and economic determinents. If they could all be enumuerated, some core or essence of personality would remain, and this timeless, sacred core or essence is more important than any of the merely external factors that create empirical selves. Liberals admit to the existence of these factors in the hopes of aiding the "better" self against them, and conservatives ascribe destiny to choice. But for both the ultimate reality is the individual and not the economic system, class, race, sex or their specific conjunctures. So it follows that what matters about a person is not the struggle he or she undertakes or is born into or is implicted by, but a wordless subjectivity that can only be negatively defined. The net effect is to reduce one to passivity, since one's only measure is feeling rather than effect, and the implication for critics is that they should struggle against this by identifying these assumptions and interrogating them.

[Искра]

I haven't read anywhere Marx claims there are only two classes, and I feel that limiting it to only two classes is oversimplifying things.

Marx talked about peasants, lumpen-proletariat, proletariat, petite-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Even more perhaps.

The petite-bourgeoisie, businessmen, store owners, management, some teachers and some professionals. Those are who I call middle-class. They are the people who, while they don't own the means of production generally, are so bribed by the bourgeoisie that they have little to no interest in revolution.

Marx talked about 2 classes one which makes capital (the working class) and the other which accumulates capital (the capitalist class). The capitalist class exploits working class, and since you are a Marxist you know how story goes on..

Working class doesn't necessary mean that those people are industrial workers, they are also peasants, teachers, soldiers, etc. etc. Proletariat stands for the class which is used for production of wealth by capitalist class.

Marx's class system is also called "the 2 class system". So that means that there are only 2 classes in his system.

Store owners and business mans are definitely capitalist class since they employ workers and they can fired them. About managers I remember that Max Weber put them as a 3rd class, since they are hired by capitalists to manage their capital, and still they can fire workers.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx talked about 2 classes one which makes capital (the working class) and the other which accumulates capital (the capitalist class). The capitalist class exploits working class, and since you are a Marxist you know how story goes on..

Working class doesn't necessary mean that those people are industrial workers, they are also peasants, teachers, soldiers, etc. etc. Proletariat stands for the class which is used for production of wealth by capitalist class.

Marx's class system is also called "the 2 class system". So that means that there are only 2 classes in his system.Production of surplus value, you mean. Also, no, peasants were not proletarian, though teachers, soldiers, cops and such are. If it is called 'the two class system', that is an oversimplification. While yes, there are two major classes, Marx was quite clear that other classes existed, for example, the petit-bourgeoisie.

[Искра]

They are different types of peasants. The ones with the land and the ones which work on somebodyelses land. 2nd type are proletariat.

I ment on "surplus value" I just forgot that phrase in English.

[ZeroNowhere]

They are different types of peasants. The ones with the land and the ones which work on somebodyelses land. 2nd type are proletariat.

I ment on "surplus value" I just forgot that phrase in English.There were plenty of peasants working on the land of others in the feudal system, but Marx was quite clear that the proletariat was a creation of capitalist production.

[Искра]

There were plenty of peasants working on the land of others in the feudal system, but Marx was quite clear that the proletariat was a creation of capitalist production.
I agree, but then again you have agricultural multinational corporations. Somebody must work on those fields. Work of those people create surplus values which "belongs" to capitalist. They work for him/her, so they are working class - proletariat.

Also, I'm just curious. If there's 3rd class, besides these 2 classes, what's their "economical purpose"?

[Искра]

I would say teachers, professors, etc. are the intelligentsia, which is also slightly different than the petit-bourgeoisie.
I agree.

[Lyev]

Aren't petit-bourgeoisie a different class altogether? They're people that own a small business and are in between bourgeoisie and proletariat, right? Thank you whoever started this topic, by the way, I was wandering where I stood in the class struggle as being 'middle-class' myself. I'd say I live more comfortably than a lot of people but my parents aren't exactly millionaires. My mum works in a school and my dad is a doctor, I don't see how that makes me proletariat or bourgeoisie, so surely I'm middle class? Surely there's more than two classes?

[Искра]

Aren't petit-bourgeoisie a different class altogether? They're people that own a small business and are in between bourgeoisie and proletariat, right? Thank you whoever started this topic, by the way, I was wandering where I stood in the class struggle as being 'middle-class' myself. I'd say I live more comfortably than a lot of people but my parents aren't exactly millionaires. My mum works in a school and my dad is a doctor, I don't see how that makes me proletariat or bourgeoisie, so surely I'm middle class? Surely there's more than two classes?
I would say that your parents are part of working class, yet they are more educated.
To explain:
Your mother is a teacher (is she?), so she works in shcool. State is her employe and she works for wage. Your father is a doctor he also works for wage. Their wages are much, much bigger than wages of for example dock workers, but still they work for wage. Your parents are not bourgeoisie because nobody works for them. Of course, as I said, they have bigger wage so they are more alienated form the low payed working class, and they don't fell that they belong to working class.

[Искра]

Well, it's all about alienation. Doctors are more alieneted, because capitalism "makes them" look like capitalists. That's one big illusion. So, we need to get these people active and break their illusions.

[Искра]

Of course, they will join us, and we want that. You have to be sick in the head to think that we will kill them all. No, we won't, we wont better world for everybody, without repression. Just, the fact is that some people need a book to wake them up, and some people need a bullet :D

[makesi]

One way to look at the problem would be to evaluate the analytical significance of the concepts used to articulate the theory at hand.

In "elitist" political theory there is a limited and, more or less, precise definition of elites, member of the elite, etc. They are individuals capable of regularly influencing the course of significant political and social decisions. In that theory, here today, gone tomorrow assassins, celebrities, populists, demagogues would not necessarily be considered as elites even if their flash in the pan effect has some significance for understanding society, reality. The larger point would be evaluating the truly (as they see it) significant actions of national political elites (economic, political, military or otherwise) and the competition that may occur between different groups of them, the unity, or lack thereof, amongst them and the sense of purpose they have, etc.

Likewise, for Marxism, class is a key concept in the Marxian analytical system and should be used to apply to social categories and groups that are truly significant in terms of comprehending society. The size of the group may not necessarily be that important at all, look at the ruling class for instance. What is more important for the concept of the ruling class, as a term used to provide a conceptual understanding of the role of this social group in capitalist and non-capitalist societies, is it's role in the relations of production and the expropriation of surplus value within the prevailing social relations/mode of production.

Terms like middle class can be used more or less loosely when being applied to US society-- in an ideological sense to describe a group of the population which considers itself 'in-between', prosperous yet not privileged, neither worker nor capitalist, etc. Sociologically, and works from the Marxist Erik Olin Wright or the leftwing sociologist John Goldthorpe would back us up on this, we can begin to refine an economic-positional analysis of them and, yes, show that many of them would be better classified simply as members of the working class, than designated with the amorphous concept of the middle class.

For the original poster, the word middle class and layer in his language is the same in Russian (middle class/средний класс или middle layer/средний слой) and, from my reading of Russian articles, are used somewhat more interchangeably now since the collapse. I have seen the use of the word 'class' more often to describe these middle groups in Russian and I would attribute that more to the slavish (no pun intended) adoption of American political science and cultural themes and ideas than to any effort to describe these groups with any greater or lesser degree of rigor. The concept of middle class is historically tinged and has a placed a major role in American political science for excusing the failures of capitalist development, the development of democracy in capitalist countries, etc.

I use the term quite often myself and I must admit that I often use it in a perjorative and ideological sense rather than in any attempt to be precise.

[BabylonHoruv]

I was always taught that middle class and working class were synonyms. I think this is also how it is meant when Obama uses it. The middle class are those who sell their labor, the upper class are those who own the means of production, and the lower class are those who are unable to sell their labor. Middle class is divided into lower (blue collar) and upper (white collar) Although nowadays a lot of blue collar workers make more money than a lot of white collar workers.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Upper-middle class and upper class = Bourgeois.

Lower-middle class and lower class = Proletariat/Working class.

[mikelepore]

A category is needed for self-employed small business owners who don't have employees, because their incomes aren't profits and they also aren't wages. I hesitate to say "middle class" because I don't see their social role as being in the middle of anything.

[BabylonHoruv]

A category is needed for self-employed small business owners who don't have employees, because their incomes aren't profits and they also aren't wages. I hesitate to say "middle class" because I don't see their social role as being in the middle of anything.

in marxist terms they are the petite bourgeoisie. I don't know what is wrong with calling them the self employed however.

[Devrim]

They are different types of peasants. The ones with the land and the ones which work on somebodyelses land. 2nd type are proletariat.

There are peasants who own land, and agricultural labourers who don't. The second as you correctly say are part of the proletariat.

Devrim

[cb9's_unity]

"Middle Class" is a very dated term that has had many meanings over time. I've tried to at least skim all the posts here however I could have missed something and someone could have already stated what i'm about to say.

The term middle class originated as, ironically, a description of the bourgeoisie when it was first developing and struggling against being oppressed itself. The bourgeoisie was described as a middle class because it fell between the ruling Aristocracy and the lower working and peasant classes. For much of its history the bourgeoisie was referred to this way and acted as a middle class. A good example of this can be found in the french revolution. The Bourgeoisie compromised the main leadership of the third estate. So while they did not have the same ruling power of the aristocratic and clerical first and second estates they were clearly distinct from the lower elements of the third estate. They both oppressed the classes below them and yet they were in a position to be oppressed by the class above them.

Today social and economic conditions have changed drastically and thus some of the labels of old can not be easily to modern society. In most capitalist countries the aristocracy has been completely abolished or stripped of all its old powers. In countries like the USA an aristocracy never truly existed and the bourgeoisie have thus always been the upper most class.

The unique condition of the USA has caused much confusion in the way we split society into classes. Traditionally classes were divided upon how one made their living. Proletarians sold their labor, peasants either consumed what they grew or traded their produce, the bourgeoisie controlled the means of production etc... However in the US classes have usually been split according to income. In this system the upper classes has practically always belonged to the Bourgeoisie while the 'middle' and 'lower' classes have been a conglomeration of many different classes including proletarians, petit-bourgeoisie, lumpen proletariat and more. The proletariat itself could fit into any of the upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class or even lower class categories depending on income. All proletarians sell their labor while having no real control of the means of production, the only difference between them is how much they sell that labor for.

In conclusion the term middle class itself means absolutely nothing in modern economics. Terms like proletarian, bourgeoisie, and petit-bourgeoisie are the most relevant and descriptive terms for the different sections of society.

(also I usually review my work to check for grammatical or sentence errors. However right now its just too late so I apologize in advance for everything grammatically nonesensical I have just written.)

[ZeroNowhere]

I agree, but then again you have agricultural multinational corporations. Somebody must work on those fields. Work of those people create surplus values which "belongs" to capitalist. They work for him/her, so they are working class - proletariat.'Peasant' is not synonymous with 'agricultural labourer'. Marx had stated that capitalism in England had mainly replaced peasants with proletarians, IIRC.

[x359594]

...The unique condition of the USA has caused much confusion in the way we split society into classes...The proletariat itself could fit into any of the upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class or even lower class categories depending on income. All proletarians sell their labor while having no real control of the means of production, the only difference between them is how much they sell that labor for...

For the USA, the subjective component is paramount. The majority of people in the US self-identify as middle class no matter their income or job. The term "middle class" here refers to a psychological rather than an economic order, and public discourse is dominated by middle class values and beliefs, false conciousness triumphant.

[Искра]

'Peasant' is not synonymous with 'agricultural labourer'. Marx had stated that capitalism in England had mainly replaced peasants with proletarians, IIRC.

I know, as I said this is 1st time for me to discuss about politics, about Marxism in English language. I know all the therms in Croatian and I need time to find right replacement in English. I think that I explained every "therm" I used quite well.

Also, I read everything you guys said and I think that therm "middle class" is more a psychological then economical. There for it's more of a "layer" then "class". Also, as I said, I believe that majority of people which are labeled or which label themselves with therm "middle class" are part of working class, just they are to alienated form the rest of their class. I believe that job of left revolutionary organization (-ism is not a matter here) is to organize those people as-well. Also, I think that in the Western world most members of left rev. org.'s are coming from that "middle class".

And makesi I would like to say to you that Croatian and Russian are Slavic languages that's why therms are similar. I know that you knew that, but I just have to say that :)

[el_chavista]

Why do you use term "middle class"?

So, I'm interested why do people here use term "middle class", and if there's any good English alternative for word "class" in the "middle class"... since there are only 2 classes :)

I hope I wasn't to confusing for you...
Thank you.
Isn't it a classification by classic economist David Ricardo according to a person's income? :confused:

[cb9's_unity]

For the USA, the subjective component is paramount. The majority of people in the US self-identify as middle class no matter their income or job. The term "middle class" here refers to a psychological rather than an economic order, and public discourse is dominated by middle class values and beliefs, false conciousness triumphant.

Unfortunately 'identifying as' and 'being' are two completely different things. Much of the middle class believes they are middle class when in fact they are proletarians.

We must replace false consciousness with class consciousness.