Are you part of the proletariat?

[Dante the Marxist]

Are you? Nothing against those who just stumbled into money[many great leftists were quite wealthy, Marx for example].

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I had a funny upbringing...

My mother came from a bunch of hillbillies. My father came from a family of doctors who were also investors. So I had rich paternal grandparents and poor maternal grandparents, the former of which doted on me and have helped me through school and let me travel the world.

My father was also profoundly mentally ill and the black sheep of the family, so he never finished school and could never hold down a job... and so I often grew up with my father being a waiter, or a dishwasher, or a car windshield repairman, and my mother a homemaker or a secretary.

So, I'm kind of a hybrid, and got to experience both the life of the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie, and thus was able to achieve class-consciousness in that way.

[Lolshevik]

Working class here. I do travel, though... to work, and sometimes out for pizza. It's all quite exotic in its own way.

[yuon]

Marx wasn't independently wealthy. He just got a lot of money from his friend and collaborator Engels. Engels owned textile factories and supported Marx to a high level.

Anyway, if you work for a living, and do not own any means of production, then by definition you are proletariat.

:lol:

[Dante the Marxist]

Marx wasn't independently wealthy. He just got a lot of money from his friend and collaborator Engels. Engels owned textile factories and supported Marx to a high level.

Anyway, if you work for a living, and do not own any means of production, then by definition you are proletariat.

:lol:

I have never looked at it that way, but now that I hear it, it makes perfect sense

[proudcomrade]

born working-class; ended up less than lumpenproletariat due to disability and the inability to afford any more school; currently not even able to rest assured that I won't eventually lose my very life to a routine dental problem or bout of the flu, under the privatized health system.

[Dante the Marxist]

born working-class; ended up less than lumpenproletariat due to disability and the inability to afford any more school; currently not even able to rest assured that I won't eventually lose my very life to a routine dental problem or bout of the flu, under the privatized health system.

That is simply terrible. How are you on a computer with such poverty to deal with?

[proudcomrade]

That is simply terrible. How are you on a computer with such poverty to deal with?


I am not the owner of the computer(s) that I use.

[Hoxhaist]

On one side are grandparents who were grocers and farmers and on the other side are postal workers and factory workers. Financial aid sent their respective kids, my parents to college. Dad was an army officer and Mom worked in the defense industry as a sales rep thats how they met. Now my dad moves back and forth between managing small time companies barely afloat. Is that proletarian or bourgeious?

[9]

There are more classes than the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, like the peasantry in some places, the lumpenproletariat, the labor aristocracy in some places, and the petit-bourgeoisie. I wouldn't expect many here to be full-fledged bourgeois, but then again, I wouldn't be surprised by it either.
To your question, there is some confusion among many communists over the definition of working class as it applies today. I consider myself working class (some would consider the American working class a labor aristocracy, I have conflicting views on this), but I'm not an industrial worker; I work in the medical services, as a laboratory technician's assistant at a hematology lab. I work full time and make nearly minimum wage. I've actually been meaning to start a thread on the modern definition of "working class", but I have yet to get around to it.

[Robocommie]

My father's family were urban factory workers, he himself became a dentist. My mother's family were poor farmers, growing corn on rented land and raising hogs, she became a dental hygienist (and thus they met) Because of their professions I've enjoyed a very privileged life, because I oftentimes helped out on my grandfather's farm I have always been aware of the realities of life for the poor and I try to never forget how lucky I am. My socialist beliefs are a result of my desire to see everyone given the same opportunities that fortune has extended to me, something which I do not believe capitalism can do.

[Robocommie]

Marx wasn't independently wealthy. He just got a lot of money from his friend and collaborator Engels. Engels owned textile factories and supported Marx to a high level.


True, but Marx's father was a lawyer, and his beloved wife was (in one of the great ironies of history) from the aristocracy.

[#FF0000]

My dad worked on tugboats. Now he dispatches them. My mom used to be an air stewardess. Now she works in the stockroom of some local store and is a barista at a starbucks in the area.

I flip burgers.

[Dante the Marxist]

I am not the owner of the computer(s) that I use.

Oh. Sorry for my ignorance...

[Dante the Marxist]

On one side are grandparents who were grocers and farmers and on the other side are postal workers and factory workers. Financial aid sent their respective kids, my parents to college. Dad was an army officer and Mom worked in the defense industry as a sales rep thats how they met. Now my dad moves back and forth between managing small time companies barely afloat. Is that proletarian or bourgeious?

Do you own the means of production?

[Il Medico]

Working class and a student. I am hoping to get a second job right now to supplement my income. The government currently pays for my tuition, books, etc, so I just have to get to college. However, for that privileged I have to take at minimum four classes (I currently take five), so a full-load with a full time job (and maybe a second job soon). Bit of a hassle but so-far I've manged to keep high scores in all subjects except Math (I am just really bad at math, got something like a low C right now). However, I would stress that being proletariat means you do not own the means of production, not that you are working class/lower class.

[Uncle Ho]

My father was a union president in USW, my mother was IUOE. I am IBEW and proud.

Each day I risk life and limb as a hothands lineman, being ferried by helicopter between power lines, performing maintenance on and repairing live power lines carrying enough current to kill me instantly so you can enjoy the privileges of having a lighted, heated home and having enough electricity to post on this internet forum.

Just 2 weeks ago, I suffered serious burns when a transformer exploded while I was on the line, leaving me in the precarious situation of being on fire while suspended several hundred feet in the air. Fortunately, my union demands that I wear nomex clothing, thereby saving me from a horrible death via burning, and they have negotiated good health and injury insurance plans, allowing me to recover free of charge before I return to work.

Does this make me a prole?

[Dante the Marxist]

My father was a union president in USW, my mother was IUOE. I am IBEW and proud.

Each day I risk life and limb as a hothands lineman, being ferried by helicopter between power lines, performing maintenance on and repairing live power lines carrying enough current to kill me instantly so you can enjoy the privileges of having a lighted, heated home and having enough electricity to post on this internet forum.

Just 2 weeks ago, I suffered serious burns when a transformer exploded while I was on the line, leaving me in the precarious situation of being on fire while suspended several hundred feet in the air. Fortunately, my union demands that I wear nomex clothing, thereby saving me from a horrible death via burning.

Does this make me a prole?

Yup.

[9]

However, I would stress that being proletariat means you do not own the means of production, not that you are working class/lower class.

This is not necessarily correct. Not owning the means of production does not necessarily make you a proletarian, if my understanding is correct, it merely means you are not a capitalist/member of the bourgeoisie. Otherwise, some of the petit-bourgeoisie, in addition to the peasantry and most of the lumpenproletariat, would all comprise the "proletariat". Hence the blurred lines and confusion over modern application of "proletariat".

[spiltteeth]

lumpenproletariat
No healthcare

Hoping to transition into proletariat, but having a hard time.

[yuon]

This is not necessarily correct. Not owning the means of production does not necessarily make you a proletarian, if my understanding is correct, it merely means you are not a capitalist/member of the bourgeoisie. Otherwise, some of the petit-bourgeoisie, in addition to the peasantry and most of the lumpenproletariat, would all comprise the "proletariat". Hence the blurred lines and confusion over modern application of "proletariat".

Well, technically, the petit-bourgeoisie would own some means of production, just not enough to not have to work as well.

In a modern capitalist society there aren't any peasantry, thought there are farm workers. In less-developed countries, of course, you can still find peasantry, and even what are effectively feudal lords (war lords).

And, of course, the lumpen-proletariat don't work as such, and don't have a relation to the means of production.

Yet, many, or even most, of the members of the three Marxian classes discussed, would be on the "worker's" side come a revolution.

[9]

Yet, many, or even most, of the members of the three Marxian classes discussed, would be on the "worker's" side come a revolution.

No, this is not necessarily true at all. Ideally, they would side with the proletariat, but Marx understood quite well the potential of classes such as the lumpenproletariat to actually be profoundly reactionary and to fight for the interests of the capitalist class instead of the proletariat.

EDIT:

Also, I am not sure what you mean by this:


And, of course, the lumpen-proletariat don't work as such, and don't have a relation to the means of production.

So the petty street pushers who do, in fact, work - albeit illegally - have no relationship to the means of production? Surely this is not the case. Who owns the equipment and materials used to produce the product this petty street pusher sells? These are the means of production.

[Vendetta]

I work at DQ and have recently signed for the fire academy (fireman). You tell me.

[yuon]

No, this is not necessarily true at all. Ideally, they would side with the proletariat, but Marx understood quite well the potential of classes such as the lumpenproletariat to actually be profoundly reactionary and to fight for the interests of the capitalist class instead of the proletariat.
It is my belief that come the revolution it will be an uprising of the lower classes generally, against the ruling classes. That includes the so called lumpen-proletariat.

Sure, there will be many (proletariat as well) who will fight on the side of capital. But, just as revolution will make the vast majority of the proletariat's life better, so too it will make the lumen-prol's life better.


So the petty street pushers who do, in fact, work - albeit illegally - have no relationship to the means of production? Surely this is not the case. Who owns the equipment and materials used to produce the product this petty street pusher sells? These are the means of production.
Have you seen the term "lumpen-bourgeois" before?

Anyway, it has been argued that the drug barons are just as much bourgeois as the people who own the "legal" pharmaceutical companies. They own the means of production, and hire others to do all the work. As such, the people who do the work, while doing "illegal" work, are still proletariat, not lumpen-proletariat. That includes those "petty street pushers".

The lumpen are those who do not work, beggars, "dole bludgers" (some of my best friends don't work), the "unemployable" and similar, and, unlike the bourgeois, do not have a relationship to the means of production.

The issue of prostitution is an interesting one though. A prostitute "owns" the means of making money, and, to that extent, could be considered petit-bourgeois. However, often they work for someone who takes a cut, but (perhaps) provides a room, bouncers or similar. I think I might start a thread on that...

[which doctor]

Hopelessly petty-bourgeois. At the moment I'm only a university student, but if things go as planned I'll eventually become a part of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. I've worked before, but haven't for about a year.

My father is an educated professional who's basic function is to make someone else's capital more efficient. My mother's worked in various (rather low paid) clerical and minor administrative positions, often related to the culture industry in some way or another.

I don't really enjoy any real bourgeois privileges, but I am allowed a lot of free time since my living expenses are subsidized by my father's income at the moment. Frankly, I'm thankful for this because there's nothing glorious or romantic about wage labor, and I think I use my time wisely to further my intellectual development.

[9]

It is my belief that come the revolution it will be an uprising of the lower classes generally, against the ruling classes. That includes the so called lumpen-proletariat.

Sure, there will be many (proletariat as well) who will fight on the side of capital. But, just as revolution will make the vast majority of the proletariat's life better, so too it will make the lumen-prol's life better.

While I certainly hope this will be the case, it is hard to see how the petit-bourgeoisie (and I'm assuming you're including them in the "lower classes" - or classes below the bourgeoisie) will, as a whole, come to see revolution as being in it's immediate interests. Presumably much of the petit-bourgeoisie lives relatively comfortable lives - economically and otherwise - and a revolution will put it's financial security in jeopardy which means much of the class may, in all likelihood, side with the bourgeoisie and fight for their interests (in the immediate sense). While I welcome those petit-bourgeois individuals who have demonstrated their loyalty to the working class, I have a hard time envisioning a situation in which the petit-bourgeoisie as a class joins the proletariat and fights for communist revolution.


Have you seen the term "lumpen-bourgeois" before?

Anyway, it has been argued that the drug barons are just as much bourgeois as the people who own the "legal" pharmaceutical companies. They own the means of production, and hire others to do all the work. As such, the people who do the work, while doing "illegal" work, are still proletariat, not lumpen-proletariat. That includes those "petty street pushers".

The lumpen are those who do not work, beggars, "dole bludgers" (some of my best friends don't work), the "unemployable" and similar, and, unlike the bourgeois, do not have a relationship to the means of production. While I struggle to remember mention of the unemployed in Marx's conception of the lumpenproletariat, I do hear it used in reference to the unemployed quite regularly, and I may well have to go back and do some reading to uncover if this is actually part of Marx's understanding of the different elements of the lumpenproletariat.
As to your description of the concept of a "lumpenbourgeoisie", yes, I have heard this before, and I'm inclined to find it more grounded than the present description of the lumpenproletariat (as containing both the owners of the means of production and those exploited, such as the example I mentioned). On the other hand, there are some issues with it. The distinction is much less clear with the drug trade and other illegal enterprises between antagonistic class interests. I have not considered it enough to provide a coherent analysis of it at this point though.


The issue of prostitution is an interesting one though. A prostitute "owns" the means of making money, and, to that extent, could be considered petit-bourgeois. However, often they work for someone who takes a cut, but (perhaps) provides a room, bouncers or similar. I think I might start a thread on that...I certainly think that prostitutes are [I]the most exploited members of the lumpenproletariat, and of society in general. Prostitutes, of all people, have absolute shit nothing to gain from, or preserve by, defending the present scheme of things.

[yuon]

While I struggle to remember mention of the unemployed in Marx's conception of the lumpenproletariat, I do hear it used in reference to the unemployed quite regularly, and I may well have to go back and do some reading to uncover if this is actually part of Marx's understanding of the different elements of the lumpenproletariat.
Note, I didn't say "unemployed", I said "unemployable", those who cannot be employed, as opposed to those simply without a job.

I don't believe that most Marxists lump the temporarily unemployed in with the lumpen-proletariat.


Anyway, the "lumpen-bourgeois" comment was not intended to link with the subsequent paragraph. I should have made that clearer. It is my contention that the legality or illegality of a job, or ownership of the "means of production" is irrelevant when it comes to the economic class a person is in. As such, the "lumpen-bourgeoisie" do not exist as such. It is an illogical class. The reason I even raised the idea was because not everyone agrees with me on that issue.


I certainly think that prostitutes are the most exploited members of the lumpenproletariat, and of society in general. Prostitutes, of all people, have absolute shit nothing to gain from, or preserve by, defending the present scheme of things.
I just posted a thread on the matter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-nature-prostitution-t120572/index.html?p=1577669), it seems not everyone agrees with you.

:huh:

[Искра]

I knew that majority will be proletariat.
Why arn't you honest with yourself? :laugh:

[9]

Note, I didn't say "unemployed", I said "unemployable", those who cannot be employed, as opposed to those simply without a job.
Yes, "unemployable" is actually what I meant as well.


I don't believe that most Marxists lump the temporarily unemployed in with the lumpen-proletariat.Some actually do. I think this is flawed, but some do see it this way.



Anyway, the "lumpen-bourgeois" comment was not intended to link with the subsequent paragraph. I should have made that clearer. It is my contention that the legality or illegality of a job, or ownership of the "means of production" is irrelevant when it comes to the economic class a person is in. As such, the "lumpen-bourgeoisie" do not exist as such. It is an illogical class. The reason I even raised the idea was because not everyone agrees with me on that issue.Marx showed the largely-antagonistic nature of different class interests, particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I think the fact that (the majority of) these people work in illegal enterprises actually can create a distinct set of class interests different than those of the proletariat. Again, I haven't dedicated a terribly large deal of time to the matter, but I do see how the antagonistic nature of opposing class interests (which is often manifested in workplace organization and striking) is not coherent or present in the same way between workers and "management" (kingpins etc.) in illegal industries as it is in "legitimate" industries.
But I will check out your thread, and anything further I have to say on the matter I will perhaps say there.

[9]

I just posted a thread on the matter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-nature-prostitution-t120572/index.html?p=1577669), it seems not everyone agrees with you.

:huh:

On second thought, I'm not going to post in that thread - certainly not tonight, anyway; I've had a few drinks and I don't feel like getting unnecessarily riled up, particularly over comments which (I assume) were made a long time ago by users who probably don't even come here anymore.

[ComradeR]

I grew up in what I guess would considered a redneck working class neighborhood in Utah. My Father was a steel worker and we supplemented our grocery bill with meat we got by hunting. Nowdays I'm a stockman at a retail chain for min wage so yeah I suppose I am.

[bcbm]

lumpenproletariat
No healthcare

Hoping to transition into proletariat, but having a hard time.

lumpen doesn't just mean you're out of a job right now.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Oh, I am a total bourgeois. I gotz like 90% of the shares on Citroën and 70 on BP, hellz yeah, I makin' bank. (just kidding, my economic situation right now is rather pathetic actually)

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

It depends on wether you regard Proletariat as working people who don't own means of production, or as "poor" workers?
Proletariat originally meant people who have financial diificulties to take care of their "proles", their family (wife/husband and children).

[thejambo1]

working class,mother and father were and all grandparents etc. so i voted prpletariat. i work for a living and rent a flat from the council. i see myself as an uber prole:laugh:

[punisa]

Long tradition of proletarians in my family. Some were even high ranking revolutionaries (grandpa).
I work as a computer programmer (web and software) mainly as a freelancer.
My "means of production" is any PC computer that has Internet access and at least the notepad software.
I have no employees and I exploit nobody.
But strict Marxists viewpoint would still label me as Burgousie ? Hmm, rather tricky classification indeed, what would you say?
- I earn (contrary to popular belief) less then an industrial worker per month
- but I have no bosses
- I also have a potential to create a more profitable project strictly based on my knowledge and thus increase my cashflow
- I "own" means of production, but my "possessions" are actually less then an average worker has. My computer is rather old and my material wealth equals to an uncomfortable chair and a squeaky bed. No car, no big ass TV, nothing.
Which means that my boss-less situation is depending mostly on my personal knowledge of programming code languages.

So, who the hell am I ? LOL :laugh:

[revolution inaction]

Long tradition of proletarians in my family. Some were even high ranking revolutionaries (grandpa).
I work as a computer programmer (web and software) mainly as a freelancer.
My "means of production" is any PC computer that has Internet access and at least the notepad software.
I have no employees and I exploit nobody.
But strict Marxists viewpoint would still label me as Burgousie ? Hmm, rather tricky classification indeed, what would you say?
- I earn (contrary to popular belief) less then an industrial worker per month
- but I have no bosses
- I also have a potential to create a more profitable project strictly based on my knowledge and thus increase my cashflow
- I "own" means of production, but my "possessions" are actually less then an average worker has. My computer is rather old and my material wealth equals to an uncomfortable chair and a squeaky bed. No car, no big ass TV, nothing.
Which means that my boss-less situation is depending mostly on my personal knowledge of programming code languages.

So, who the hell am I ? LOL :laugh:

I don't think you are bourgeoisie if you are not employing anyone else, but i'm not sure if self employed people fit in the category of proletariat either.
But i don't think the point of class analysis is to categorise everyone.

[LeninBalls]

Mother is unemployed and my father has been working as a construction worker for 25 years.

I'm more proletariat than you.

[RedAnarchist]

My mother had a lot of jobs over the years, many of them manual such as working in a factory, working in a cotton mill (I shit you not) or working in a hotel bar. My dad has been a postal worker since the early 1970s and finds the job to be a lot worse than it was when he first started, even if the bosses are slightly more generous with their wages. My family seem to have been very working class in the past couple of hundred years. My dad's family - well, the man anyway - in the 1800s tended to be plasterers, whilst most of the rest were cotton mill workers, miners (my maternal Wigan-born grandmother's family were mostly from Gloucestershire and had moved up North to work in the Lancashire mines) labourers or were housekeepers (the women). There are a few who had other kinds of jobs, such as a maternal ancestor who was a basket maker, another (my London-born great grandfather) who had an horse and cart from where he would sell fruit and vegetables. My Wigan-born great grandfather was in the army during WW1, and he was in the last cavalry charge made by the British Army.

[Olerud]

Prole.

[9]

I don't think you are bourgeoisie if you are not employing anyone else, but i'm not sure if self employed people fit in the category of proletariat either.
But i don't think the point of class analysis is to categorise everyone.
Generally, I think that would be petit-bourgeoisie.

[Il Medico]

Mother is unemployed and my father has been working as a construction worker for 25 years.

I'm more proletariat than you.
Oh, please don't start this shit.:closedeyes:

[RedSonRising]

I think the question should be changed to suit two types of categorization; either

"Do you control the means of production, or not?"

or

"Are you part of the Proletariat, Lumpen-Proletariat, Petite-Bourgeoisie, or Bourgeoisie?"

I think however it is safe to say that of the active members of Rev-left, our class character politically speaking is nearly universally proletarian-supportive. That speaks for itself I think.

[Enragé]

my dad's an idiot, my mother a teacher, grandfather miner, other grandfather border control i think (the idiot's father that is). Im at college, currently out of work, so technically not right now working class but since my past and my future is completely intertwined with not having control over the means of production and being forced to sell a part of your life to stay alive in the rest - im gonna fill in proletarian. Oh, and im a few hundred in debt with the bank, and thousands with the government.

[Wanted Man]

Lazy student at the moment; I had a job, but I would not have been able to keep it regardless of whether I started a study. :(

I don't have any debts, thankfully, but I will stop getting student grants in about 2 years, because my entire study time will be more than 4 years. I'll need a job by then, or I can join NKOS in enjoying our glorious knowledge economy. (Enrol in university now and finish with thousands of € debt, unless you want to finish at the age of 22 with zero work experience and a nice worthless degree! :rolleyes:)

Or if I'm really lucky, the government will get rid of the last remains of student benefits before I'm through. If this government doesn't do it before the end of its term, the next one, probably hard right-wing, might.

[Manifesto]

Too young to work anywhere besides BK but I hate fat-food. My dad's side has some bourgeois but he is poor and my mom's side is all proletariat I think.

[punisa]

I don't think you are bourgeoisie if you are not employing anyone else, but i'm not sure if self employed people fit in the category of proletariat either.
But i don't think the point of class analysis is to categorise everyone.

Yeah, seems I'm screwed. I'll probably be sent to the gulags as soon as some evil red dictator takes power again :lol:

But seriously, there is a huge new array of categories that are hard to distinguish just on the basis of old Marx classifications.
For me, the bourgeoisie is the class of people who exploits and thus must be stopped.
It doesn't take much theory to point finger to the exploiters, we all know who they are ! Our mission must be to strip all the power away from them and give it to the working people.

But this topic is always interesting and seems to be coming up alot lately. You
can come up with all sorts of questions regarding this.
For example - if a person is born a bourgeoisie, does this make him/her the enemy of the proletariat ?
If this person inherited millions, but completely disapproves the philosophy of exploitation implemented in making that money, what can he/she do about it?

Socialist attempts in history that killed the bourgeoisie solely on labeling them as an enemy always reminds me of Hitler tracing people's ancestors to see if they are Jewish so he can kill them.
It's not only "history", actually many people on the left (ok, radical left) believe that the whole bourgeoisie class should be hanged.
That is utter nonsense and complete savagery. Why physically eliminate someone that poses no more threat? When the bourgeoisie looses the power they can either:
1) hang themselves
2) join the proletariat

the "third option" where the bourgeoisie might organize to reclaim power is impossible once they loose all of their power. They simply cannot pull it off, because they are an extreme small minority comparing to the proletariat !

[punisa]

my dad's an idiot

What kind of job is that? :laugh:
BTW, Is there a place on earth when someone pays you for being an idiot? Now that would be utopian communism :cool:

[Niccolò Rossi]

I work in fast food. Hoping to get myself a new job over the summer holidays.

[Catbus]

I worked with a friend of a friend doing odd construction jobs for a while, but had to quit recently due to school starting and a number of other complications.

And a quick question, is it bourgeois to sell things that you make? I've been trying to make some money by selling home-made Russian style juggling balls over the internet. I don't have employees or anything, it's just me, play pit balls, sand, and a hot glue gun.

[Durruti's Ghost]

My parents are divorced. My father's a mechanic, my mother's a clerical assistant, but I live(d) with my grandparents (secretary and accountant). I'm a student.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I am an oil tycoon in my spare time.

[YKTMX]

Just in from 5 hours washing pots in an expensive "Tapas" restaurant.

I wish I wasn't a prole, but I am. It's shit.

[Hoggy_RS]

Im a student at the moment but may soon be leaving college due to a failed exam(repeating a year costs something like 5500 euro). My only wage is taken from djing once or twice a week(are djs part of the proletariat?). Id hope to get a plumbing apprenticeship if I leave college, so i suppose soon I could be part of the proletariat!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Proletariat.

[Uncle Ho]

Just in from 5 hours washing pots in an expensive "Tapas" restaurant.

I wish I wasn't a prole, but I am. It's shit.

Why?

What is wrong with the life of a worker? Being compensated for doing something of value is far more noble than sucking the lifeblood out of millions so you can have your 4th mansion.

The bourgeoisie have convinced us that theirs is the life to life. They have convinced us that the best thing we can do in our lives is sit around counting their imaginary money. Go to their colleges and learn how to oppress your fellow man for a huge fee, and yet learn nothing of value.

This attitude must be ended, if we are to succeed.

[Absolut]

Why?

I can think of a few other things thats more fun than being exploited.

[spiltteeth]

Why?

What is wrong with the life of a worker? Being compensated for doing something of value is far more noble than sucking the lifeblood out of millions so you can have your 4th mansion.

The bourgeoisie have convinced us that theirs is the life to life. They have convinced us that the best thing we can do in our lives is sit around counting their imaginary money. Go to their colleges and learn how to oppress your fellow man for a huge fee, and yet learn nothing of value.

This attitude must be ended, if we are to succeed.

Yea, I really value other people getting rich off my labor.

[tehpevis]

Working class, living comfortably because my Dad is apparently very good at what he does (Copier Technician). My grandfather on my dad's side worked on cotton gins in west Texas and is retired; he sometimes welds for building carports, etc. My mom was born in Chicago somewhere around lower middle class, is currently working as a musician for the Catholic Basilica in Santa Fe.

That said, I'm rather well off when compared to most of my friends. My girlfriend, for instance, lives quite squalidly. Her dad is an ex-marine and out of work, and one of my friends lives with his dad and autistic brother. (For the record, I'm a Teenager.) I'm not as on the back end of the Capitalist system as them, but still Working Class.

[Uncle Ho]

Yea, I really value other people getting rich off my labor.

So then, you'd rather be getting rich off someone else's labor?

[ls]

Im at college, currently out of work, so technically not right now working class but since my past and my future is completely intertwined with not having control over the means of production and being forced to sell a part of your life to stay alive in the rest - im gonna fill in proletarian. Oh, and im a few hundred in debt with the bank, and thousands with the government.

Being working-class doesn't mean you must actually have a job, neither does being proletarian.

Proletarian working-class here all the way, unemployed.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Both my parents were teachers, so not proletarian but not exactly rich 'n famous either. It isn't physically hard work, but it is mentally and the pay isn't big.
Still, combined with the fact that they enjoyed a higher eduction and I am currently at university enjoying higher education as well, I guess I have to be honest and Bourgoisie

[Comrade Anarchist]

i am in an middle class with my mom and 2 sis so i mean we do well but i like to think proletariat b/c my shes a nurse who works her ass off and i work a shitty minimum wage job.

[chegitz guevara]

The classes in capitalism (not in any particular order):
bourgeoisie, i.e., capitalist
middle classes, i.e., the petty bourgeoisie
proletariat: the worker class
lumpen proletariat: criminals, the permanently unemployed, etc
farmers/peasantry
landlords

And then there are hold over classes from former social modes: the nobility, the Church, etc.

Within each category there are divisions. For example, there is within the bourgeoisie: finance capital, heavy industry, light industry, services, etc.

Class is not a permanent, fixed, immutable category. It is shifting, sometimes indefinite. Someone can be a member of more than one class at different times in their lives. Some can be more than one class at the same time. Consider a poor farmer who takes a job with a wealthy farmer. He has his own land and does his own farming, but he is also a laborer for someone else.

What am I? Depends. I'm a wage laborer, but I have my own business on the side. I'm proletarian and middle class.

[Absolut]

So then, you'd rather be getting rich off someone else's labor?

Not wanting people to get rich of ones labour, doesnt necessarily mean you want to get rich of other peoples labour.

[robbo203]

The classes in capitalism (not in any particular order):
bourgeoisie, i.e., capitalist
middle classes, i.e., the petty bourgeoisie
proletariat: the worker class
lumpen proletariat: criminals, the permanently unemployed, etc
farmers/peasantry
landlords.


There are basically just two in modern capitalism - capitalist and worker with a grey area in between. The vast majority are workers not owning enough capital (if any at all) upon which to live and therefore compelled to sell their labour power on the labour market. That is what makes them workers - the necessity to engage in wage labour

The middle class is a myth or at least is a sociological category that does not relate to the marxian class schema based on how one relates to the means of production (owner or non-owner). It relies instead on other attributes such as education or accent or upbringing which are not relevant to the Marxian schema. The lumpen proletariat are still proletarians - workers - and the landlords are sometimes but not always capitalists (some are just rather more wealthy workers). The peasants however do represent a distinct class in Maxian terms but there is very little left of an independent peasantry in most develped countries in the world - it is essentially a so called "Third World" phenomenon.

[chegitz guevara]

There are basically just two in modern capitalism - capitalist and worker with a grey area in between. The vast majority are workers not owning enough capital (if any at all) upon which to live and therefore compelled to sell their labour power on the labour market. That is what makes them workers - the necessity to engage in wage labour

The middle class is a myth or at least is a sociological category that does not relate to the marxian class schema based on how one relates to the means of production (owner or non-owner). It relies instead on other attributes such as education or accent or upbringing which are not relevant to the Marxian schema. The lumpen proletariat are still proletarians - workers - and the landlords are sometimes but not always capitalists (some are just rather more wealthy workers). The peasants however do represent a distinct class in Maxian terms but there is very little left of an independent peasantry in most develped countries in the world - it is essentially a so called "Third World" phenomenon.

What The Communist Manifesto says (since I don't feel like delving into Capital) is that society is more and more dividing into two great camps, not classes, but camps. So, one one side, the capitalists. On the other side, the workers. And there are all these other classes in play, which vacillate back and forth between the capitalists and workers depending on the relations of forces. When the ruling class is acendant, then the various classes gather around it. When the workers are building for a revolution, the other classes tend to gravitate towards it, a section of the ruling class even breaks away to side with the workers.

The middle classes are no myth, and there are several of them. There is, for example, small shop keepers. There are professionals, i.e., people who sell specialized knowledge (lawyers for example). There's management. Farmers and peasants are actually a middle class, but they are different enough from the rest to be considered separately. Skilled artisans, craftsman, etc., can constitute a middle class. What the Manifesto says about the middle class is that "the old middle classes" are being destroyed. Unfortunately, the word old is missing from the English translation by Moore, and so English speaking Marxists have, for over 100 years, been thinking that Marx wrote that all the middle classes were disappearing. They have held to this, even as the middle classes have expanded considerably in the 20th Century.

Some lumpens are workers, but Marx doesn't refer to them that way. By lumpens we refer to criminals, the permanently unemployed, etc. Some of them may have nothing to sell but their labor power, but they aren't trying to sell it. Marx talks about this class in The Class Struggles in France and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx doesn't like them at all.

Landlords are considered by Marx a distinct class from capitalists. Landlords make their money not from production, but from rent. A capitalist exploits labor at the point of production. A landlord exploits labor after it is paid. The capitalist is active, the landlord, passive. Marx devotes a lot of effort on the distinction, but not in any place easily accessible (Capital, the Grundrisse, etc.

[Patchd]

Bourgeois, I own six factories and love employing millions of Indonesian kids to work in em. :thumbup1:

[thejambo1]

Bourgeois, I own six factories and love employing millions of Indonesian kids to work in em. :thumbup1:
you are who i aspire to be and then i can piss all over all the commie and anarchist fuckers who post on here.:laugh:

[chegitz guevara]

Bourgeois, I own six factories and love employing millions of Indonesian kids to work in em. :thumbup1:
At least he's giving them jobs.

[robbo203]

What The Communist Manifesto says (since I don't feel like delving into Capital) is that society is more and more dividing into two great camps, not classes, but camps. So, one one side, the capitalists. On the other side, the workers. And there are all these other classes in play, which vacillate back and forth between the capitalists and workers depending on the relations of forces. When the ruling class is acendant, then the various classes gather around it. When the workers are building for a revolution, the other classes tend to gravitate towards it, a section of the ruling class even breaks away to side with the workers.

The middle classes are no myth, and there are several of them. There is, for example, small shop keepers. There are professionals, i.e., people who sell specialized knowledge (lawyers for example). There's management. Farmers and peasants are actually a middle class, but they are different enough from the rest to be considered separately. Skilled artisans, craftsman, etc., can constitute a middle class. What the Manifesto says about the middle class is that "the old middle classes" are being destroyed. Unfortunately, the word old is missing from the English translation by Moore, and so English speaking Marxists have, for over 100 years, been thinking that Marx wrote that all the middle classes were disappearing. They have held to this, even as the middle classes have expanded considerably in the 20th Century.

Some lumpens are workers, but Marx doesn't refer to them that way. By lumpens we refer to criminals, the permanently unemployed, etc. Some of them may have nothing to sell but their labor power, but they aren't trying to sell it. Marx talks about this class in The Class Struggles in France and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx doesn't like them at all.

Landlords are considered by Marx a distinct class from capitalists. Landlords make their money not from production, but from rent. A capitalist exploits labor at the point of production. A landlord exploits labor after it is paid. The capitalist is active, the landlord, passive. Marx devotes a lot of effort on the distinction, but not in any place easily accessible (Capital, the Grundrisse, etc.


Yer talking bollocks , mate

Here is what the Communist Manifesto says

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The two hostile camps happen to be the same thing as the two great classes!

[Pogue]

i'm still in education and dont have a part time jbo anymore but yes, i come from a working class family.

[Jethro Tull]

The vast majority of human beings are proletarian. There's nothing special, honorable or exciting about it.


So then, you'd rather be getting rich off someone else's labor?

False dilemma. Neither victim nor perpetrator.

[Weezer]

The Gov't is still busy shoving half-assed "history" and detentions down my throat. I have no job.

[The Accomplice]

My family started out very poor. We moved into the U.S. from the Democratic Republic of Congo. My mom at the time was taking care of my sister and I and my dad was working and going to college to become an engineer. We were living in houses and apartments with roommates. Eventually my dad became an engineer and my mother a nurse.

At the present time, my father recently lost his job and is collecting unemployment checks. I'm a student in college and working. I'm thinking about leaving college though and my parent's house to pursue a dream of mine.

I selected prole, but I'm not sure. There has got to be something or things in between no?

[RedSonRising]

I'm a University Student. My parents are both immigrants from Colombia who arrived without knowing of english. My mother is a teacher who works in an elementary/middle school ESL program, and constantly has to fight the school to give the children their basic education rights secured by State law. My father is a software engineer. I grew up in a minority-concentrated working class town and went to a gradually degenerating low-funded school. I then moved to an upper-middle class town full of affluent whites.

I would not call myself bourgeois, as my parents work and struggle against the economic forces working against their livelihood due to the current crisis, but I live comfortably.

[Panda Tse Tung]

was lumpen for 3 days! :( Now i'm a temp-prol. lol.

[bcbm]

was lumpen for 3 days! :( Now i'm a temp-prol. lol.

an unemployed member of the proletariat is still a member of the proletariat. lumpen describes something else entirely.

[robbo203]

an unemployed member of the proletariat is still a member of the proletariat. lumpen describes something else entirely.


A lumpen prole is likewise a member of the proletariat. I think the most straightforward definition of a proletariat or member of the working class is someone who does not possess sufficient - or any - capital to live upon without needing to have to work and who is therefore compelled to sell his or her ability to labour to an employer for a wage or salary. This is, of course, a generalisatuion and, as is the case with generalisations, tends to be a bit fuzzy around the edges. There is a grey area between the capitalist class and the working class in which some workers may be called semi-capitalists or alternatively, some capitalists may be called semi workers but by and large the generalisations holds up fairly well as a social description...

[rhys]

What The Communist Manifesto says (since I don't feel like delving into Capital) is that society is more and more dividing into two great camps, not classes, but camps. So, one one side, the capitalists. On the other side, the workers. And there are all these other classes in play, which vacillate back and forth between the capitalists and workers depending on the relations of forces. When the ruling class is acendant, then the various classes gather around it. When the workers are building for a revolution, the other classes tend to gravitate towards it, a section of the ruling class even breaks away to side with the workers.

The middle classes are no myth, and there are several of them. There is, for example, small shop keepers. There are professionals, i.e., people who sell specialized knowledge (lawyers for example). There's management. Farmers and peasants are actually a middle class, but they are different enough from the rest to be considered separately. Skilled artisans, craftsman, etc., can constitute a middle class. What the Manifesto says about the middle class is that "the old middle classes" are being destroyed. Unfortunately, the word old is missing from the English translation by Moore, and so English speaking Marxists have, for over 100 years, been thinking that Marx wrote that all the middle classes were disappearing. They have held to this, even as the middle classes have expanded considerably in the 20th Century.

Some lumpens are workers, but Marx doesn't refer to them that way. By lumpens we refer to criminals, the permanently unemployed, etc. Some of them may have nothing to sell but their labor power, but they aren't trying to sell it. Marx talks about this class in The Class Struggles in France and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx doesn't like them at all.

Landlords are considered by Marx a distinct class from capitalists. Landlords make their money not from production, but from rent. A capitalist exploits labor at the point of production. A landlord exploits labor after it is paid. The capitalist is active, the landlord, passive. Marx devotes a lot of effort on the distinction, but not in any place easily accessible (Capital, the Grundrisse, etc.

I think you can certainly make a case for a lot of that stuff, and when we're involved in trying to convince groups of people it's necessary to bear it in mind, but we need always to remember that the system will seize on any kind of distinction between workers to divide them. In the main it remains true of modern capitalist societies which have eliminated the peasantry that there are two broad classes, those who must sell their labour and those who exploit it. For most purposes it behoves us to keep it simple: a shopkeeper or a big farmer may, for our purposes, not be a proletarian, but he's not a capitalist either, and in terms of the struggle normally doesn't matter all that much.

[chegitz guevara]

A lumpen prole is likewise a member of the proletariat.

If you differ from Marx, which you do, you need to explain why Marx's definition is faulty and why your definition is superior. I'm not saying Marx is automatically right, but between the two of you, unless you can explain why I should consider anything you write, I take Marx.

[Black Star]

I'm not sure how to define myself, because I'm not at the age to really enter the workforce, excluding fast food and other services like that. Even then, I don't have the time because of my studies, which are extremely difficult and time-consuming. My parents are divorced. My mother, I would consider part of the lumpenproletariat because of her long history of unemployment due to mental illness. She could work if she chooses to, but she has decided to simply live off the state and her family. My dad could also be considered lumpenproletariat due to his parkinson's disease, but I'd be more inclined to say he is part of the proletariat, because despite his illness, he still strives for work. They are typically small jobs like bartender.

[RHIZOMES]

I'm from a poor single-parent home so I guess I'm proletarian.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Probably petite-bourgeoisie in that I do contract work relating to graphic design, tutoring, and publishing, but I also have a job as a subordinate special ed aid.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, I am.

My parents are proletariat-turned-petty bourgeoisie. It's somewhat difficult to classify fishermen into a box like "proletariat" or "petty-bourgeoisie", though, because even though some may own boats/businesses, which I guess could be considered a means of production, they still have to sell labour to a processing company.

[Invincible Summer]

Uni student (which already kind of shows my parents' economic situation), unemployed. Mother doesn't work, but used to be an accountant for a meat processing company until they went under; my dad is a physics researcher and sometimes-instructor at the local uni.

So I guess my family is proletariat...