Debunking the Middle Class

[AK]

The idea of a middle class has existed for as long as the Bourgeoisie decided it would try and oppose the idea that there were two social classes so that the working class would assume that Marx's theories were wrong.

I talked to my relatively politically apathetic friend at school about this today (shows a lot since last time he said communism "was all dictators and crap"); he argued that there was a middle class (it being defined only by having a higher income than the "poor working class") and that he was part of it (despite his parents being workers). I've tried to tell him that social classes are determined by land ownership. Come to think of it, I should also probably tell him that it can also be determined by working for someone else's profit (on their land presumably) or their relation to the means of production. Anyways, how do we debunk the idea that a middle class exists?

EDIT: I'm not sure what he thinks constitutes the working class (I think he thinks it is sweatshop workers in places such as China), but I think I should tell him about outsourcing and how the workers do the same job but for much less pay and worse conditions. Somehow by doing the same job as those sweatshop workers, First World workers are automatically "middle class".

[¿Que?]

ok, I'm going to try to answer this, but keep in mind I'm learning too.

That said, I'm pretty sure Marx and Engel's acknowledged the existence of other social classes besides the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For example, there is the peasantry which in some respects form a class of their own, and there is the petty bourgeoisie, which owns some means of production, but does not necessarily hire people to work on them, or does not use them for the accumulation of capital. Also, there is the lumpen proletariat who are mostly social deviants of some sort. I'm not entirely sure how Marx specifically defined these other classes, but I'm fairly sure they're in the literature.

The point is that the significance of the proletariat does not lie in the fact that they are the only class opposed to the bourgeoisie, but that they are the only class whose interests represent the interests of all humanity. This is one reason they are so important.

In any case, as the OP suggests, there are many ways of looking at social class, and there is not a fundamentally right answer as to what exactly constitutes a social class. It depends on your approach and what you're trying to accomplish.

My advice is to change your tactic. If you're trying to argue that there is no such a thing as the "middle class", then you both have to come to an agreement as to how to conceptualize "class". Otherwise, you're arguing over apples and oranges as if they were the same thing. Instead, I would argue that he does not have any coherent notion of class, and so is in no position to say one way or the other.

Either that or just tell him he's got false consciousness.

[AK]

ok, I'm going to try to answer this, but keep in mind I'm learning too.

That said, I'm pretty sure Marx and Engel's acknowledged the existence of other social classes besides the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For example, there is the peasantry which in some respects form a class of their own, and there is the petty bourgeoisie, which owns some means of production, but does not necessarily hire people to work on them, or does not use them for the accumulation of capital. Also, there is the lumpen proletariat who are mostly social deviants of some sort. I'm not entirely sure how Marx specifically defined these other classes, but I'm fairly sure they're in the literature.

The point is that the significance of the proletariat does not lie in the fact that they are the only class opposed to the bourgeoisie, but that they are the only class whose interests represent the interests of all humanity. This is one reason they are so important.

In any case, as the OP suggests, there are many ways of looking at social class, and there is not a fundamentally right answer as to what exactly constitutes a social class. It depends on your approach and what you're trying to accomplish.

My advice is to change your tactic. If you're trying to argue that there is no such a thing as the "middle class", then you both have to come to an agreement as to how to conceptualize "class". Otherwise, you're arguing over apples and oranges as if they were the same thing. Instead, I would argue that he does not have any coherent notion of class, and so is in no position to say one way or the other.

Either that or just tell him he's got false consciousness.

There is no middle class, there is the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat, Petite Bourgeoisie and the Peasantry (I'm not sure of the Lumpen Proletariat). I acknowledge that there are those other classes and that the Proletariat's interests are those than benefit everyone who is oppressed by the Bourgeoisie. Essentially, the point is that my friend thinks that an Australian working class does not exist (as we are all supposedly middle class) and that he is part of the "middle class", so Marxism isn't relavent to him or any Australian worker. What I suspect he thinks the working class is is the cheap labour overseas, despite them doing the same job for the same Bourgeoisie or he might define it as anyone that works as a manual labourer. It also doesn't help that our history textbook defined Bourgeoisie as a term that can refer to an upper or a middle class (I suspect that this is some propaganda to make out that everyone is a member of the middle class and therefore equal in Australia).

[Sheldon]

The issue is further confused sociologists use the term class to refer to all sorts of things. The "middle" class generally is defined by sociologists as corresponding to a particular income group and having specific cultural behaviors (suburbia in the US comes to mind) but from a Marxist perspective what they're actually referring to are certain strata within society. I don't think there's "no such thing as a middle class," as there certainly are people who fall into that demographic, but simply that that demographic does not constitute itself as a class. To prove this I'd have to go through a long discussion trying to define precisely what a class is which, as The Duck That Goes Quack mentions, is related to land ownership but I think involves other factors as well.

[AK]

The issue is further confused sociologists use the term class to refer to all sorts of things. The "middle" class generally is defined by sociologists as corresponding to a particular income group and having specific cultural behaviors (suburbia in the US comes to mind) but from a Marxist perspective what they're actually referring to are certain strata within society. I don't think there's "no such thing as a middle class," as there certainly are people who fall into that demographic, but simply that that demographic does not constitute itself as a class. To prove this I'd have to go through a long discussion trying to define precisely what a class is which, as The Duck That Goes Quack mentions, is related to land ownership but I think involves other factors as well.
These "similar cultural behaviours" only exist because that's what the "middle class" demographic (of the Proletariat) can afford and they buy the goods that reinforce that "culture" because it is all that is being produced. Given the chance, the average worker would want to be part of whatever culture they wanted.

[ZeroNowhere]

and there is the petty bourgeoisie, which owns some means of production, but does not necessarily hire people to work on them, or does not use them for the accumulation of capital.Firstly, it's 'petit-bourgeoisie', that is, small bourgeoisie. Most people know what the French word 'petit' means, so I don't see why we need a rather ugly Anglicized version. Secondly, they do generally hire people to work for them, and of course they use them for the accumulation of capital (they're still capitalists). The main difference consists in not having as much money capital at their disposal, and hence having to perform the labour of management and such themselves rather than hiring people to do it.

Anyhow, this may be relevant:

If, for example, in the production of India the ratio of the capital laid out as wages to the constant capital = 5:1, and in England it is 1:5, it is clear that the rate of profit in India must appear much larger, even if the surplus value actually realised is much smaller. Let us take 500. If the variable capital = 500 /5 = 100, the surplus value 40, the rate of surplus value will be 40%, the rate of profit only 10%. In contrast, if the variable part is 400 and the rate of surplus value is only 20%, this would make 80 on 400, and on 500 a rate of profit of 80:500, of 8:50. 8:50 = 16:100. Therefore 16%. (100:16 = 500:80 or 50:8 = 250:40 or 25:4 = 125:20. 25×20 = 500. 4×125 = 500.) So although labour would be twice as strongly exploited in Europe as in India, the rate of profit in India would be related to the rate of profit in ‘Europe as 16:10, as 8:5, = 1:5/8. Hence as 1:0,625. And indeed this is because 4/5 of the total capital is exchanged for living labour in India, and only 1/5 in Europe. If real wealth appears slight in those countries where the rate of profit is high, it is because the productive power of labour is slight, a fact which is expressed precisely in the high rate of profit. 20% is 1/5 on labour time, hence India could only feed 1/5 of the population not directly involved in the product; whereas 40% is 2/5, hence in England twice the proportion of the population could live without working.

[Chambered Word]

ok, I'm going to try to answer this, but keep in mind I'm learning too.

That said, I'm pretty sure Marx and Engel's acknowledged the existence of other social classes besides the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For example, there is the peasantry which in some respects form a class of their own, and there is the petty bourgeoisie, which owns some means of production, but does not necessarily hire people to work on them, or does not use them for the accumulation of capital. Also, there is the lumpen proletariat who are mostly social deviants of some sort. I'm not entirely sure how Marx specifically defined these other classes, but I'm fairly sure they're in the literature.

The lumpenproletariat are the 'flotsam of society'. This includes swindlers, petty thieves, 'welfare queens' and such. IIRC they are defined as the unemployable people in society who will never become class conscious.


My advice is to change your tactic. If you're trying to argue that there is no such a thing as the "middle class", then you both have to come to an agreement as to how to conceptualize "class". Otherwise, you're arguing over apples and oranges as if they were the same thing. Instead, I would argue that he does not have any coherent notion of class, and so is in no position to say one way or the other.

This. You have to introduce him to the Marxist method of class analysis or he simply will not understand.

[¿Que?]

ZeroNowhere, I appreciate your clarification and point you to this wikipedia article on petit-bourgeoisie from which I arrived at my erroneous conclusion (can't post link because my count is too low):


Though the petite bourgeois may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production. More important, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly.As for your quote, I'm struggling to see what the relevance is for one thing. For another, if you could provide a link or a source so that I can have some idea of where that information is coming from.

[syndicat]

well, for the radical left tradition, class is not defined in terms of income or lifestyle. It is defined in terms of power or lack of power in the system of social production. The capitalists are on top in capitalist countries, as they monopolize ownership of the means of production.

And the working class are all those who are subordinate to the bosses and don't hire or boss others.

But there are intermediate classes. A "middle class" can be viewed as a class whose position in the economy puts it in between the capitaliist elite at the top, and the working class.

First of all there's the "old" middle class of small employers, also called the "petit bourgeoisie". These people are also threatened by the much greater power of the big capitalists. This group usually manage their own workers dirrectly whereas the major capitalists are insulated from the working class by layers of managers and professionals who run their companies for them.

Then there's the so-called "new" middle class or bureaucratic class. Managers in the private and public sector and high end professionals (corporate lawyers, medical specialists, judges, top accountants, industrial engineers who define jobs and work flows) who work closely with them in the planning and control of enterprises, control of workers, and of government agencies. The class power of these people is not based on ownership of capital assets but on their organizational positions and expertise.

[ArrowLance]

The middle class IS a reality, even if it is a subset or illusion. In general, it would be hard to find a member of the working class who would not call themselves middle class. Thats where this illusion can become dangerous. When someone accepts that they are middle class they accept there are those that are of a lower class. So what made it so they were not in this lower class? HARD WORK! Of course this is false, and a lower class hardly exists besides the unemployed which are actually a good deal more valuable to the capitalist system than the working class. So the capitalist idea of hard work advances you is further secured into the minds of the working class.

[AK]

ZeroNowhere, I appreciate your clarification and point you to this wikipedia article on petit-bourgeoisie from which I arrived at my erroneous conclusion (can't post link because my count is too low):

As for your quote, I'm struggling to see what the relevance is for one thing. For another, if you could provide a link or a source so that I can have some idea of where that information is coming from.

Petite-Bourgeoisie can still accumulate capital, just at a much slower rate.

[syndicat]

The middle class IS a reality, even if it is a subset or illusion. In general, it would be hard to find a member of the working class who would not call themselves middle class.

yeah, but how one perceives things doesn't tell us what the reality is. Working class people tend to say they're "middle class" when they think they're doing good, financially speaking. An acquaintance of mine is an SEIU organizer. He says his local union does surveys in which they regularly ask people whether they think they are working class or middle class. He says the results shift around. When they think things are going good...maybe they just won a good contract or raises or something...that's when they're more inclined to say "middle class."

that's because workers in the USA have been taught to define "middle class" in terms of your income or lifestyle, the kinds of commodities you can buy...e.g. can you buy a house, a new car?

[Red Commissar]

Most people of the middle-class would still be "laborers", seeing as they still sell their services to a capitalist in order to earn a living.

Some middle-class people will delude themselves into thinking they can become one of those who own capital, taking a few success stories at heart and going at it. In that way, they'll become petit-bourgeoisie like duck mentioned.

Like Syndicat said though, middle-class is to them an a recognition they've achieved the "American dream", and things like "worker" sends an image of a hard laborer to them, much less terms like "proletariat".

[AK]

Like Syndicat said though, middle-class is to them an a recognition they've achieved the "American dream", and things like "worker" sends an image of a hard laborer to them, much less terms like "proletariat".
That's why Proletarian class consciousness is so important; the Proletariat needs to realise that they are part of the Proletariat and the Proletariat never died, rather the instruments and tools used to do the work have changed since 1848 and new job fields have been created and whatnot.