What Constitutes as middle class?

[Little Bobby Hutton]

It is my understanding that a worker is someone who is a wage labourer and has no means of production, a middle class person is someone who owns a small buisness and a capitalist is someone who owns factories or other means of production and hires thousands of wage slaves to make capital for him.
But what about someone who has a job and dosent own the means of production, but is on say 40 to 100 thousand a year, if they are so rich, surely they cannot be described as the proletariat, they are not exploited and live well off, it is in their interest to keep the status quo, so what class do these people fall in?

All power to the people.

[pranabjyoti]

One, who earns money by his labor, is certainly a proletariat, whatever may be his/her earning. Actually, his/her earning comes from the high productivity of the field, with which he is related. And another person, who may earn less but owns some kind of means of production or service, IS CERTAINLY A MIDDLE CLASS IN REAL MARXIST TERMINOLOGY. As per proper MARXIST (SCIENTIFIC) terminology of class, the real factor behind determination of class isn't HOW MUCH ANYBODY EARNS BUT RATHER HOW HE/SHE IS RELATED TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION I.E. HOW MUCH INDEPENDENT HE/SHE IS IN MAKING A DECISION REGARDING PRODUCTION OF SERVICE.

[chegitz guevara]

The proletariat, according to Marx, is that class which has nothing to sell but it's labor-power, i.e., it's ability to work.

There is no "middle class." There are many different kinds of middle classes. Generally what we mean by middle class are those who own some means of obtaining a living without having to work for another, but who don't engage in the exploitation of others (there is some flexibility in this, as a small shop owner who had a few employees would not be a capitalist, but middle class, aka petty bourgeois). Professionals, e.g. doctors, lawyers, are also a middle class. Management at a certain level is a middle class. Farmers/peasants can be middle class, but there is also a rural capitalist class and a rural proletariat, who are also farmers. Government employees are often middle class.

Landlords would seem to fall into that category, but landlords are actually members of the rentier class, they make their living by allowing others to rent their capital.

[Invincible Summer]

It is my understanding that a worker is someone who is a wage labourer and has no means of production, a middle class person is someone who owns a small buisness and a capitalist is someone who owns factories or other means of production and hires thousands of wage slaves to make capital for him.
But what about someone who has a job and dosent own the means of production, but is on say 40 to 100 thousand a year, if they are so rich, surely they cannot be described as the proletariat, they are not exploited and live well off, it is in their interest to keep the status quo, so what class do these people fall in?

All power to the people.


The concept of a "middle class" as we know it has only really come into being in the 70s and 80s, and I think it's more of a Western concept to boot.

It almost exclusively has to do with one's income, not relation to the means of production, which makes it conflict with Marxist class analysis.

If they have a job and are not a boss/higher up, I doubt he/she would be making anywhere near $100k/year. And if someone making ~$100k/year calls themselves "middle class," I'd laugh heartily and sarcastically in their face.

Regardless, if they are just a worker making around $50k/year, then they are still a proletariat. Just because someone lives decently or within a certain income bracket doesn't mean they aren't exploited in the Marxist sense. Exploitation has to do with not being paid for the total of one's labour due to the commodification of labour and capital and all that stuff.

And I think it's painting people with a broad brush to say that it's in the interest of someone making a decent wage to keep the status quo. Not everyone acts according to rational self interest. I know some professors who are probably making near $80k/year that are dedicated socialists (not left-liberals or social democrats).

[Robocloud]

In terms of income:

When you factor in the super rich, the difference in income between the middle, working, and lower classes is insignificant. However, when you don't account for the super rich, the differences in income, between the other 95% to 99% of us, is significant enough to be taken into consideration.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

please dont use the term lower classes.

[pranabjyoti]

The proletariat, according to Marx, is that class which has nothing to sell but it's labor-power, i.e., it's ability to work.

There is no "middle class." There are many different kinds of middle classes. Generally what we mean by middle class are those who own some means of obtaining a living without having to work for another, but who don't engage in the exploitation of others (there is some flexibility in this, as a small shop owner who had a few employees would not be a capitalist, but middle class, aka petty bourgeois). Professionals, e.g. doctors, lawyers, are also a middle class. Management at a certain level is a middle class. Farmers/peasants can be middle class, but there is also a rural capitalist class and a rural proletariat, who are also farmers. Government employees are often middle class.

Landlords would seem to fall into that category, but landlords are actually members of the rentier class, they make their living by allowing others to rent their capital.
Agreed totally, but want to add something to the points. As per Marxist terminology, "middle class" basically means the petty-bourgeoisie. A petty-bourgeoisie is a person, who doesn't sell his/her labor but rather product or service, which he/she creates with his own labor. As he/she is directly selling it in market, therefore he/she isn't exploited directly. But, still his/her income very often goes below the income of a worker. Why? Because a worker is related to means of production or service, which have higher productivity due to division of labor and use of better machinery, which the petty-bourgeoisie can not implement due to lack of capital. So, actually the point is ONE CAN HAS LESS INCOME, WHILE HE/SHE ISN'T EXPLOITED WHILE OTHERS CAN HAVE HIGHER INCOME WHILE THEY ARE EXPLOITED. It seems like a fallacy, but the means of production or service is the real factor behind this superficial fallacy.