The middle class question.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Some socialists count middle class people as enemies, others as allies, yet i do not think it is as easy as branding them all together.

For example, a family whoowns a dry cleaners or chippy and mostly has his family work for him, would you count him as a petty exploiter, or a worker making some money without slaving for some manager for a shit wage?

The middle class are just as exploited as us, the only ones who are enemies are managers, policemen and others who directly control and oppress the workers for the rulling class.

The main thing i have issue with is snobbery in the middle class, some, not all, think they are better than the masses.

These people are reactionary and must be labelled as class enemies, but the vast amount of middle class people are just glorified workers, and their place in the revolution is with the masses, not the exploiter.

Also their bourgeoisie skills will be needed after the revolution, the same goes for students and other privellaged parts of the masses.

Care to interject

[Sir Comradical]

Marx's conception of class is determined by ones relationship to the MoP, not how much consumer shit you have. If you own a small business but don't earn too much, then you're petty-bourgeois but your interests would most likely be aligned with that of the working class.

"Middle Class" people aren't "glorified workers", they ARE workers. It doesn't matter if you work with concrete or with photocopiers, if you sell your labour power for a wage, you belong to the working class.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Marx was here before class positions became so muddled

Nowadays, most middle class people are not the same as what middle class people were in his day.
Also the whole relation to the means of production is good, but is flawed, for example the prime rib roast minister is an exploiter but dosent own the means of production, same for stock market billionaires, they dont have access to the means of production but you can bet they use that money to buy property then sell it at a high price, that too is exploitation.

[Sir Comradical]

Marx was here before class positions became so muddled

Nowadays, most middle class people are not the same as what middle class people were in his day.
Also the whole relation to the means of production is good, but is flawed, for example the prime rib roast minister is an exploiter but dosent own the means of production, same for stock market billionaires, they dont have access to the means of production but you can bet they use that money to buy property then sell it at a high price, that too is exploitation.

I don't know what that is.

You're wrong about stock market billionaires. Owning stock means owning companies which translates to owning property. Even money can be capital when it's used in a certain way.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

exactly my point, even if one person dosent necisarily control production, they can control stock and therefor have a say in the compani9es that enslave the workers, but the same can be said for property tycoons, casino owners, all the way down to caravan site owners to land lords, the means of production isnt the only way to exploit mate

Do you get me or am i wrong in my analysis?

Get back to me

[Spawn of Stalin]

Petty bourgeois who employ members of their family are generally not our class enemies, more often than not they employ people to keep their business alive, NOT to make extra profit, for example my uncle runs a small bookshop, he works 8-6 six days a week, but on Sundays my cousin works just so that my uncle can have the day off and still have money coming in. He stands to gain from socialism simply because he makes less than the average British worker and yet works far more hours.

Petty bourgeois sole traders are definitely not our enemies, take a landscape gardener, or someone who runs an ironing service from their home, they still rely on the sale of their labour, they just don't have a boss, and if they did they would generally make the same amount of money.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Good answer motionless cheers.

What do you think we should do to incorporate the middleclass into the movement.

in the 1960s and 1970s the Black panthers regularly got thousands of bags of groceries from small buisnesses to give away and were supported with cash and produce by middle class workers, they are very revolutionary in north america at times, but here in britain alot seem to become snobby and grow apart from the working class as a whole.

Get back tome mate.
Cheers.

[The Inquisitor]

What do you think we should do to incorporate the middleclass into the movement.

Would you not try it the same way you incorporate someone from the lower class?

[Aesop]

he works 8-6 six days a week,

:pand there was me thinking that there was only 7 days in a week.

[The Inquisitor]

:pand there was me thinking that there was only 7 days in a week.

It struck me the same way at first, but he means 8 am - 6 pm, 6 days a week.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem with middle class is "THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE" and can change side at any time. The petty-bourgeoisie, before the revolution is certainly ANTI-CAPITALIST BECAUSE THE CAPITALISTS ARE OBSTACLES IN HIS/HER OWN WAY TO BECOME A CAPITALIST. But, after the revolution, it become counter revolutionary because now it's his/her time to become capitalist.
Actually, we have to understand the petty-bourgeoisie or middle-class problem with Marxian economic viewpoint. A petty-bourgeoisie may give labor BUT HE/SHE ISN'T A WORKER AT ALL. As per Marxian terminology, a worker is a person WHO SELLS HIS/HER POWER TO LABOR TO A CAPITALIST. A petty-bourgeoisie or middle class can sell a product or service, BUT HE/SHE ISN'T SELLING HIS/HER POWER TO DO LABOR. That's the basic difference. But, the question is how a workers, who is exploited, can earn more than a petty-bourgeoisie, WHO ISN'T EXPLOITED AT ALL. The answer lies in modern production and technological development. A worker is related to production/service in a organized and with division of labor, which makes his/her labor more productive than a petty-bourgeoisie who don't have the advantage of division of labor and modern equipments and technology. Thus a workers can earn more than a self-employed petty-bourgeoisie because his/her productivity is much more.
With proper understanding of Marxian economic theories and sociology, this trend often mislead people. The trend of equating earning with class. BUT, I CLEARLY WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS WRONG IN EVERY SENSE.
In my India, I have observed clear anti-worker feeling among so-called "poor people". I have discussed this point in this thread, http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-worker-feeling-t133856/index.html. Kindly note that what I have written in this thread is from my personnel experience.
In India, the big medias (both print and electronic) are trying to raise "anti organized worker feeling" among so-called "poor people", whom I have described in the above threat and unfortunately THEY OFTEN SUCCEEDS. As per them, the organized workers are now ARISTOCRATS and due to them, not much resource can not be allocated to the poor people, BECAUSE THE ORGANIZED WORKERS DEMAND TOO MUCH AND LEAVE NOTHING FOR THE POORER PEOPLE. Even "left minded people" often fall in their trap. Due to lack of proper understanding of Marxian economy and sociology, they forgot that THE PRESENT INDIAN SOCIETY, LIKE ALMOST ALL OTHER SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD, ARE NOW STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF ORGANIZED WORKERS.

[Red_Insurgent]

Here in the UK, I have noticed the Middle Class are vile! I have been called a "Working class thicko" by them aswell as many other stuff, they are mostly very snobby, in my experience. But of course you can't tar them all with the same brush because I have met some very nice Middle Class people also:)

[pranabjyoti]

They (the middle class) aren't dependable at all except for the time when they are celebrating a victory in Beer pub. But, among them, there are some good people who can be very helpful to us.
Marx on a letter to Engels
That's the classic characterization of "middle class" in Marx's view.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Here in the UK, I have noticed the Middle Class are vile! I have been called a "Working class thicko" by them aswell as many other stuff, they are mostly very snobby, in my experience. But of course you can't tar them all with the same brush because I have met some very nice Middle Class people also:)

I would agree with Marx's analysis (above). The upper middle class in the UK can be extremely reactionary because a lot of them are born and raised Tories, I think that it largely depends on two things, first of all their upbringing is very important, if they were raised in a wealthy family then they are most likely going to be scum as far as their social views are concerned. Second, the nature of their occupation is more important than their salary, For example some specialist doctors are extremely well paid, but they are far more likely to be revolutionary than say, an estate agent, the estate agent may well get paid less, but the occupation does not lend itself to becoming class conscious, the estate agent will almost never come into contact with people at the lower end of the working class, not to mention the fact that the sole purpose of the estate agent is to squeeze every last penny they can out of a property. It is perfectly feasible that a doctor or another well paid worker in the public services would be a communist, we have a surgeon in CPGB-ML, and comrade Harpal has been a university lecturer pretty much since he arrived in this country 40 years ago.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Does the cpgb ml still count china as socialistmotionless?

[pranabjyoti]

I would agree with Marx's analysis (above). The upper middle class in the UK can be extremely reactionary because a lot of them are born and raised Tories, I think that it largely depends on two things, first of all their upbringing is very important, if they were raised in a wealthy family then they are most likely going to be scum as far as their social views are concerned. Second, the nature of their occupation is more important than their salary, For example some specialist doctors are extremely well paid, but they are far more likely to be revolutionary than say, an estate agent, the estate agent may well get paid less, but the occupation does not lend itself to becoming class conscious, the estate agent will almost never come into contact with people at the lower end of the working class, not to mention the fact that the sole purpose of the estate agent is to squeeze every last penny they can out of a property. It is perfectly feasible that a doctor or another well paid worker in the public services would be a communist, we have a surgeon in CPGB-ML, and comrade Harpal has been a university lecturer pretty much since he arrived in this country 40 years ago.
That exactly matches the definition of "class" as per proper Marxian sociological terminology. A worker is someone who earns by selling the "power to do labor" to someone, while a petty-bourgeoisie or middle class is someone, who directly sells his/her product or service, NOT HIS POWER TO DO LABOR.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Good answer motionless cheers.

What do you think we should do to incorporate the middleclass into the movement.

in the 1960s and 1970s the Black panthers regularly got thousands of bags of groceries from small buisnesses to give away and were supported with cash and produce by middle class workers, they are very revolutionary in north america at times, but here in britain alot seem to become snobby and grow apart from the working class as a whole.

Get back tome mate.
Cheers.

I think that a lot of the problem is that many British working class people do not even realise that they are working class, personally I think that the degeneration of working class culture has a lot to do with this, we used to have openly and proud working class music like the Jam, New Order, and even Pulp, now we have the X Factor and Pop Idol, Coronation Street used to be a huge hit, now most people would rather watch American serials and reality TV, most of which involve winning large amounts of cash.

As for radicalising the middle class, we need to highlight issues that connect with them, they don't have the same financial problems that less fortunate workers do, so the economic arguments might not be so useful with them. But a lot of middle class people seem to be concerned with the environment, so how about reminding them that there is no such thing as green capitalism, and that environmental destruction is inevitable without a new economic system? Just one example. They also might be more interested in things like human rights, anti-racism, anti-war, and even issues closer to home such as crime or corruption.

[CartCollector]

As for radicalising the middle class, we need to highlight issues that connect with them, they don't have the same financial problems that less fortunate workers do, so the economic arguments might not be so useful with them. But a lot of middle class people seem to be concerned with the environment, so how about reminding them that there is no such thing as green capitalism, and that environmental destruction is inevitable without a new economic system? Just one example. They also might be more interested in things like human rights, anti-racism, anti-war, and even issues closer to home such as crime or corruption.
That's an idealist strategy. According to Marx, what motivates progress is material gain. Therefore the best way to motivate them to become socialists would be to get them to fight to improve their material condition, and show them how socialism is the only way that they can do so. For the petit bourgeoisie, trying to preserve capitalism or trying to make it more lassiez-faire in the naive dream that they might one day become extremely rich is a dead end. They must be shown how capital centralizes over time into the hands of a few, and that if they aren't in that few today they'll likely never be. Remember, an ounce of material gain is worth a pound of morality.

[punisa]

petty bourgeois MUST be further classified.
To say that all petty bourgeois is our friend or enemy is wrong.
Let me explain that a bit further.

There are larger business which employ 20-50 workers and still hold up to our views, especially if the owning structure shares those views.
Then again you have a single entrepreneur who owns a coffe shop and employs only 1 person, but exploits him/her like crazy.
We must recognize this as a fact in our day to day struggle.

Apart from that, you have a rather large group of self employed people who work themselves or have family members assisting them.
To even call them "bourgeois" with or without the prefix of "petty" is unjustified.
Sole reason many of us do it is because uncle Marx wrote so.

Although I value Marx's work very highly, I would like to add a bit on this theory.
Don't really know the situation which existed in the 19th century, but today you have many many radical people who will simply try anything to remove the "boss figure" from their lives - not in order to make money, but to be free from direct exploitative authority hanging over their shoulders.

I was self employed for two years, I did software development (regarding video production and similar).
My work hours were like so:
10:00 - 01:00 / 7 days a week
That's roughly 15 hours of work per day. I believe I did it for at least 8 months in a row, which in the end almost killed me.

During all that time I had never ever hoped to earn any big money, because I knew that it was impossible (you need money to make money, I never had it).
I had ALWAYS earned less then all of my friends who worked for bosses.

Still, this was the best time of my life. I had a complete freedom of work and creative process and had the possibility to choose my own workflow and software code combinations in which I wanted to work.
And let me tell you, I am not alone in this. I met many people who felt the same. People who will gladly earn less money and work more hours just to be out of situation where you have an urge to take your boss's life.

The claims how we were all greedy petty bourgeois is false and can not be applied to a class as a whole, unless you have a class fetish and simply love to label people.
One person I met a year ago told me that I was inspiring to become an exploitative capitalist, only I did not know it back then - it was subconsciously.
I told him then and I would tell him now - go fuck yourself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you think we should do to incorporate the middleclass into the movement.I don't think our aim as revolutionaries at this point should be towards the petty bourgeois. Like others have said: this group, because it is sort of squashed between the two major classes, can fluctuate between supporting the capitalists and supporting the workers in periods of class struggle. The best way we can eventually come to a point where some portion of this group side with us is by building up working class militancy, class consciousness, and leadership. A confident working class movement that actually is putting forward it's vision for a better way of running society has a good chance of winning people in other (non-ruling) classes to supporting revolution and working class hegemony over society.

[Uppercut]

The left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie could be our allies, possibly, if we can convince them of socialism. The right-wing may be a bit more difficult to handle.

[chegitz guevara]

Marx was here before class positions became so muddled

Class positions did not get muddled. People's consciousness got muddled, deliberately, by those who want the people to be muddled.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, petty-bourgeoisie at present, is less fortunate than workers. Due to scientific and technological development, productivity has been increased and the workers with their own right has taken away a part of the increased productivity with their increasing wage and other facilities. But, most petty-bourgeoisie isn't that fortunate. Instead, they are increasing under pressure with increased productivity of the big industries, which is just impossible for them to achieve. Actually, as their productivity is much low, their actual living condition is worse than workers in some cases in my opinion. But, what they lack is the understanding that, AS BEING PETTY-BOURGEOISIE THEY ARE DOOMED TO BE EXTINCT. Their only future is with workers.
Once, the working class started with a slogan "eight working hours". The productivity has been increased far far more than the level of 1886 in almost every big industry. But, the reduction is working hours isn't happened on that level. That fact leads to increased burden of work on workers while leaving a huge number of unemployed people outside, who are almost forced to go for self-employment and at the end become a part of petty-bourgeoisie than the working class. At present, in my opinion, our demand should be "less working hours and more employment" and "social security is our birthright, not gift of a COMPASSIONATE RULER".
By employing more people with less working hours in the factories and workplaces and with social security, spreading the fruits of increased production to almost all part of the population, we can certainly win a huge share of petty-bourgeoisie to our side. And we have to make them understand that with present level of productivity, THIS IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
Huge Chavez recently reduced the working hours in Venezuela, why don't US and workers of other big capitalist countries can show that as an example to their own governments?

[rednordman]

You know I always thought that the sole purpose of ever wanting to be seen as 'middle class' was so you could be better than the 'average joe'. I too have had insults thrown at me by wealthier people just because im not from a middle class family, but it is true that you cannot tar them all with the same brush. Some are even sympathetic to socialism.

The only problem that I have is that the 'middle-class' are a pivital cog in the system for modern capitalism, and will always be made to feel like they are more important than they really are, just so they believe they can aspire to great things, and have people beneath them. This is usually seen in terms of money and power. Not in making the world a better place.

Also there is a lot of snobbery from the middle-class over the lesser well to do and educated working classes. This is shown in the media constantly. Who's to say that if they where on ourside, that they would not hijack the revolution and become the new ruling class?

[which doctor]

This is a difficult question because first off, the middle class is a really murky category. The vast majority of what's considered the middle class in the US, are actually working-class people who enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. However, many people equate the middle-class lifestyle with petit-bourgeois consciousness, which is generally regarded as ambiguous and non-revolutionary, who are actually in the position to resist capitalism, but are not in the position to overcome it, since there existence is not based exclusively on the capitalist mode of production. In fact, capitalism worked out to its logical ends would eliminate the petit-bourgeoisie all together. For instance, Nazism is generally considered a petit-bourgeois ideology.

All though we can generalize class positions as a whole, I don't think we can apply this to individuals. You don't become a communist because of rational choice theory. Members of the petit-bourgeoisie can become a part of a revolutionary movement if they are making an intellectual commitment, but petit-bourgeois consciousness is something we need to be cautious of.