The Class Structure of Society

[ContrarianLemming]

I made this for another thread but I wanted to discuss it as a subject.
Do you think this is correct? Should peasants be added? Should lumpen be part of the proles as the class traitors are? Should the "elite" bourgeisie be removed?

I'm hoping it clears up some questions for newbies aswell.


http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/472/classstructure.png (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/classstructure.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7861&stc=1&d=1286883250

[ContrarianLemming]

In relation to that, I made this ages ago and it would also help newbies, anarchist schools of thought

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7728&d=1271762032

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, good thing that at least you've not included prostitutes in the "lumpen-proletarian" category.

The "bureaucrats" though are never an independent class in its own right, but economically belong to the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, proletarian and landlord classes depending on which bureaucrats you are talking about.

[ContrarianLemming]

Well, good thing that at least you've not included prostitutes in the "lumpen-proletarian" category.

my first version had them their but I put some common sense in, their workers.


The "bureaucrats" though are never an independent class in its own right, but economically belong to the bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, proletarian and landlord classes depending on which bureaucrats you are talking about.

I know that's probably the most controversial part, since they haven't really got a solid position in regard to the means of production, but i think middle managment (that's who I mean) have made themselves distinct.

Maybe they're class traitors.

[Queercommie Girl]

I know that's probably the most controversial part, since they haven't really got a solid position in regard to the means of production, but i think middle managment (that's who I mean) have made themselves distinct.

Maybe they're class traitors.

They are just the "middle class", which is not a real class because they have no stable class position and tend to fluctuate between the ruling and ruled classes.

The "middle class" isn't always the "petit-bourgeois" though. That is the case today because we live in a capitalist world. But in slavery and feudal societies, the "middle class" was the "petit-slavelord" and "petit-landlord" classes respectively.

During the slavery-feudalism transition, like the one in ancient China 2500 years ago, many of the newly emerging landlords originated from the petit-slavelord class; similarly, during the feudalism-capitalism transition, like the one in Europe 500 years ago, many of the newly emerging capitalists originated from the petit-landlord class. In both cases, it was just one (relatively more progressive) ruling class replacing another ruling class, and in both cases the "middling layers" of society played the most crucial role.

[JazzRemington]

I don't know about "petit-bourgeoisie". Usually, petit-bourgeoisie are just the self-employed. When someone who is self-employed hires someone over an indefinite period of time and begins to utilize the surplus value created, he becomes technically a member of the bourgeoisie, or at least could be considered a small capitalist of some kind. And technically, "middle class" is a predominately mainstream sociological term based on income and lifestyle choices. This hypothetically could be proletariat OR bourgeoisie, as far as your chart is concerned.

Otherwise, it's pretty good. The anarchist one is good too. My only concern is putting anarcho-communists and libertarian Marxists together. I don't know what you're going for, but libertarian Marxists, syndicalism, and the pacifist movement are areas of thought outside of anarchism. And I caution you against putting "anarcho-"capitalists anywhere on that graph.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not sure why 'co-ordinators' and the petit-bourgeoisie are in the same block. Ignoring the question of wether 'co-ordinators' do in fact form a seperate class at all for the second, if they did they would surely be closest in character to the proletariat, since they are forced to sell their labour-power on the market for a living.


I don't know about "petit-bourgeoisie". Usually, petit-bourgeoisie are just the self-employed. When someone who is self-employed hires someone over an indefinite period of time and begins to utilize the surplus value created, he becomes technically a member of the bourgeoisie, or at least could be considered a small capitalist of some kind.

As far as I can make out the term 'petit-bourgeoisie' is used to refer to what Marx in Capital calls 'Small masters', people who own capital assets and employ wage-labourers but don't make enough surplus-value out of the exploitation of labour to allow them to live comfortably without working in the business themselves. Essentially, ContrarianLemming was spot on with his third definition.

I would say the self-employed probably constitute a class seperate from both the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie.

[ckaihatsu]

I would say the self-employed probably constitute a class seperate from both the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie.


The "micro"-bourgeoisie -- ? (Takers? Takers?)


= )

[Zanthorus]

The "micro"-bourgeoisie -- ? (Takers? Takers?)


= )

They don't earn any income from the exploitation of labour though.

[ckaihatsu]

They don't earn any income from the exploitation of labour though.


M-- I mean, *their* own....