The Middle Classes

[NorthernRed]

Something I've been wondering lately, where do middle classes fit into class society?

Obviously you have a factory worker or something that is a member of the working class and a factory owner or whatever which is a member of the upper class.

But where to the small time business owners and the like fit in?

I'm guessing it's peiti bourgeoisie? Where is the line drawn between the worker class and themselves? Also, what is their role in a revolution, do they sort of "pick" a side and just merge into the working class or back reactionary forces?

Thirdly, what should a party's view be towards them? Should it purely concentrate on gaining support amongst the working class or should it also seek to entertain these middle class people?

Sorry if this all seems like a silly question.

[Hatshepsut]

It's not a silly question. The class system has changed a lot since the times when Marx wrote about it. Capitalists today no longer need own the firms they control, and workers are not all on the subsistence basis Marx described in his book Das Kapital. Today lots of 'em have 401(k) and so on.

Marx's basic definition of proletarian is anyone who must sell their labor to survive. That is, a worker can't live off the dividends and interest on his capital stock. In the classical 19th century accounts, most of the workers seemed to have had no savings whatsoever and Marx doesn't talk about worker saving at all. That's a shortcoming in his theory, but it didn't matter back then--workers were dirt poor and the "middle class" of professionals and bureaucrats was small.

Today, "middle class" means middle income. Some middle class people own their own businesses and would be part of the bourgeoisie according to Marx, but most "middle class" people are employees, and can't leave their jobs without facing survival consequences.

Marx's class theory wasn't as clear-cut as it looks, even back then, and it's getting less clear as technology progresses. His basic idea has a division of society into two groups--one who can effectively control production and harvest its returns at will, and the other who must accept whatever terms are offered. This fundamental social divide still exists today, and it's more important than race, religion, gender, and all other such fault lines.

[Palmares]

Today, "middle class" means middle income.

I guess to add to the complexity of "today's" definition, as you've noticed, is beyond your relationship to production, but is really more than income too. On the multi-axis spectrum of marginalisation and privilege, access and opportunity are some of the key elements.

For example, there are those who choose to have little money/income, perhaps from a certain educated ethical standpoint. However, their socio-economic manoeuvrability, be it from education, or family, or friends, or whatever, grants them eternal choice to re-join the rat race. Hardly a wage-slave.

I dunno, class is such a difficult thing to really nail down in the contemporary era, with all manufacturing (but not limited to) being outsourced from the West to the Developing World. So it's not even that the proletariat barely seems to exist in the West, but with globalisation engulfing the world, the exact economic relationships that are going on are so complex, almost invisible, and seem to have more distinction in the classes between countries, than so much within countries (though, of course they exist).

But of course, it seems like you are trying to ask about class struggle within a certain country...

If you are talking about in the West, I think you pretty much would try trying to get anyone on side, haha. Anyone who has a boss at least. But for me, I don't care if you have a boss. As long as you ain't one.

If there's a revolution, it won't just be the workers bringing shit down, knamean.

[The Jay]

Something I've been wondering lately, where do middle classes fit into class society?

Obviously you have a factory worker or something that is a member of the working class and a factory owner or whatever which is a member of the upper class.

But where to the small time business owners and the like fit in?

I'm guessing it's peiti bourgeoisie? Where is the line drawn between the worker class and themselves? Also, what is their role in a revolution, do they sort of "pick" a side and just merge into the working class or back reactionary forces?

Thirdly, what should a party's view be towards them? Should it purely concentrate on gaining support amongst the working class or should it also seek to entertain these middle class people?

Sorry if this all seems like a silly question.

It is not a silly question at all, actually. The middle class is made up of workers that can demand better pay as well as poorer bourgeoisie. The concept of a middle class does not take its classification from the person's relation to the means of production but from the average wealth and where the average or median incomes lie. This masks the fact that differing social groups desire similar ends; i.e., getting rich and perpetuating the system, hopefully in their favor.

When you think about the small business owners they have little differences from large business owners since they still must exploit their workers if they have them. The difference is that they try to get the state to help them out just as the state helps the large capitalists. The vitriol that they express towards the larger capitalists is more out of jealousy than out of anything else.

This fact; however, is obscured since they may also hold onto an idea of fairness within the context of liberalism and an idea of the virtuous nature of small businesses and blue collar workers. There are many contradictions in the realm of the psychology of the middle class, probably more so than those who are considerably more powerful.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

An interesting book as just published by my friend(s), Kersplebedeb on this topic, The Worker Elite (http://kersplebedeb.com/posts/the-worker-elite-notes-of-the-labor-aristocracy/). It's not perfect by any means but it raises a lot of very important questions (especially in the context of so-called "globalization"). Bromma, the author, asserts that we have to see a real fundamental difference in the working class itself between those workers who have "nothing to lose but their chains" and those who have a real material investment in capitalism (at least in the short-to-medium game). This section moves comfortably among the petite bourgeosie and professional/bureaucratic classes - and often have mobility within them (e.g. I know an autoworker's daughter who makes >$50,000 a year as a Canadian Federation of Students bureaucrat). Let's just say it makes for some conflicting sets of interests.

[Red Economist]

This is not a silly question. A lot of what I would say has already been said, but I would add that the existence of the middle class has been a very sticky issue in the past politically, but the middle class is under so much strain that they'll probably go leftwards if the ruling class keep it up.
At the beginning of the 20th century, 'Social Democracy' was divided over whether to reform capitalism, overthrow it, or more usually a combination of the two. From the standpoint of evolutionary socialists, (Eduard Bernstein being the most vocal) the existence of an affluent middle class pointed towards the possibility that the conflict between workers and capitalists was not irreconcilable and therefore that capitalism could peacefully 'evolve' into socialism on the back of the material gains made by the middle classes. This position was broadly described as 'opportunism' by Lenin and others, in that certain members of the proletariat 'opportunistically' went along with the bourgeoisie because they now owned some property. This is a major issue with a revolutionary and far left political party working to try and gain 'middle class' support- in that they still have quite a lot to loose and so think like the 'petit bourgeoisie' in wavering between hostility towards capitalism and the fear of socialism.

In recent decades (especially in the US) there has been a squeezing of the share of national income that goes to the middle class and they've come under increasing stress particularly because of personal debt and reduced social mobility. Whether or not the 'decline of the middle class' leads to a revolutionary climate depends on how extreme that decline is and how polarized society becomes economically.
Statistically, I think it's still a small change but this is probably the best indicator that the far left may play a role in politics in developed countries if the capitalists keep screwing over their biggest group of supporters. The growth of income inequality and the frustration of middle class aspirations means that social class is becoming an issue again.

I realize we don't trust the president of the united states much on revleft, but it's more the fact the issue has become so pressing it's actually getting airtime. He was of course shouted down by the media by cries of 'class warfare'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/obama-income-inequality_n_4384843.html

For their part, there are wealthy people in the US who are asking the government to tax them [I]. I think this includes a group called 'millionaires for America' who say they have a patriotic duty to pay taxes to make it easier for everyone else. Warren Buffet has been a vocal supporter of 'paying more taxes', and Fox News accused him, one of the richest men in the world, of being a 'socialist'.:rolleyes:

Warren Buffet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dePMo9MK30
Young Turks on Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOEPidoc6uA

So, even the ruling class has started to realize the game is up and they've actually got to turn things round.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marx's class theory wasn't as clear-cut as it looks, even back then, and it's getting less clear as technology progresses. His basic idea has a division of society into two groups--one who can effectively control production and harvest its returns at will, and the other who must accept whatever terms are offered. This fundamental social divide still exists today, and it's more important than race, religion, gender, and all other such fault lines.

Marx's sociological theory of class wasn't clear cut, but I do think it is a fairly easy one to adapt to current society.

As you say, the definition of a worker is somebody who must sell their labour to survive. In layman's terms, if they don't work then they don't eat. The definition of the bourgeoisie is those people who can live off of profits, rent, share dividends and/or interest on savings/other income.

Despite the common conception of the 'middle class' being a discrete class in itself, separated from both the working class and the ruling class, in reality the economic relationships that Marx uses to define class are easily applicable. You either have to work to survive, in which case you are a worker, or you can live of income that you have derived without having to labour, in which case you are a capitalist.

Any other definition of 'middle class' is by default a cultural explanation; i'm not saying there isn't any place for the idea of cultural capital (in fact it explains a lot about the underlying rigidities of the class system) but if we are talking of socio-economic definitions of class as Marx understood, then the 'middle class' really doesn't exist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Marx's sociological theory of class wasn't clear cut, but I do think it is a fairly easy one to adapt to current society.

As you say, the definition of a worker is somebody who must sell their labour to survive. In layman's terms, if they don't work then they don't eat. The definition of the bourgeoisie is those people who can live off of profits, rent, share dividends and/or interest on savings/other income.

Despite the common conception of the 'middle class' being a discrete class in itself, separated from both the working class and the ruling class, in reality the economic relationships that Marx uses to define class are easily applicable. You either have to work to survive, in which case you are a worker, or you can live of income that you have derived without having to labour, in which case you are a capitalist.

Any other definition of 'middle class' is by default a cultural explanation; i'm not saying there isn't any place for the idea of cultural capital (in fact it explains a lot about the underlying rigidities of the class system) but if we are talking of socio-economic definitions of class as Marx understood, then the 'middle class' really doesn't exist.

The thing is, there is a significant middle class that doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories, who, while they likely to engage in waged in labour, are not (always) obliged to do so - who have sufficient capital to be at one moment a waged employee, but at another a landlord, and at another a small business owner (or even some combination thereof at any given time).
I also think it's a mistake to separate the "cultural" from the socio-economic: cultural capital is premised on education, training, possession of certain symbolic goods, and a whole host of not merely affective but material techniques. So, like, "cultural capital" not only translates into access to capital in terms of loans, "favours", etc. but is itself premised on a massive investiture of capital. The middle class's cultural existence is premised on its material difference from the working class - home ownership that can become rentiership, university educations which translate into tickets to state and "NGO" bureaucracies, savings and investments, etc. - ie a real stake in capital which proletarians - who must sell their labour in order to survive - lack.

[John Nada]

The thing is, there is a significant middle class that doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories, who, while they likely to engage in waged in labour, are not (always) obliged to do so - who have sufficient capital to be at one moment a waged employee, but at another a landlord, and at another a small business owner (or even some combination thereof at any given time).Isn't that the labor aristocracy? I think the middle class was originally the name of the ones between the aristocracy proper and the proletariat, so I guess it'd be correct usage.

However most of the time when I hear "middle class", it's used as a vague catchall. At least in the US it is. Anyone from someone in the ghetto with a roof over their head("lower-middle class"), to a "small-business" owner with 100 employees, a nice house and maids("upper-middle class"). Basically means neither super rich nor super poor.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Marx's sociological theory of class wasn't clear cut, but I do think it is a fairly easy one to adapt to current society.

As you say, the definition of a worker is somebody who must sell their labour to survive. In layman's terms, if they don't work then they don't eat. The definition of the bourgeoisie is those people who can live off of profits, rent, share dividends and/or interest on savings/other income.

Despite the common conception of the 'middle class' being a discrete class in itself, separated from both the working class and the ruling class, in reality the economic relationships that Marx uses to define class are easily applicable. You either have to work to survive, in which case you are a worker, or you can live of income that you have derived without having to labour, in which case you are a capitalist.

Any other definition of 'middle class' is by default a cultural explanation; i'm not saying there isn't any place for the idea of cultural capital (in fact it explains a lot about the underlying rigidities of the class system) but if we are talking of socio-economic definitions of class as Marx understood, then the 'middle class' really doesn't exist.

The divide between the working and middle class has become much more blurred in recent years especially since the recession where alot of middle class people lost their savings and businesses. So you have alot of formerly middle class people now falling into the category of the working class.

The real middle class can survive without selling their labour as they have forms of capital such as rent, small businesses, savings, stocks, etc to live off. The working class however has none of these and they either go to work or stay home and starve as they have nothing to fall back on. Now many former members of the middle class are finding themselves in the same position as they have nothing to fall back on either. I see this as a positive thing actually as it widens the gap between the rich and poor and thus more of the middle class sinks lower and lower into the ranks of the working class. They become more likely to question capitalism and thus become more revolutionary as a result of their new lower Socio-Economic status.

Small business owner's such as shopkeepers are essentially the Petite Bourgeois of the middle class. They often work alongside their employees but yet they drive them like slaves and often worse then the elite bourgeois who own big companies do. As a lad growing up in a working class rural area I've seen plenty examples of the Petite Bourgeois where i live including everything from small time shop owners to fishing boat owners. These people are leeches who employ people at bare minimum wage with absolutely no benefits and they themselves get as much from the state as possible in various tax loopholes and such. But although they certainly have a stake in Capitalism they do not own or control the means of production in any sense.

Their ability to live off their Capital is what separates them from the lower middle classes who although may work in a office job making decent money but do not have any savings or capital themselves to fall back on thus they must sell their labour or starve so they are essentially in the same boat as the working class. The Petite Bourgeois on the other hand do not have to work (atleast on any regular basis) as they have savings and other forms of capital to live off of. They are reactionaries of the worst kind who are all for Laissez-faire economics until their business starts to fail then they aren't long asking the state for corporate welfare. Not surprisingly many small business owners i have had the displeasure of knowing consider themselves as Right Libertarians which of course is derived from Liberalism so the hypocrisy of these people makes sense in this regard. Their is no hope of them being anything other then Liberals because they have a economic interest in capital and thus would be on the loosing end of a Socialist revolution. This is the class most prone to becoming Fascists as a result of their economic conditions and the fact that they strive to be like the bourgeois and posses much the same morals as them. They really are the lowest form of life in my opinion.

Or such is my late night interpretation of the current class system :o

[Slavic]

Can someone give me a definition of what the criteria of being "middle class" even is? I am seeing a lot of mixed information in this thread. It looks like a lot of people are speaking of savings as if they were capital.

Savings, 401ks, pensions, are not capital.

My understanding of liberal class systems is that they are essentially based on how much you earn. What entails middle class?

[The Modern Prometheus]

Savings can certainly be capital in my opinion as they can be used to buy something in order to realize a profit.

There is alot of confusion as to what makes a person middle class and i guess most people have their own ideas on this.

[Slavic]

Savings can certainly be capital in my opinion as they can be used to buy something in order to realize a profit.

There is alot of confusion as to what makes a person middle class and i guess most people have their own ideas on this.

Any amount of money can become capital, that is not the point I am trying to make. People, particularly the middle class, typically have savings for economic emergencies such as loss of employment or severe illness. Living off of savings does not generate surplus value and does not exploit workers.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Isn't that the labor aristocracy? I think the middle class was originally the name of the ones between the aristocracy proper and the proletariat, so I guess it'd be correct usage.

However most of the time when I hear "middle class", it's used as a vague catchall. At least in the US it is. Anyone from someone in the ghetto with a roof over their head("lower-middle class"), to a "small-business" owner with 100 employees, a nice house and maids("upper-middle class"). Basically means neither super rich nor super poor.

Yeah, I feel like I would largely see the labour aristocracy as a particular section of the "middle-class" which would also include the petite bourgeoisie - though the two often become indistinguishable (as in the case of many or most "professionals").