Millionaire Wealth Gap

[Peachman2000]

Recent studies suggest that there is a wealth gap in the top 1% of americans. The wealth is being concentrated into the top 0.01% of people. Seeing the how hard the lower and middle classes are having it these days, I wonder if this lower tier of the 1% is becoming the new middle class. Does anybody else think that the current middle class is on the path of merging with the lower class, making the millionaires the new middle class?

[tuwix]

That's only purely theoretical issue that doesn't have any further significance. The real antagonism is between working class and their owners - a bourgeoisie. Some people have class consciousnesses and other don't and it doesn't have anything to do with any scientific efforts to place them in middle class or working class.

[Antiochus]

So basically you are asking whether they would side with the lower-middle class and maybe even the working class or with the uber rich? :lol:

Go ask the poor nobles of France in the 18th century (they existed) who they sided with in the Revolution. Class is more than just how much money you make, its about the level of production relations you exist in. People with 400k a year (1%) will have large investments, alot of real-estate and will protect private property in a way someone from the lower-middle class or working class just will not.

[John Nada]

Recent studies suggest that there is a wealth gap in the top 1% of americans. The wealth is being concentrated into the top 0.01% of people. Seeing the how hard the lower and middle classes are having it these days, I wonder if this lower tier of the 1% is becoming the new middle class. Does anybody else think that the current middle class is on the path of merging with the lower class, making the millionaires the new middle class?Marxists don't use those terms of lower, middle and upper in the way you commonly hear in the US, which is often cross-class and based more on yearly income, sometimes net assets(though they often coincide). For example, there are upper levels of the proletariat(members of the working class) who might have more money than the lower stratum of the petite-bourgeoisie(small businesspeople). It's about social relations.

The bourgeoisie are the rich(upper class). The bourgeoisie were the middle class when there was still a strong nobility(lords and kings), but for the most part the bourgeoisie has overthrown or overpowered them. They own the means of production(where you have to work and buy from). The bourgeoisie exploit the workers, living off the fruits of their labor. They don't work to survive, but collect rent from the workers. There is different strata withing this class and others, but I'll just try to keep it simple.

The petite-bourgeoisie are the small businesspeople, as well as managers of businesses. They have to work, but exploit some workers too. They waver between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, usually aspire to become bourgeois(upper class) themselves. They're the middle class.

And there's the proletariat(working class). They depend on selling their labor to survive, if they can. They're the ones the upper class exploits, like a slave and a master, or a lord and a serf. They're the largest class now.

This is a bit simplified. There's other class and sections of each class(lumpen-proletariat, labor aristocracy, peasantry, bureaucrats, intellectuals, ect), as well as other forms of exploitation(patriarchy, heteronormativity, racism, which all disproportionally effect the proletariat). But the main contradiction that exists today is between the proletariat(workers and poor) and the bourgeoisie(capitalist, the rich). That .9%, and fuck, that top 15% can cry me a river. I'm for the 60% in the US, and the large super-majority around the world, who have almost nothing except their chains!

[Creative Destruction]

The "middle-class," "upper-middle class," etc. designations are useless from a Marxist perspective. They only judge based on income, which is a fairly meaningless metric for the most part. There are working class people out there who make around 100k, in non-managerial jobs (like dock workers who are with the ILU on the West Coast.) That's not even getting into the fact that most Western workers are richer than your average third-world worker. It's all Weberian nonsense that distorts politics. It's why 99% vs. 1% is nothing but a useless political slogan and not a basis for actual programs. There are petty-bourgeois within the 99% who exploit the hell out of people who work for them. They do not live the same conditions that I do, objectively.

What matters is the tension between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Between those who only have their labor to sell and those who own the means of production in order to make their living.

[Mr. Piccolo]

The "middle-class," "upper-middle class," etc. designations are useless from a Marxist perspective. They only judge based on income, which is a fairly meaningless metric for the most part. There are working class people out there who make around 100k, in non-managerial jobs (like dock workers who are with the ILU on the West Coast.) That's not even getting into the fact that most Western workers are richer than your average third-world worker. It's all Weberian nonsense that distorts politics. It's why 99% vs. 1% is nothing but a useless political slogan and not a basis for actual programs. There are petty-bourgeois within the 99% who exploit the hell out of people who work for them. They do not live the same conditions that I do, objectively.

What matters is the tension between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Between those who only have their labor to sell and those who own the means of production in order to make their living.

I would argue that besides the basic bourgeoisie and worker classifications there are possibly at least two distinct classes or subclasses in modern capitalism.

1. A managerial class made up of top-level corporate and government managers, lawyers, engineers, military officers and other people who coordinate the larger institutions in capitalist society. They are defined by their expertise and institutional role in capitalist organizations and therefore can usually be counted on to support the capitalist system.

2. Labor aristocrats, made up of workers who derive a relatively large income from either membership in a trade union or some very rare skill that gains them an outsized income (such as professional athletes). These workers may or may not have a developed class consciousness so their political orientation is harder to predict.

I would agree that income is generally a bad way of discussing class and lends itself to bourgeoisie thinking. However, I think there is this nagging issue of whether or not a certain level of material comfort makes it harder to support the revolutionary Left. The concept of the "middle-class" has a powerful hold over people, especially in the developed countries.

[Creative Destruction]

I would argue that besides the basic bourgeoisie and worker classifications there are possibly at least two distinct classes or subclasses in modern capitalism.

1. A managerial class made up of top-level corporate and government managers, lawyers, engineers, military officers and other people who coordinate the larger institutions in capitalist society. They are defined by their expertise and institutional role in capitalist organizations and therefore can usually be counted on to support the capitalist system.

This isn't a new classification and I'm not sure how helpful it is giving them their own classification. These people are rolled into the petite-bourgeoisie.


2. Labor aristocrats, made up of workers who derive a relatively large income from either membership in a trade union or some very rare skill that gains them an outsized income (such as professional athletes). These workers may or may not have a developed class consciousness so their political orientation is harder to predict.

I would agree that income is generally a bad way of discussing class and lends itself to bourgeoisie thinking. However, I think there is this nagging issue of whether or not a certain level of material comfort makes it harder to support the revolutionary Left. The concept of the "middle-class" has a powerful hold over people, especially in the developed countries.

Regardless of whether people are mollified by an increased standard of living is irrelevant to analyzing their class status.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That's only purely theoretical issue that doesn't have any further significance. The real antagonism is between working class and their owners - a bourgeoisie. Some people have class consciousnesses and other don't and it doesn't have anything to do with any scientific efforts to place them in middle class or working class.

That's absurd of course it totally has significance to the class struggle. It's a statistical reflection of that struggle and the inequality that should be rectified. I'm also in disagreement with this ludicrous notion that wealth accumulation if of no importance or has no relevance or whatever, of course it does; it absolutely does since again, it's the concrete objective reality that must change. How can you say the bourgeois are this and that but when it comes I brass tax and the how's and whys and specifics it's like no. Same as putting names and faces to the class as well. That's unimportant too, huh?

[Mr. Piccolo]

This isn't a new classification and I'm not sure how helpful it is giving them their own classification. These people are rolled into the petite-bourgeoisie.

I was under the impression that the petite-bourgeoisie were exclusively the small-scale capitalists. Those capitalist who had to often work alongside their workers, such as small shop owners.


Regardless of whether people are mollified by an increased standard of living is irrelevant to analyzing their class status.Good point. I suppose whatever material gains the labor aristocrats have can be easily taken away through capitalist activity. For example, the weakening of trade unions or replacing skilled workers with machines. This reveals the ultimately proletarian nature of the labor aristocracy.

[Creative Destruction]

I was under the impression that the petite-bourgeoisie were exclusively the small-scale capitalists. Those capitalist who had to often work alongside their workers, such as small shop owners.

From the Marxists.org encyclopedia section:


1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.

This group has been disappearing since the industrial revolution, as large factories or retail outlets can produce and distribute commodities faster, better, and for a cheaper price than the small proprietors. While this class is most abundant in the least industrialized regions of the world, only dwindling remnants remain in more industrialized areas.

These people are the foundation of the capitalist dream (aka “the American dream”): to start a small buisness and expand it into an empire. Much of capitalist growth and development comes from these people, while at the same time capitalism stamps out these people more and more with bigger and better industries that no small proprieter can compete against. Thus for the past few decades in the U.S., petty-bourgeois are given an enourmous variety of incentives, tax breaks, grants, loans, and ways to escape unscathed from a failed business.

2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.

While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petit-bourgeoisie

This is why it's kind of ridiculous for Michael Albert to be proposing a "third class" in his Parecon model -- that of the "managing class" -- as if it made a significant departure from Marx's class analysis.

[John Nada]

I would argue that besides the basic bourgeoisie and worker classifications there are possibly at least two distinct classes or subclasses in modern capitalism.

1. A managerial class made up of top-level corporate and government managers, lawyers, engineers, military officers and other people who coordinate the larger institutions in capitalist society. They are defined by their expertise and institutional role in capitalist organizations and therefore can usually be counted on to support the capitalist system.This isn't a new classification and I'm not sure how helpful it is giving them their own classification. These people are rolled into the petite-bourgeoisie.A lawyer or engineer could be (petite-)bourgeois/labor aristocrat, or a proletarian. They can either be highly paid, in a managerial position, possible even own their own business that exploits workers(particularly lawyers).

Corporate lawyers and prosecutors are every bit as oppressive as law enforcement and the military. One only has to look at how they defend bourgeoisie who poison the environment, sell deadly products like asbestos, Fen-Phen or tobacco, anti-people laws such as bans on abortion, and defend their oppression of workers(often killing them). Prosecutors are instrumental in filling up the prisons with the poor and oppressed peoples, and defend atrocities committed by the state. Definitely bourgeois. Or they could be workers for the bourgeoisie, and often don't even make as much money as their co-workers(particularly engineers) or public defenders(the good ones, at least). Hell, the engineer getting less pay than other workers was once the norm in some industries. And a a lot of revolutionaries were lawyers and engineers. In this case, intellectuals of the upper strata of the proletariat, or petite-bourgeoisie.

The rest, the government officials, military officers, and corporate management I'd say they're straight up bourgeoisie. It's likely they would own stock too.

2. Labor aristocrats, made up of workers who derive a relatively large income from either membership in a trade union or some very rare skill that gains them an outsized income (such as professional athletes). These workers may or may not have a developed class consciousness so their political orientation is harder to predict.

I would agree that income is generally a bad way of discussing class and lends itself to bourgeoisie thinking. However, I think there is this nagging issue of whether or not a certain level of material comfort makes it harder to support the revolutionary Left. The concept of the "middle-class" has a powerful hold over people, especially in the developed countries.Regardless of whether people are mollified by an increased standard of living is irrelevant to analyzing their class status.The labor aristocracy gets a status above other workers. They have better conditions than most of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie can throw them a bone due to super-profits extracted from oppressed peoples. They get hired, raises and promotions over oppressed peoples, causing many of them to identify more with their bosses than workers of another ethnicity or in other nations. They might own stock in the company(a lot of higher-income workers own stock, as do many unions). There is a material bases for why they often can be reactionary. Even Engels could see this in Britain, between the Irish workers and the English workers..

Just look at history. The liberal unions historically excluded women, oppressed minorities, unskilled workers, undocumented immigrants and socialists. In fact, bourgeois unions pushed for [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act]Chinese Exclusion Act[url], and continued to uphold a xenophobic line on immigrant and foreign workers. Think of the "hard-hats" who beat up civil rights and anti-war protestors, or the Reagan Democrats who seemingly voted against their own interests. Hell, they give uncritical supported for imperialism: http://monthlyreview.org/2005/05/01/labor-imperialism-redux-the-afl-cios-foreign-policy-since-1995/

With the law-enforcement "unions" I need not say more.

Actors/actresses, Reagan was their union boss, though most actors/actresses aren't rich celebrities and oppressed peoples do face discrimination in casting.

Most athletes aren't rich, outside of popular sports, and once you get old and burn out, hopefully for them they got enough money to live afterwards(often with disabilities from injuries)

Often the problem workers have with the labor aristocratic unions isn't that they're some shady motherfuckers out to snatch you away from the "nice, understanding":rolleyes: people at corporate, and take union dues that are somehow unbearble compared to what one would get paid un-unionized(it's usually reasonable), it's that they're too close to corporate and not militant enough. Not everyone represented by the union are labor aristocrats, nor are all unions labor aristocracies. Many, perhaps most, are proletarians, and even some of former can be militant(though this might not move out of the workplace). Unionizing should be supported. Efforts to restrict unions opposed. I can tell you that a strike was something different than what it's been turned into in the US. And even if a strike is led by a bourgeois union, don't you dare cross the picket line. A scab is on par with a snitch.
Good point. I suppose whatever material gains the labor aristocrats have can be easily taken away through capitalist activity. For example, the weakening of trade unions or replacing skilled workers with machines. This reveals the ultimately proletarian nature of the labor aristocracy.The same could be said about the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry. Damn near wiped out, most petty bourgeoisie are literally petite(most small businesses in the US have very few employees, often one), and even in the third-world the peasants, though still around, are being turned into workers or petite-bourgeoisie. To them ruin means falling into the proletariat. Still different classes. I'd say the labor aristocracy is petite-bourgeois, falling into the proletariat under neo-liberalism. But I'm going a bit off-topic. Maybe start a thread?

To the OP, back on topic. Could this .01% vs. .9% be whats called "old money", the haute bourgeoisie to be a bit more Marxian, Super rich that in all likely their great-great-great-grandkids will still be rich even with a coke habit and such, vs. "new money", the few upper petty-bourgeois and the rare proletarian who do strike it rich? What is the dynamic between them? Though in the end they have the same class interests, and often come together to defend it, they still have contradictory goals at times. Because that what capitalist want, to be at the top. They do argue and compete, have different ideals on managing capital, and even go to war.