The Two Social Classes

[Paradox]

Ok, so there's only two social classes? The Proletariat and the bourgeoisie? So the middle class is divided? I've read that those in the middle class who own some of the means of production, small business owners, are referred to as the "petty bourgeoisie." So then those in the middle class who don't own any means of production would be considered part of the proletariat, since they have to sell their labor. Is this right? Could someone better explain this idea please? Thanks.

[NovelGentry]

No. The Bourgeoisie, The Petty (Petite) Bourgeoisie, The Proletariat, and the Peasants. It's debatable whether the peasants exist under advanced capitalist society, as it is debatable whether the Petty Bourgeoisie will exist given enough TIME for it to advance. Marx argued that both would eventually join the ranks of the working class. The Peasants would be pulled up out of the need for cheap labor and the spread of capitalism and the Petite Bourgeoisie would be pushed down with the competition from the bourgeoisie.

It's also pointed out, however, that upon the existence of both. BOTH my willfully join the Proletariat under the conditions of revolution, but not for revolutionary reasons, oddly enough, for reactionary ones.

Like I said, whether the Peasant class still exists is debatable. I see the modern farmer who's land has been subsidized for corporate farming (yet they still work it and still live on it) as the "new peasant class" so to speak. Others have disagreed with me.

What most capitalist countries consider classes are classes striclty based on wealth and living conditions. Lower class makes less and has than middle class, middle class makes less and has less than upper class. Marxist classes, however, relate towards the means of production and the social aspects of a person's relation to the means of production. It is THEORETICALLY possible for an upper class person to be working class, not LIKELY, because they'd probably have to work themselves to death, quite literally, but it is possible. Whether or not these people can become revolutionary or not is another question all-together.

In general what you said is right, other than that I would consider the four classes, as I said. Effectively the petty bourgeoisie is not so much a "small business owner" but someone who owns some means of production, but cannot sustain life without working them as well. That is, you may very well have your own small business, and you may not have to work as HARD because you do make money off the labor of others, but in order to sustain life you may still very much have to work, either within your own business or elsewhere. Many small business owners (at least when they start) will sacrifice their a wage of their own in order to help the business along and may very well be the sole worker within the business. Sometimes they will abstract their wage. Meaning they will work within the business, NOT give themselves a wage, but will also have other workers who's exploitation sustains their life so to speak. Some small business owners even go in to debt giving wages they can't afford to give, in hopes that one day the business will be profitable enough to do otherwise, and that the products produced by their wage slaves will one day rake in more money than they pay out to them (this is after all where the profit comes from).

In general this whole thing has become abstracted since most small businesses in advanced capitalist nations are service businesses. This doesn't mean exploitation exists... one hour of labor is an hour of labor, whether you're banging nails through boards or cleaning dishes in a cafe. One simply produces a visible objective commodity, the other does not.

[Invader Zim]

It is debatable whether middle class is still the middle class.

Office workers, teachers, etc. Office workers still have to work for a wage, still have a boss, still hate their jobs in most cases, still have to clock on and off, etc.

The only real differance is that they perform white collar jobs rather than blue.

[Ligeia]

But office workers do psycical tasks and almost no physical and get more money than the workers who perform physical work....I think even the middle class can be divided into upper and lower middle-class ,it depends on the job and how it is working,I think...

[NovelGentry]

But office workers do psycical tasks and almost no physical and get more money than the workers who perform physical work....I think even the middle class can be divided into upper and lower middle-class ,it depends on the job and how it is working,I think...

It can be, but once again these are wealth conditions only and have little to do with the Marxist idea of classes which granted are partly due to wealth (if indeed your wealth is in the form of capital). But more specifically deal with the means of production.


The only real differance is that they perform white collar jobs rather than blue.

The working class of today performs the same jobs the working class of yesterday did. There's no point in separating the working class by nations. What has happened very simply is that the market has been settles here.... a new market right now is in the third world wher cheap labor is, in 100 years they too will be their own consumer market or possibly the consumer market of a new "third world" either created by the collapse of one nation or the growth of a completely undeveloped area. What's most likely to happen is that the chepa labor simply won't exist in what is needed to sustain the profits of the companies, the ruling class will look to further exploit all it's markets, but will be unable to do so and maintain profit, since these people are the consumers as well. In short, capitalism is a dead end, all this thread is doing is repeating things Marx pointed out over 150 years ago.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The middle class in advanced capitalist countries are really either petit bourgouis or rich working class people with cushy jobs and a superiority complex.

If you own a means of production (Factory, software company, etc) and use it to generate capital then you are bourgeouisie.
If you do not own a means of production but are significantly wealthy to avoid working then you are pretty much out of the equation in my eyes, although others may disagree and call you a bourgeouisie.
The petit bourgeouis are really quite small in advanced capitalist countries. They have over time become workers themselves (A manager of a local supermarket is a worker, although she might not think herself one) or have died out (Corner shop owners)

You may frequent wine bars and eat tapas, but unless you can live a decent life without working you are a worker.

[NovelGentry]

The middle class in advanced capitalist countries are really either petit bourgouis or rich working class people with cushy jobs and a superiority complex.

The middle class, INCLUDING the petit bourgeoisie portion of them, are usually in debt up to their eyeballs because that's how they accumulate wealth. We own little to nothing, it's all in the hands of the banks till we pay it off, and most of us will be paying it off the rest of our lives. Yes, we have good living conditions, but they're not ours nor do they come at a cheap price.


If you own a means of production (Factory, software company, etc) and use it to generate capital then you are bourgeouisie.

Some people have access to these things, but do not OWN them. And if they never become profitable, they will lose them to the TRUE owners.


If you do not own a means of production but are significantly wealthy to avoid working then you are pretty much out of the equation in my eyes, although others may disagree and call you a bourgeouisie.

This is very true. Although it's not likely for a working class person to ever become so wealthy without taking some of the wealth of others by becoming say petty bourgeoisie, there's nothing that prevents the accumulated wealth of a lifetime of a working class person making them "rich" so to speak, but having them still be working class. If I decide to work two full time jobs and one part time job and live in subpar conditions in order to save what money I do make, at the end of my life if I have hundreds of thousands of dollars, this does not make me any less working class. It shows little more than the inefficiency of the bourgeoisie. They FAILED to thoroughly exploit all of the working class, and those who inherit my wealth may slip towards the top. Of course, it may very well be the case that my children would take this money to buy means of production and live off the exploitation, in which case they have changed their class. Under a thorough enough system of exploitation this would NEVER happen, but the bourgeoisie has failed to produce such a system yet. There are cracks, and the lucky ones, may slip through over a long enough period of time.

[Ligeia]

And if you own a little bit land and work on it everyday ,are you then from the bourgeoisie?And if you still work other months a worker´s work?Or if you work ,say in a restaurant as simple worker,and own on the other hand....hmm...a house you rent or something like that,are you then from the bourgeoisie,too?
I mean,there are many different types of work and you can manage at the same time and what are you then?And are you always from the bourgoisie if you own something but it doesnt give you that much profit so that you have to work?

[Paradox]

And if you own a little bit land and work on it everyday ,are you then from the bourgeoisie?

That would depend wouldn't it? If it's just you, and maybe some family members working the land, and you're working the land for subsistence, I don't think you'd be considered bourgeoisie. But if you've got other people laboring the land, and you're producing crops for profit rather than use, you'd be considered bourgeoisie because you own the means of production- the land. I could be wrong though. But if I understood what the other members already said, that's the way it would appear. About the "simple restaurant worker" I'm not sure. Does he/she own the restaurant, but still work in it? And the person who rents out houses, I'm not sure about that either. Nothing is being produced in that situation, it's someone charging someone else to live in their property. Hopefully someone can better explain these types of situations.

[NovelGentry]

And if you own a little bit land and work on it everyday ,are you then from the bourgeoisie?

Do you subjugate the labor of others using that land? Private property in general is a means by which the subjugation of labor CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily, but what if someone else wanted to work that land as well for their own means to survive?


Or if you work ,say in a restaurant as simple worker,and own on the other hand....hmm...a house you rent or something like that,are you then from the bourgeoisie,too?

Most of the mixes you're talking about are petty bourgeoisie. The idea of petty bourgeoisie is very simply that you own some of the means of production and through those means you make some of your survival, but you are still forced to work (either working your own means of production and selling your labor) or working for someone else with their means of production so they can sell your labor. In short, you still have to work to survive, but it is not your total mechanism for survival.


I mean,there are many different types of work and you can manage at the same time and what are you then?And are you always from the bourgoisie if you own something but it doesnt give you that much profit so that you have to work?

Once again, these sound like petty bourgeoisie scenarios.

[Djehuti]

There is two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie. The middle class is no class, not today. There have been a middle class, but most of it have become proletariat, and the rest have ceased being a class. They have no common class intrests, no class counciousness, etc. There is no middle class.

[Ligeia]

Aha!Thank you!Then if you own something,you are from them.OK,thats what I wanted to know.
Nevertheless ,the pretty bourgoisie would have the same thoughts , the workers have,they feel like workers,too,so why cant they be called bourgoisie workers...anyway,dont anwser. ;)

[NovelGentry]

and the rest have ceased being a class. They have no common class intrests, no class counciousness, etc. There is no middle class.

This is bollocks. For starters, you're not doing any justice to defining classes by saying things like "There have been a middle class, but most of it have become proletariat." You're taking two different measures of classes here, and intermingling them. Once again, the terms lower, middle, upper, or any combination of them i.e. lower-middle, are strictly based on wealth standards and living conditions, NOT on your relation to the means of production and NOT on whether or not you're exploiting workers. You can be BOTH proletarian and middle class.

Secondly, while class consciousness most people have not, common class interests they DO. In fact, the class interests of the "middle class" and the "lower class" quite often intersect. Judging by what you've said here it's difficult for me to believe you have any knowledge of these classes outside the basic every day usage of their name and the information from a quick reading of Marx.


Nevertheless ,the pretty bourgoisie would have the same thoughts , the workers have,they feel like workers,too,so why cant they be called bourgoisie workers...anyway,dont anwser.

But they don't have the same thoughts. They may share some thoughts in common and a despise for big business, but overall the petty bourgeoisie is as alienated from the working class as they are from the bourgeoisie. They are downright THE most reactionary class if you ask me. This alone separates them from the possibilities of the proletariat. They will consistently follow the path of "who's winning." If the bourgeoisie treat them good, they'll love them, if the proletariat accept them and have a chance at crumbling the bourgeoisie, they'll love them too. In short, they want nothing more than to be the bourgeoisie, but they realize it's not an easy road, and as such they still relate to the proletariat until all chains are broken.

[SonofRage]

What is Class?

From the point of view of radical political economy, a plausible account of how capitalism works requires that we look at the various ways that different groups exercise power over production and allocation in the economy. A basic explanatory hypothesis, then, is that there is a division of society into classes based on the most basic power differences in social production. Larry Ellison doesn't have the same power at Oracle as a janitor or system administrator.

But what sort of power is the basis of class difference? Here is where Participatory Economics differs from Marx. Marx held that class antagonism in capitalism is based on the ownership of the means of production. This leads Marx to hold that there are only two main classes in developed capitalism. The people who own the means of production are the capitalist or investor class. The proletarian or working class are those who are forced to sell their capacity to work to capitalists, due to the fact they do not have means of production which they could use to earn a livelihood within the market.

The worker who sells an employer the right to make use of her working abilities for a period of time can't separate herself from the abilities she sells. She can't tell her working abilities to go to the office or store and stay in bed. She has to be there herself. But will she be motivated to use her working abilities in ways that would be profitable to the owners who hire her? That is not a foregone conclusion. Marx considered the distinction between a worker's capacity for work and the work he or she actually does for the capitalist firm as the basis of a struggle, a class struggle.


The Techno-managerial Class


But Participatory Economics points out that, in fully developed capitalism, there is not only the capitalist class and the working class. There is a third class, another group of hired labor whose role is to control the labor process, to control the working class.

This is the group I call the techno-managerial class; Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel call this the "coordinator" class but the meaning is the same.

Entrepreneurial owner-managers like Larry Ellison or Bill Gates are of course capitalists, but many managers do not have major holdings in companies they manage; they are members of the techno-managerial class. Also in this class are the various financial officers and key advisors and consultants who help run corporations and control the workforce - lawyers, top engineers, architects, and so on.

This is the group into whose hands are concentrated the levers of decision-making power, of conceptualization of how things are to be produced and what is to be produced, and of supervision and control over the workforce.

The power of this class is based on things like credentials, education, expertise, connections, knowledge related to power and production. A person who does financial analysis and decision-making about production month after month gains a concentration of knowledge about the running of production. A person who runs a lathe or sweeps the office, even if he or she has gone to college, isn't as likely to gain that kind of knowledge critical to power in the economic system.

The techno-managerial class tends to have a meritocratic or professionalist outlook reflecting the basis of its power.

This class is separate from the working class in virtue of the power they have over it, yet they are separate from the capitalist class because, like the working class, the power and economic prospects of the techno-managerial class are not based on ownership but on their work abilities, their knowledge and expertise. This class has conflicts with the investor or capitalist class above it, and struggles with the working class below it.

read more... (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Wetzel_Parecon.htm)

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:58 PM

But they don't have the same thoughts. They may share some thoughts in common and a despise for big business, but overall the petty bourgeoisie is as alienated from the working class as they are from the bourgeoisie. They are downright THE most reactionary class if you ask me. This alone separates them from the possibilities of the proletariat. They will consistently follow the path of "who's winning." If the bourgeoisie treat them good, they'll love them, if the proletariat accept them and have a chance at crumbling the bourgeoisie, they'll love them too. In short, they want nothing more than to be the bourgeoisie, but they realize it's not an easy road, and as such they still relate to the proletariat until all chains are broken.
Hmm...do you really think that way?Maybe some are like you described but not all,there are others who really think different,we never should forget that and be prejudiced against them,otherwise you lose a part of the people.
I know some and they ,although they own what they own,consider themselves as workers(and as I see it,they dont suffer less) and if I tell them they are or want to be from the bourgoisie they would totally be against that statement.Furthermore,they think communism and socialism(lived that) is better than capitalism(lived total capitalism,as well) and seem to hate the real bourgoisie,the ones who own much,big business and so on....they dont want to be a part of this class but maybe you are right and they arent anything of the two but a hybrid or just nothing.
They go on strikes,they totally consider themselves as workers and even if they were treated good,they know how bad it is to be a worker and wouldnt love them or appreciate the bourgoisie for that,Im pretty sure about that.Do you think that just because the normal bourgoisie treats them one day good,gives them privileges,money,whatever...,they say,they arent as bad as we thought they are...and start to be like them and love them?
Im sure there are some and they are others who dont lose their point of view...
Not all want to get rich and be part of the bourgoisie and as long as the proletariat likes them,all is ok for them,some maybe just want to survive and have their own ways to do that.
Wouldnt you accept them if they are followers of communism or socialism just because they are from the pretty bourgoisie,because you think they are the most reactionary class?
Anyway.....Maybe the things I mentioned are exceptions but who knows?
Or maybe I didnt understood anything.

[NovelGentry]

we never should forget that and be prejudiced against them,otherwise you lose a part of the people.

I'm not here to appeal to the petty bourgeoisie, nor am I here to be "ok" with reactionary thinkers, petty bourgeoise or peasants. We've seen the end result of appealing to reactionary people for revolution: The NEP in Lenin's USSR and the cultural revolution in Mao's China.


I know some and they ,although they own what they own,consider themselves as workers(and as I see it,they dont suffer less) and if I tell them they are or want to be from the bourgoisie they would totally be against that statement.

You can consider yourself a worker all you want, just becaue you do doesn't mean you're going to shed reactionary thinking.


Furthermore,they think communism and socialism(lived that) is better than capitalism(lived total capitalism,as well) and seem to hate the real bourgoisie

Of course they do. For now just the ones you "know" -- when the time of the revolution comes they'll all be thinking socialism and communism are better than capitalism! Hell, they'll think elephants should rule the earth if that's what a strong majority (with the possibility to win such a fight) are fighting for. Welcome to the fundamental idea of what it takes to be reactionary.


Do you think that just because the normal bourgoisie treats them one day good,gives them privileges,money,whatever...,they say,they arent as bad as we thought they are...and start to be like them and love them?

They may not say it to you. You best be damn sure they're singing from the hills in front of the bourgeoise though. Ask them in front of the bourgeois individual writing him a check whether or not he believes that money really belongs to that individual.... "Of course it does!" -- bullshit. Their wealth is created through the slavery of the working class, there's no reason to be grateful for the crumbs which are kicked down from the bourgeoisie while we're in the basement cooking the bread for them to eat.


Not all want to get rich and be part of the bourgoisie and as long as the proletariat likes them,all is ok for them,some maybe just want to survive and have their own ways to do that.

If they don't now they will when the opportunity presents itself. If you owned a small business and you had a way of doubling your profits even though you were surviving quite comfortably at the moment, would you? Would they? You can always want to survive comfortably, and you can always want to survive MORE comfortably, and there will always exist the excuse "Well I earned this... I built my business from the ground up!" Until your workers see the same benefits from their production as you do the only thing you've earned is the title of exploiter.


Wouldnt you accept them if they are followers of communism or socialism just because they are from the pretty bourgoisie,because you think they are the most reactionary class?

This is highly dependent. I'm not saying NO petty bourgeoisie can ever become revolutionary, but not so long as he's petty bourgeoisie. The label requires one to sustain themselves partially through the exploitation of others -- no matter how you cut it, such an individual CANNOT be revolutionary. If they are a petty bourgeoisie who realizes the nature of their existence, and devotes themselves from then on the proletarian emancipation, they may very well be revolutionary. I have no problems with such individuals. Do I want to live a better life? Of course... we all do. The difference is I'm not going to support my better life with the exploitation of other individuals.

There are of course SOME things which are unavoidable. I can't exactly leave the US, and as such I already live a better life based on the exploitation of individuals. What I can do beyond that is try to devote my labor time (as much as possible) back to things all can benefit from.


Or maybe I didnt understood anything.

Surely it would seem you understood it, and all your questions are valid questions for someone who is "uncertain" of what these terms (revolutionary, reactionary, etc) actually mean. The question is not so much whether you understand it, but once you do understand it, are you willing to accept that this is the case.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:59 PM



If they don't now they will when the opportunity presents itself. If you owned a small business and you had a way of doubling your profits even though you were surviving quite comfortably at the moment, would you? Would they? You can always want to survive comfortably, and you can always want to survive MORE comfortably, and there will always exist the excuse "Well I earned this... I built my business from the ground up!" Until your workers see the same benefits from their production as you do the only thing you've earned is the title of exploiter.


This is highly dependent. I'm not saying NO petty bourgeoisie can ever become revolutionary, but not so long as he's petty bourgeoisie. The label requires one to sustain themselves partially through the exploitation of others -- no matter how you cut it, such an individual CANNOT be revolutionary. If they are a petty bourgeoisie who realizes the nature of their existence, and devotes themselves from then on the proletarian emancipation, they may very well be revolutionary. I have no problems with such individuals. Do I want to live a better life? Of course... we all do. The difference is I'm not going to support my better life with the exploitation of other individuals.


Surely it would seem you understood it, and all your questions are valid questions for someone who is "uncertain" of what these terms (revolutionary, reactionary, etc) actually mean. The question is not so much whether you understand it, but once you do understand it, are you willing to accept that this is the case.
OK then,I understand what you wanted to say.
Reactionary means that you react when an opportunity comes that is good for you or something like that.That would be what I think reactionary is,am I wrong?
And it depends on the majority?

And what if the opportunity already came to them and they rejected it,didnt take it?
And dont you think that someone who has a small buisness which doesnt bring much profit has many persons there to be exploited?Maybe just one and this person is the same and is just helping....There must ´be and are exceptions.
I know quite weird cases,where they see no need to live more comfortably and opportunities were there and others where they want to live more comfortably and cant and live maybe worse or the same as the ones exploited,(their workers).

It depends on the person and sometimes on how they can handle the means of production and money,all can turn in contrary if you cant and there are cases where you dont have someone to exploit(to work for you) but own something(farm,buisness)...´

And I accept that the majority lives,thinks that way but there are exceptions,everywhere and everytime,there is always hope.

[NovelGentry]

Reactionary means that you react when an opportunity comes that is good for you or something like that.That would be what I think reactionary is,am I wrong?

Not particularly. Reactionary very simply means that you're prone to reaction. This reaction can be conscious or unconscious, I would argue that in most people it's unconscious, which is why we see the level of reactionary people we do. It does not have to be a reaction to a certain opportunity per se, but that certainly can be an example. What is more likely with reactionary thinkers is that things like "These people are terrorists, and we the government protects you from terrorists." seem like truth.

For a concise definition here you are:

Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism;


And it depends on the majority?

It's not that it depends on a Majority. There's no way to say when a reactionary person might stop being reactionary, and for what reasons. But you can be sure that if a person IS reactionary, they're going to go more often than not with a winning play. Whether that play needs a majority is questionable. Lots of reactionary people will sit around and repeat foolish Bush and Neoliberal nonsense till their face turns blue, although it's tough to say someone like Bush is the majority or even that he has majority support.


And what if the opportunity already came to them and they rejected it,didnt take it?

It depends on the situation. There's no way to simply pigeon hole someone one way or another. I'm a firm believer that some people can have some revolutionary thinking and some reactionary, the question then becomes is their revolutionary thinking a PRODUCT of reactionary thinking. I'd say 9 times out of 10 it is.


I know quite weird cases,where they see no need to live more comfortably and opportunities were there and others where they want to live more comfortably and cant and live maybe worse or the same as the ones exploited,(their workers).

Maybe this is simple consequence of not being able to. Just because you own a small business doesn't mean you live like Donald Trump. As I believe I mentioned elsewhere there are many small business "owners" who are in a great amount of debt to banks just for getting their business off the ground. The question is, what will become of these people? You must agree they are now alienated from the working class, and the longer they are, the less they will understand all of those issues, the fact alone that you've become "your own boss" so to speak changes your view. Whether or not they determine themselves as having any class relation to the working class will depend completely on the growth of the business and how much further they can become alienated.

[Ligeia]

Thats right,I agree it depends on the evolution of the buisness but what if you have something like a farm or so,because you always wanted one to work there on yourself?Then you are your "own boss" and are automatically alienated?But if they give up what they have and only work instead for someone,then they arent alienated anymore and become member of the real working class and share then their beliefs...?
I agree to with the fact that revolutionary thinking can be a product of reactionary but thats difficult to discover,isnt it always a product of reactionary thinking?You always react if something bad is happening to you or others,dont you?
Is revolution not in itself a reaction?
And it depends on the points of view of the majority,doesnt it?
Mhmm,thank you for explaining me all that,kind of you.
But ,of course,if reactionary means especially opposition to progress or liberalism,then revolution isnt reactionary but it is a reaction,anyway.