Class War

[RedLenin]

If and when your class struggle comes what are you going to do with the middle class? Obviously you cant fight both classes so what are you going to do? What if somebody from a higher class, even the capitalist class, wants to join you. Are you going to let them or tell them they cant?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:44 AM
If and when your class struggle comes what are you going to do with the middle class? Obviously you cant fight both classes so what are you going to do? What if somebody from a higher class, even the capitalist class, wants to join you. Are you going to let them or tell them they cant?
It's an interesting question. Many of the people who make up the "vangaurd" are middle class people. In my experience with the SWP their members are usually teachers, social workers or probation officers. Or students.

The middle classes have a lot to lose in terms of wealth and possesion, and it really depends on how much they want to know about why the workers are fighting back.

If they wish to join and fight to create communism, then of course it's not problem, but I think mostly likly, many of them will either try and leave the country of join the capitalists.

[NovelGentry]

If and when your class struggle comes what are you going to do with the middle class?

The middle class is a pseudo-class which is defined simply by wealth and living conditions, it is not a class dervied from the same reasoning as say the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie. The middle class can be made up of all kinds of people, I could be a middle class proleatrian, I could be a middle class bourgeois, I could be a middle class petty bourgeois. The same thing goes for terms like "lower class" and "upper class" and any combination of them such as "lower middle class."

This came up recently in another thread, I would suggest reading that thread before going any further.


Are you going to let them or tell them they cant?

Firt off, you assume that there's something for them to join. This is one of my MAJOR arguments against parties, unions, etc, or any formal organization that sticks a name on itself and says "join us if you share these goals an ideals in common."

You're basically asking for an influx of reactionaries on the brink of revolution. People will of course say "Well we won't let those people in." Well then, depending on how early this group forms, you could also have reactionary workers. This isn't to say such people can't change and become revolutionary, but it's not a situation where you sit there and with some psychologists and say "Is this guy really revolutionary? Or not? Pick his brain!"

MOST such groups assume that if someone wants to join them they are revolutionary, this is simply not the case, nor should anyone pretend it is.

[NovelGentry]

The middle classes have a lot to lose in terms of wealth and possesion, and it really depends on how much they want to know about why the workers are fighting back.

This is simply not the case here in the U.S. I can't speak for other nations, but I'm going to assume that in most advanced capitalist countries it's about the same. MOST (I'm not saying all cause there are huge exceptions) of the middle class owns little to nothing.

My family is middle class, we do not own our house, we do not own our cars, we do not own most of the things in our house. If we couldn't make the payments, I guarantee the repo men would be clearing us out to pay back the loans.

This was very much the same before the great depression when the booming 20s hit and credit went up through the roof. The stock market also saw a huge increase in those buying stock on margin (I think that term is correct). All the sudden there was over 8 billion dollars in stock alone that was effectively "unpaid for" by those who supposedly "owned" it. We'd be STUPID to call such people at that time petty bourgeoisie, even though they "own" (and I use that term lightly) part of the means of production through stock. Just like we'd be stupid today to call middle class people with retirement stocks petty bourgeoisie. Yet these people are middle class.

The middle class is not mutually exclusive of Marxist classes, it is actually made up of a number of them.

Really, however, this whole middle class, lower class, etc... will become a moot point and an unnecessary view at the time when people are becoming revolutionary. The revolution will happen, and it will happen by a revolutionary (at least by significant majority) working class. Without that, it is unlikely a class such as the petty bourgeoisie would ever decide to be pseudo-revolutionary. Instead, because they are ACTUALLY reactionary, they will focus, as most people do now, on the current ruling class and working within that system.


If they wish to join and fight to create communism, then of course it's not problem, but I think mostly likly, many of them will either try and leave the country of join the capitalists.

No, it's not a problem. Nor do I think it's most likely that they will join the capitalists. Once again, the middle class in reality is made up of a number of classes, but it's a pseudo-class.

Say we know for sure 100% of the lower class is workers, and 100% of the upper class is bourgeoisie. The middle class, being in the middle, we would assume to be a mix match, including workers, petty bourgeoisie, and bourgoeisie. But we only need to account for this if we're looking at these foolish class definitions. We know that the working class is 100% working class, and we know that petty bourgeoisie is 100% petty bourgeoisie, and so on and so on. Whether you're a worker making $60,000 a year or a worker making $1,000 a year, you are working class. If you think two such individuals have nothing in common, I think you have to rethink what makes a class a class.

You may wish to do this. As a Marxist, I'll stick to what I feel are the very sound and logical positions set fourth in his work.

[Gen Arkan]

make them realise there is no middle,

there are employers and employees

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Gen [email protected] 19 2005, 10:44 PM
make them realise there is no middle,

there are employers and employees
I think there is, and with imperialism the middle class can grow.


is not a class dervied from the same reasoning as say the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie

What would you call thoose who do not own the means of production but have adminstrative position?

[Invader Zim]

I think you have a made an error, there no longer really is a middle class in a traditional sense. Most of these people, teachers, office workers, etc, are still workers, and wage slaves in the grand scheme of things. In the west especially the working class blue collar jobs have all but gone, and been replaced by jobs in finance. So in effect the majority of people arein the tradional middle class. The workers of the UK could never hope to over throw the middle class, because the middle class heavily out number them.

If a socialist revolution were to occur, it would have to be the office workers side by side with the guys off the factory production line. Against the universal oppressing group, management.

Though it has to be noted I don't think revolution of the middleclass is possible, not at the present time.

[NovelGentry]

What would you call thoose who do not own the means of production but have adminstrative position?

Labor aristocracy at the most. Most of these people are workers though, like it or not, they are just doing their job, and they work paycheck to paycheck more often than not as well. Unless you're talking about executives and chair person. Then they're all bourgeois, cause I guarantee even if their paycheck direct from the board doesn't cover them, they've got stock.

It's very simple really... if you control and use means of production to exploit workers for your gain and survival, you're bourgeois.

If you control some of the means of production but still need to work (and I do mean real work here, not sitting in a chair talking about golf all day with the boss), you're petty bourgeoisie.

If you own no means of production and are forced to work to survive (no matter what your position or whether or not you're someone's "boss" and regardless of what you make per hour), you're working class.

The "regardless of what you make per hour" may come as a bit of a shock to most, but it's all relative to the product and desired profit margin of the company. Some companies aren't "greedy" at least not yet and they do treat workers well, but this doesn't change the fact that the worker is being exploited. This goes FAR beyond how well you live, because so long as capitalism exists, the working class will never live as they should as free wo/men. There is always top dog, and whether he's exploiting you for little more than 5 dollars an hour, or if he's pulling in literally thousands an hour off your labor, he is still using YOUR labor. Fact of the matter is, the top dog pullin in 5 would trade places with the other guy any day of the week, maybe right now it's early and he wants to build "worker loyalty" by treating them good and the business isn't extremely profitable yet.

Anyway, hopefully you get the idea.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

What would you call thoose who do not own the means of production but have adminstrative position?

The Parecon (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/) people call the third class the "coordinator" or "techno-managerial" class.


Originally posted by Tom Wetzel


(from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...D=5&ItemID=2515 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=5&ItemID=2515) )

I've talked about class structure, but What is class?

What I want to argue is that Marxism has a mistaken theory about class. Marxism historically has assumed that there are only two major classes in capitalism, namely, labor and capital. Marxism assumes that it is ownership that is the key relation that defines class. The investor class, who own the means of production, are thereby the ruling class. Everyone else must seek work as hired labor.

The problem with this theory is that it leaves out a class. There are in fact three major classes in advanced capitalism, not just two.

Ownership may be the most important basis for power over social production in advanced capitalism but it is not the only such basis. There is also another class of people, who I call the techno-managerial class. Their role is that of controlling the labor of the working class. This is the class that includes the management hierarchy and the professional consultants and advisors central to their system of control -- as lawyers, key engineers and accountants, and so on.

The point is that it is *power* relations in social production that creates a class stratification, and there are different ways that people can have power over others in production; ownership of productive assets is just one such basis.

Historically the techno-managerial class developed as capitalism reorganized the nature of work, diminishing the dependence of employers on the skill and intellectual ability of workers to coordinate their own work, and vesting this increasingly in a layer of expert intellectual cadre. The redesign of work processes, to break up work into pieces and minimize the reliance on skills in the workforce aimed at changing the balance of power against the workers and making the whole process more dependent on management coordination.

The members of the techno-managerial class may have some small capital holdings, either via things like stock options or small investments or ownership of their houses or other small property. But that is not what their livelihood and way of life is based on. Rather, they have their class position because of their relative monopolization over knowledge, sklls, and connections. This what enables them to gain access to the positions they have in the corporate and goverment hierarchies. They share in common with the working class that they are hired labor.

It's true that there are relative differences in power and privilege within this class, but this is true of all classes -- there are huge differences in the wealth and power of different capitalists, and among different groups of workers there are big differences in wage rates and conditions of work or autonomy in work.

Another thing to note about the techno-managerial class is that it is capable of being a ruling class. This is in fact the true historical meaning of the Soviet Union and the other socalled Communist countries. They are in fact systems that empower the techno-managerial class.

What is interesting is that the failure to see or appreciate the significance of this class is a central blindspot in Marxism. This is one of the things that enables Marxists to fail to see aspects of Marxism that programmatically lead to techno-managerial class dominance.

[NovelGentry]

as lawyers, key engineers and accountants, and so on.

Alas, all of these fall into one of the two original classes too when you look at them on a point by point basis. There are lawyers who work completely freelance, they don't get big jobs, but enough to live -- then there are laywers with firms, who employ other people, and their labor too is exploited, furthermore the firms get big jobs and in the end "control" means of production.

"key engineers" as he puts it are more often than not workers. They may be well paid workers, respected workers, good pention plan (Maybe even with stocks -- does this make them petty bourgeoisie though?). I don't feel it does, if someone is given stock in a company which their labor has been poured into for years and years, it's difficult to say they'll be making any more money from it than what their labor was already worth, or at they very least contributed to that company. This of course then rules out stock holders who have no place in a company and who haven't worked a day in their lives, or even those who have risen above their investment only to expand their portfolio to support the exploitation of workers, which in turn support their own life.

Accountants are almost in the same basket as lawyers, I don't think there's much need for explaination. No one here would argue that the Enron accountants were not capitalists, ruling class, etc.... and no one here would say Phil getting paid 8 bucks an hour down at H&R Block to fill out your income tax forms was not working class.


ownership of productive assets is just one such basis.

Thankfully Marx covers more than just ownership of productive assets and we don't need goons like this guy lumping "accountants" into some new class, or any job into some new class. He's looking to change what defines a class, not recognize that there is a new class formed. He'd much rather have it based on what you do than whether or not you're exploiter or exploitee.


Historically the techno-managerial class developed as capitalism reorganized the nature of work, diminishing the dependence of employers on the skill and intellectual ability of workers to coordinate their own work, and vesting this increasingly in a layer of expert intellectual cadre.

Maybe this is how the ruling class sees it, I think it's safe to say anyone who's actually worked knows the type of control these supposed techno-managerial people have. You don't really listen to them, or do what they want. Even Micromanagement techniques used in retail fail to have this kind of pull, it's nearly impossible to say the management techniques of larger companies do the same when there's far more employees contributing to the product, and far more "educated workers" who are given a certain amount of freedom anyway, because that is what their trained in. As a network/system admin, I understand this very well. The boss may give you general guidelines, but if the boss ever walked into the server room and started talking about what was needed to make the network run faster you'd end up laughing behind his back after he left. YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT, IT IS YOUR JOB TO KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT. No matter how much the author wants to think that we let these people have control, we don't.


The redesign of work processes, to break up work into pieces and minimize the reliance on skills in the workforce aimed at changing the balance of power against the workers and making the whole process more dependent on management coordination.

Once again, this may be how the ruling class sees it, or at the very most wants it to be, but it's simply ignored by a worker who knows what they're doing. Minimizing the skill doesn't change the fact that the worker is trained in that skill, or at the very least has experience with it. Management coordination means nothing to the worker, nor will it ever, and when it comes right down to it, if this was truly the way capitalism reshaped work, you'd see far more companies failing.


Rather, they have their class position because of their relative monopolization over knowledge, sklls, and connections.

I'm not so sure about the first two... connections is definitely so though. I was in a micromanagement position for a small time doing retail, and I got that position because I was a "model worker" so to speak. But this is far from the type of "class" this man is talking about. The true "techno-managerial" people (and yes I agree they exist, I just don't agree they are a class) are far above that. They're the department heads and things like that, who on any good day do maybe 30 minutes of real work, and the rest of the time make up excuses like "I had to redo the schedule 20 times to fit everyone in where they wanted days off."

Once again, many of these people ARE workers, their jobs just aren't important. Like someone serving you coffee at an outdoor cafe. Compare it to the cost of the products they end up making/serving, and their portion of that labor time and they are still insanely exploited workers, particularly if you're familiar with the prices on some of the coffee at places like that.


It's true that there are relative differences in power and privilege within this class, but this is true of all classes -- there are huge differences in the wealth and power of different capitalists, and among different groups of workers there are big differences in wage rates and conditions of work or autonomy in work.

Agreed, now all he has to do is put away the job classification for class justification and realize that a lawyer could be part of either of the original two classes, as could an accountant, and the list goes on to whatever else he would have included. The layer may have a relative difference in power, compared to other working class people if indeed it is a "working class lawyer," but this doesn't make him any less working class. Just like Phil at H&R block isn't any less working class, and the guys at Enron aren't any less ruling class.


Another thing to note about the techno-managerial class is that it is capable of being a ruling class. This is in fact the true historical meaning of the Soviet Union and the other socalled Communist countries. They are in fact systems that empower the techno-managerial class.

All well and good, but we want working class emancipation. If indeed such a class does exist by the same form of the other major classes, they will be of little value. They are not a majority, nor will they ever see something like "class consciousness" boot their way. The fact is, most of the people he's talking about fall under the petty bourgeoisie, they differ in relations to the means of production than the rest of the working class, but they still WORK to sustain life. Maybe he's hoping that people forgot about this class, and it's reactionary nature, and that he could redefine it and contribute something useful.


What is interesting is that the failure to see or appreciate the significance of this class is a central blindspot in Marxism.

We don't see or appreciate the significance because it's neither something signfiicant or something that should be appreciated.


This is one of the things that enables Marxists to fail to see aspects of Marxism that programmatically lead to techno-managerial class dominance.

Well since we already know he considers the soviet union an example of techno-managerial class empowerment. Now we see him relating Marxism to something that leads to their dominance. Put the two and two together and you get a classic misunderstanding that Marxism is the same as Leninism/Bolshevism.

Until this man breaks out of his rather rigid and closed-mind idea of what Marxism talks about, he's not going to put away this type of idiocy. Marxist definitions of class don't have to be bent in any way to include the modern drivers of capitalist economics (workers, management, capitalists), we only need to stick to what truly defines proletariat and bourgeoisie and realize it's outside of things like pay rate, job title, job function, retirement plans, etc.

[chebol]

NovelGentry, you're basically right, but you've forgotten that there are STILL more than just the basic classes in existence.
The petit-bourgeoisie still exists, as do transitional classes.

[NovelGentry]

NovelGentry, you're basically right, but you've forgotten that there are STILL more than just the basic classes in existence.
The petit-bourgeoisie still exists, as do transitional classes.

Yes, the petite-bourgeoisie do exist, and Marx accounted for them. As for transitional "classes"... I'm not so sure. The select few people in transition tend to be one or the other at the moment, this isn't to say they are going to follow that classes role, but you can't guarantee ALL workers will be revolutionary either. So really, it boils down to do these oddball individuals make a class? And if so, is it something we need to account for?

I don't think it is a "class" nor do I think it's something we need to account for.

[Hiero]

It's very simple really... if you control and use means of production to exploit workers for your gain and survival, you're bourgeois.

Do you believe that with imperialism the working class are reducing into the middle class with explioting the third world?

[monkeydust]

Novelgentry....


The middle class is a pseudo-class which is defined simply by wealth and living conditions, it is not a class dervied from the same reasoning as say the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie

You make it out as if the class structure of society has not changed in the last 150 years.

Perhaps Marx was right to assert, in the 19th century, that relation to the means of production was the sole meaningful determinant of class. In his day this distinction was not important solely in and of itself, but it also connoted, more or less, the precise wealth and living conditions of that person. Those who did not own or control the means of production, the workers, pretty much always earned little and lived in squalor.

This is not the case today. A vast number of "workers", in Marx's terms, are well-off, own their property, live in comfort and enjoy life; they are not all reified by their relation to the means of production.

You may assert that these affluent "workers" are still "exploited". Perhaps they; the fact of the matter, however, is that many of them don't really care.

In my opinion, dogmatically clinging to Marxist definitions of class in the 21st century is pretty silly. It could be convincingly argued that they need to be relenquished. In my view, they at least need to be updated.

[NyChe21]

You're right, but nevertheless, exploitation is still present, although I don't believe at the point of revolution or even consciousness.

What I would really like to note is that the definition of 'middle class' especially here in America is developing into 'white-collar'. The new middle class of the post-industrial economy are entry level tech jobs where people input numbers into computers all day. This is the class that is being exploited, albeit not entirely by unfair wages. Like Marx said, the entire system is corrupt in that in a developed country run by individualist conservatives in a liberal democracy like the U.S., the high standard of living, the suppression of union power and bad social institutions such as health care and lack of a progressive income redistribution policy all contributes to a marginalization of the entry level worker who, struggles with paying off college loans and mortage payments on their 'private' property as well as has very little chance for any type of pension or advancement due to the downsizing of companies in the Reagan era. The mid-level management jobs dwindle in numbers and without these opportunities for advancement, the liberty to raise a family or own a house is downgraded to a dream in which one struggles to hold onto working at times more than 40 hours a week, in hindsight, this is slavery in today's relative terms. Not to mention the high probability that his job will be shipped to India. In this, the middle class as it is observed in post-industrial America is no longer the typical white collar middle class that was formerly seen during the Cold War, it is now a post-industrial working class, and although the working conditions are somewhat better (I know I would loathe sitting in a cubicle all day staring at a computer screen), this is still exploitation. Yeah, if you're wondering, I love the movie Office Space.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:07 PM
This is not the case today. A vast number of "workers", in Marx's terms, are well-off, own their property, live in comfort and enjoy life; they are not all reified by their relation to the means of production.


Hmm...but does this not depend on the country the workers live in?
Well,if you take Europe,there this is true but if you take South-Asia or Latin America,do you think they live in comfort and enjoy life?
And in every single country the "workers" dont have the comfort the "bourgoisie"have...not in any way and so their may just exist envy or anger,all depending on where they live. ;)

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:44 AM
If and when your class struggle comes what are you going to do with the middle class? Obviously you cant fight both classes so what are you going to do? What if somebody from a higher class, even the capitalist class, wants to join you. Are you going to let them or tell them they cant?
Yeah. I know alot of people already said it, but....the middle class is not real.

There are workers and capitalists. And then some workers get more of their money and get real ignorant...because that is what happens when there was no class contiousness in the first place.

What we see as middle class can be divided into 2 things.
Upper middle class and lower middle class.
Lower middle class is clearly part of the working class.
When you start to rise above that you reach a point on the class pyramid where people start to identify with the capitalists, even when they are not capitalists themselves.
Its like the air is thinner up there , and they can start lose their sense! :blink:
Because they start to afford a comfortable lifestyle and sometimes lose touch with the struggles of their fellow workers.

Its like I can almost say middle class is more of a mental state then a real class.

Considering that, then this is what to do with the middle class :

There are some workers who can act ignorant and hard headed towards the struggles of other workers, becuase they have it like that....but for the amount of them there are much more who are clearly in struggle right now, and its no foreign language to them to discuss matters of exploitation or opression, even though alot of people are not so well spoken about those things, because they dont have a place to talk about them alot. Capitalist society turns a worker's plight into "*****ing". Who wants to be a *****?

But never the less, it is more a matter of just expanding contiousness with these people because some of the very worst aspects of this struggle are part of their daily lives.

So what to do is focus on people that understand the reality of this. Real working class people, not the ones who can afford to act fake.
TALK TO EVERYONE. Some people from even the bourgeoisie are cool enough to be down with the emancipation of the worker! But don't spend all your time focusing on people who can afford to be ignorant, because

The time you spend debating with them, you can help 10 struggling workers find class contiousness of their own.

[NovelGentry]

Do you believe that with imperialism the working class are reducing into the middle class with explioting the third world?

I'm not sure what you're asking, please elaborate or clarify. Most workers in the first world ARE middle class, and have been for a fair amount of time.


You make it out as if the class structure of society has not changed in the last 150 years.

You presume it has? What makes you believe this?


This is not the case today. A vast number of "workers", in Marx's terms, are well-off, own their property, live in comfort and enjoy life; they are not all reified by their relation to the means of production.

"well-off" -- maybe. Own their own property... not likely (at least not for a vast majority. Live in comfort... to some extent... enjoyment? HAHAHAHAHA.

Tell me something, do you think Marx used the word capital rather than money to sound smart? There's a difference. Capital begets capital. Regardless of how much money a working class individual has, they will remain working class until that money may be converted to capital.

I suppose we should the "cut" from the working class people like my mother, who has worked over 80 hours a week for the majority of her life so that we could "have" a house and "have" a decent car that wasn't more of a problem than a solution for transportation... Strange how much she works, and yet we do not OWN our house. Calling my family anything BUT middle class would be a lie, and calling my family anything BUT working class would also be a lie. I don't know why you presume the MAJORITY of middle class people are not like this. What's your story? are you middle class? are you working class? Do tell, all of you for that matter.

I'm not about to say such individuals who do work hard and long hours to make the MOST they can, and sometimes do make it up to middle class, or even enough to become petty bourgeoisie are/were not working class simply because they've gained that money. The system already exploits their labor, and yet you expect that because they work this way they somehow do not or can not understand that exploitation?


You may assert that these affluent "workers" are still "exploited". Perhaps they are; the fact of the matter, however, is that many of them don't really care.

I just have, but I'm glad you brought this "not caring" point up. It's interesting to look at those who do "care" about exploitation.... the bourgeois philandrophists, the catholic church, apparently yourself, and for that matter anyone else here. I've never said the working class cares about their exploitation, nor will the working class of the first world care about their exploitation in 10 years, and if capitalism continues the workers of the third world will no longer be workers of the third world, but their nations too will have acquired such wealth, and much like us, they will be "well off" and "comfortable" -- massively in debt to the banks of their nations, such as we are now, but yes, well off indeed.

If you do not understand the exploitation, the growth of capitalism, it's extension of imperialism, and it's eventual global market saturation, you shouldn't be trying to argue it.

Answer me this single question... who is being exploited more, a worker making 50 cents per hour, or a worker making 50 dollars per hour?


In my opinion, dogmatically clinging to Marxist definitions of class in the 21st century is pretty silly. It could be convincingly argued that they need to be relenquished. In my view, they at least need to be updated.

Mao had a fairly similar view it would seem... but then again, we can always have a cultural revolution after the violent overthrow so that we may too deal with the incumbent reactionary mindsets.

General Response

I've been called dogmatic towards Marxism before, that doesn't bother me. What really does bother me, however, is that people come on here and bring up countless issues that Marx himself addressed, clarified, and closed the case on, and I begin to think that most of these people simply haven't read enough Marx to understand this. I've been told a range of nonsense in the past, everything from "Marx didn't account for imperialism, that's why Leninism exists" to "Marx never realized the working class would be so well off" (which is present in this thread).

If this is what you truly believe I ask you to examine his work again, and maybe this time read at a bit of a slower pace so that you actually take it in this time. Marx indeed accounted for the wealth of capitalism, he accounted for the fact that early capitalist nations would always be "better off" than late capitalist nations -- but you don't need Marx to see this, all you need to do is look back 100 years into US history, where child labor is nearly a mirror image of what third world child labor is today.

What Marx seemed to be willing to overcome, which none of you responding to my posts seem willing to do is that the working class can put this behind them, and more to the point that they will. When we stop "waging wars for the bourgeoisie" and pinning "workers against workers" THEN, and only THEN can we realize the true enemy. The white collar worker of America IS NOT the enemy of the dirt stained shirt worker of the third world.

Nations will continue to build wealth, and capitalism as it has shown in the last 100 years will take it's global and inherently imperialist form (which Marx accounted for, despite that Lenin Lover's ideas), and since it has we have seen the third world mirror us in our early capitalist history, when the overproduction and local market saturation kicks in the third world will then become a consumer market, as well as a productive market. It is the nature of the beast who always needs profit, but for profit you need consumers. The question of course is then, WHO is the new cheap labor? After all, if they are to be a consumer market either their wages need to rise, or the price of goods needs to fall in order for them to afford it.

This is of course where capitalism takes it's worse turn, it is now not an option for imperialism to find new cheap labor, it's next most logical option is to more thoroughly exploit old markets. Which it will, and already has begun to do at the same time as exploiting the third world productive market. Look at the minimum wage.... your so called white collar "well paid" computer jobs don't exist here any more friend, India's got that market now, adn where they do they make little more than 30,000 a year, even in metropolitan areas like Boston (trust me, I've been trying to find just such a job).

This all develops quickly, 5 years ago the market was fresh and a network admin could rake in 65,000 a year starting pay, now "certified professionals" are a dime a dozen when they're willing to work for less than what the guy's in India will work for.

I could sit here and go on and on, giving more examples of the capitalist market dymnamics and quoting Marx where he expresses his knowledge (and in many cases foreknowledge) of this, but I shouldn't have to. If you're going to sit here and tell me not to be a dogmatic Marxist, at least take the time to have read what he said before you begin calling even his fundamental ideas obsolete.

[NovelGentry]

Questions to ponder that should make you less sure that a middle class cannot be split into the classes Marx defined.

1) If a man find a job paying 45,000 a year, and he works for half of his life working double shifts, and retires for the second half of his life with the money he saved up. That is, he works 16 hours a day, using his 45,000 a year to live for the first half, and saving his other 45,000 every year so that he may live the second half of his life without working, is he no longer working class when he stops working?

2) Given the example above, at the beginning of his retirement, would he probably not be middle class, given his overall wealth? Maybe even upper class?

3) Given the example above, would he then be "lower class" towards the end of his life, since his money would have been spent throughout his half life retirement?

4) Given the example above, does the worker not understand the exploitation at the beginning of his retirement because he just has so much damn money? can he?

5) Given the example above, does the worker then suddenly begin to understand that exploitation towards the end of his life when his money has diminished?

6) Given the example above does the man become more conscious of his exploition as his cost of living increases due to inflation but his wealth remains static to the inflation rate of when he worked?

7) Given the example above does the man become more conscious of his exploitation due to the simple fact that with old age comes INCREASED cost of living (health care and prescription drugs being the main causes)?

[monkeydust]

and although the working conditions are somewhat better (I know I would loathe sitting in a cubicle all day staring at a computer screen), this is still exploitation.

No doubt.

And furthermore I think there's probably a case to argue that the relative living condiditions and wealth of the middle classes is going to fall further still. Certainly the gap between the top 1% and bottom 99% is growing vastly in the UK, and, moreover, the welfare state is steadily being "chipped away" at.


Hmm...but does this not depend on the country the workers live in?
Well,if you take Europe,there this is true but if you take South-Asia or Latin America,do you think they live in comfort and enjoy life?
And in every single country the "workers" dont have the comfort the "bourgoisie"have...not in any way and so their may just exist envy or anger,all depending on where they live

Of course, and I was not arguing otherwise.

I didn't say that there were no "workers" comparable to those in the 19th century anywhere - there are still many in developed countries and a large number in the undeveloped world. My point was that, in my opinion, rigidly grouping everyone under the banner of either "bourgoisie" or "proletariat" is unrealistic, as there is a mile of practical difference between a sweatshop worker and an office manager.


"well-off" -- maybe. Own their own property... not likely (at least not for a vast majority. Live in comfort... to some extent... enjoyment? HAHAHAHAHA.


Well yeah, actually.

Of course these are all relative terms. You may posit that middle classes do not have comfort, own property or enjoy life. However if you consider these people to be in depths of squalor comparable to the 19th century and to a lesser extent the pre-WWII working classes then you are patently mistaken.


Tell me something, do you think Marx used the word capital rather than money to sound smart? There's a difference. Capital begets capital. Regardless of how much money a working class individual has, they will remain working class until that money may be converted to capital.


Yes, but only if you rigidly adhere to the Marxist definition of class. I agree that it's still a meaningful distinction, but today it seems, in itself, a little dated.

A worker earning £1 an hour and a lecturer earning £50,000 a year simply are not one and te same thing.


I don't know why you presume the MAJORITY of middle class people are not like this

I never claimed that the majority of the middle class have truly "great lives" and enjoy themselves to the fullest extent possible. No, that was never my point.

All I am saying is that the majority of the middle-class' lives are sufficiently "better" than the poor working classes as to justify a distinction between the two.

Perhaps the situation's a little different in the US to what it is in the UK. But over here, most middle classes enjoy a full education, healthcare, own at least 1 car, own (or are paying off) their own home, work in comfortable, safe conditions, are able to travel on holiday, eat well, have some spare time, have a TV, a computer and a multitude of other luxuries.

Are their lives amazingly fun? Probably not.

But are their lives just as bad as a factory workers'? No.


What's your story? are you middle class? are you working class?

Working class now, but from a middle class family originally - and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

My parents still had to work hard, and were, in some senses "exploited", but they were never badly off by any means.


Answer me this single question... who is being exploited more, a worker making 50 cents per hour, or a worker making 50 dollars per hour?


That would depend on the amount of surplus value being extracted from their labour. :P

Is however what's practically important the actual rate of exploitation, or the extent to which a worker recognises his explitation?


I've never said the working class cares about their exploitation

My experience is actually that they do. I put the term "worker" in quotation marks because I was referring to the affluent middle classes who you lump with the proletarians.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

as lawyers, key engineers and accountants, and so on.
Alas, all of these fall into one of the two original classes too when you look at them on a point by point basis.

Of course any kind of "middle class" overlaps with the definitions of working and capitalist classes.
But he argues that it is not sufficient to classify people by their ownership of wealth, because power can arise in other ways too in a modern capitalist society. One should also take into account the chances of climbing closer to the top of the hierarchy of capitalism, and influencing the capitalists' decisions. These people he mentions are far better off than your average worker in that sense.

Indeed, as already discussed in this thread, many "middle class" workers are economically so well off these days that they don't care about the exploitation. However, many of them still are close to the bottom of capitalism's authoritarian hierarchy, and must do what they're told or their economy isn't that well off anymore. This is why I think our leftist propaganda aimed at these people should concentrate on their position in the hierarchy instead of their exploitation, make them realise that corporations are just private dictatorships, and they're close to the bottom of the hierarchy and have very little chances of obtaining a better position.


As a network/system admin, I understand this very well. The boss may give you general guidelines, but if the boss ever walked into the server room and started talking about what was needed to make the network run faster you'd end up laughing behind his back after he left. YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT, IT IS YOUR JOB TO KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT. No matter how much the author wants to think that we let these people have control, we don't.

I worked as an "R&D engineer" (in reality without the R) and my opinions were seldom listened to by the bosses. Indeed, the first reason listed in my notice of termination is that "I wanted to do as little work as possible", the truth being that I told them in an internal meeting that certain system of theirs sucked and much less brainless mechanical work would be needed if certain things were automated.


...

[NovelGentry]

However if you consider these people to be in depths of squalor comparable to the 19th century and to a lesser extent the pre-WWII working classes then you are patently mistaken.

Well yeah, while we're at it we can compare the workers of those days to the workers in feudal times. Hell let's go all the way back and history and we'll see how "well" people lived relative to now. Material conditions improve, capitalism improves them faster than any previous system, and for that matter all previous systems combined. What is the point of bringing this up? It seems you are doing little more than trying to pull apart these classes by wealth once again.


Yes, but only if you rigidly adhere to the Marxist definition of class. I agree that it's still a meaningful distinction, but today it seems, in itself, a little dated.

You have a better distinction? Ahh yes... who makes more money. The return of the micro-class!

Marx's writings were in the context of class warfare, for that you need to understand what makes a class a class. You're looking beyond what we have in common to separate it further by saying that the level of exploitation determines class, and thus, whether or not you're revolutionary. Well hell, why not take it a step further, only Nurses can be revolutionary! For obvious reasons. They see the suffering of people every day, in job related injuries, children starving, etc. They are paid far less than doctors but often do the bulk of the doctors work. Lastly, the work is not easy, ask any nurse or nurses aid.

What it comes down to really is what you're willing to place on what makes a class. I am not willing to place a gradient of wages (or even level of exploitation) as the scale for who is worker, and who is not. If you're exploited by those in control, if you live off the wages they force you to work for, if there is no feasible or common way to free yourself from that exploitation, you are a worker. You CAN and WILL understand your exploitation one day. And the condition you are placed in WILL force you to see why change is necessary.


A worker earning £1 an hour and a lecturer earning £50,000 a year simply are not one and te same thing.

No, they're not the same thing. I never claimed they were, or asked if they were. But the fact remains, the lecturer too is a worker (unless of course he's got his own lecture hall and runs the whole show). Are you doubting that the place that acquires him to "lecture" makes far more out of his lectures than he does?

Take for example colleges, who may have professors who are equivalent to such "lecturers." The college professor may be paid upwards of 70,000 a year to lecture three classes of 20 students each. His pay becomes something of a joke when you compare it even to just his PORTION of the money that the students pay to go to college.

My point is very simple, you think that there is indeed a level of exploitation that allows you to be "working class." And ignore that it is not the level of exploitation which decides your class, but the exploitation itself. YES, this is using rigid Marxist definitions of class, but the fact remains all these people are exploited workers, and that is what makes them a class. It is, even still, what makes them revolutionary. And don't confused pissed off reactionaries with revolutionaries.


All I am saying is that the majority of the middle-class' lives are sufficiently "better" than the poor working classes as to justify a distinction between the two.

And the majority of poor working class lives in america are "sufficiently better" than the lives of third world people working in sweat shops. It's easy to see why you think this creates a problem, it's easy to see why people like MIM think there's no such thing as a "western and/or white worker."

Once again, you push this idea that I somehow said these people were revolutionary now, that they understood their exploitation and were ready to go. I don't believe most lower class working people in the US (or other similar countries) are ready for this. We're simply "not there yet." We have to see the global market change before we will ever see that.

Like I said, I could sit here and explain how Marx saw the expansion of capitalism, and it's means by which to sustain it's overproduction, and maybe in the end summarize it and show you what may very well happen in the next 40 years, but I shouldn't have to. (even if this IS in the learning thread).

Surely you've read the first chapter of the communist manifesto?


Perhaps the situation's a little different in the US to what it is in the UK. But over here, most middle classes enjoy a full education, healthcare, own at least 1 car, own (or are paying off) their own home, work in comfortable, safe conditions, are able to travel on holiday, eat well, have some spare time, have a TV, a computer and a multitude of other luxuries.

No, it's no different here. But I'm not about to go establishing the "Factory worker class.", "The Blue Collar class.", "The White collar class.", "The board room class.", "The ownership class." etc. Why am I not going to do this, because whether you're factory worker, blue collar, white color, or an African mining diamonds for a dollar a day, you are a worker. You give more than you get and your work is exploited. That alone is necessary for class consciousness. Material consciousness need not form out of living in poverty -- as proven by a large number of middle class people on this board who probably understand it very well.


But are their lives just as bad as a factory workers'? No.

Are factory workers lives just as bad as coal miners lives? No.

Micro-classes are fun.


Working class now, but from a middle class family originally - and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Nor am I ashamed that I am still middle class. I'm very proud of my mother, and I hope she will be very proud of me when I'm her age and if I've done the same for my family.


My parents still had to work hard, and were, in some senses "exploited", but they were never badly off by any means.

Well what do you mean "work hard." My father was a part time laborer in a machine shop a "factory worker" so to speak. He had little problem being middle class and being "never badly off by any means." Granted he had my mum, who has worked two jobs so long as I remember my life. But like I said before, saying my family is not middle class is a lie, saying my family is not working class is also a lie.


Is however what's practically important the actual rate of exploitation, or the extent to which a worker recognises his explitation?

Depends what your goal is. If you're goal is a better life, it's important for you to realize the rate of your exploitation and find work that exploits you the least. If you're trying to make revolution, I'd say it's important the worker recognizes his exploitation, but what makes you think a blue collar or even white collar worker can't recognize their exploitation? Have you ever held a job? Have you really talked with your fellow workers about what they do and don't realize?

I've heard words out of every day white collar workers mouths that sounded like the wrote the book on worker exploitation. Most are very aware that the company makes more off their labor than they give back to them... the problem isn't that they don't realize this, it's that they don't see that as being a problem because "that's the way it is."

Can we further develop their understanding of that exploitation? Possibly. Can we show them an alternative? Seems most definite. Will they bite at the alternative? Probably not until they can no longer bare the pains of the system they are under. And I guarantee that time will not come until we see the third world as a consumer market. YES, we can accelerate consciousness and understanding but the overproduction which will cause the proper market saturation and the eventual "more thorough exploitation of old markets," is completely in the hands of those who control the means of production. The most we can hope to do, is explain this situation to people and help them understand it's not worth waiting until it gets that bad.


My experience is actually that they do. I put the term "worker" in quotation marks because I was referring to the affluent middle classes who you lump with the proletarians.

I don't lump the middle class in with proletarians, I say that the middle class is non-existent. It's not a valid measure of class, it's a measure of your living conditions and how comfortable your life is. It is a measure of WEALTH. If you want to define your classes by wealth, that's fine... and it works quite well for economists under capitalism. I much prefer to realize what can bring about class consciousness.

Some of the middle class is workers, some are petty bourgeoisie, shockingly some are probably even bourgeoisie (but not for long if they're any good at it).

Just like I don't assume all lower class people are workers nor would I assume upper class people are bourgeoisie. If someone stays single working two jobs (even factory jobs) and maybe a part time retail job 80+ hours a week (completely possible to do if you do nothing else except eat and sleep maybe 6 hours a day/night.... and that person hordes all this money while living out of his mothers basment and one day buys a huge house and all these fancy clothes and nice cars, he may very well be upper class... but he's a worker to the bone.

[NovelGentry]

But he argues that it is not sufficient to classify people by their ownership of wealth, because power can arise in other ways too in a modern capitalist society.

And I once again say that Marx already accounted for this. Again, Marx talks as much about CONTROL of the means of production as he does OWNERSHIP of them. This is to say, the supposed "techno-managerial class" has some sort of power, indeed, they do... many are in a position to control the means of production. If you are in such a position you are more than likely NOT a worker. But this is a very thin line you're crossing now, because the more you abstract it, the more you realize the workers themselves are in control of the means of production.... they are afterall a PORTION of the means of production. You could have all the machines in the world, but with no workers to operate them, you have very little.

Where exactly did you think the working class got all it's "power" for revolution from? Guns?


These people he mentions are far better off than your average worker in that sense.

Maybe so, a good part of them are probably petty bourgeoisie, but you can't fail to account for the workers who do slip through the cracks every now and then. As I've said before, capitalism has yet to reach it's peak efficiency of exploitation, there are holes in the grate, and every now and then someone falls through and "makes it."

Once again, like the previous poster, you seem to think I'm calling these people workers... that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying they are not a separate class and they are formed of members of the other two classes and thus can and will be divided as such.


Indeed, as already discussed in this thread, many "middle class" workers are economically so well off these days that they don't care about the exploitation.

You ever heard the saying that the greatest trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist? Capitalism is much the same way for the already advanced capitalist nations. It doesn't change the fact that the working class is the exploited class.

Do you believe capitalism has a self-destructive nature? If you do, it's impossible to say that those who are exploited under it will not one day be faced by that exploitation and FORCED to deal with it.


This is why I think our leftist propaganda aimed at these people should concentrate on their position in the hierarchy instead of their exploitation, make them realise that corporations are just private dictatorships, and they're close to the bottom of the hierarchy and have very little chances of obtaining a better position.

Yeah great idea... make the reactionary people MORE reactionary. DO YOU WANT POWER????? JOIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY TODAY AND WE WILL MAINTAIN ALL POWER AFTER OUR GLORIOUS REVOLUTION! WANT TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO FOR A CHANGE? CALL 888-GOPOWER AND JOIN TODAY!

[monkeydust]

What is the point of bringing this up?

I wasn't, as it happens, simply citing the fact that wealth overal has risen in the last 150 years.

I was actually making the point the the relative disparities in wealth between the "workers" (if we class any middle class as a worker) and the "bourgeoisie" in western society - at least in the UK - has decreased.

You can argue that we are seeing this trend reversing today, however it simply isn't the case that the difference between the owners of the means of production and everybody else is as great as it was in the 19th century.


You're looking beyond what we have in common to separate it further by saying that the level of exploitation determines class, and thus, whether or not you're revolutionary. Well hell, why not take it a step further, only Nurses can be revolutionary

You CAN and WILL understand your exploitation one day. And the condition you are placed in WILL force you to see why change is necessary.

Perhaps all of your "workers" will realise their exploitation one day, we cannot know for sure.

In the meantime, to ignore the differences between all classes besides the proetariat and the bourgeoisie seems futile.

The fact is that these classes are different insofar as they tend to behave in different ways, have different values and circumstances based on their economic situation, to the extent that they will behave in a noticeably different manner.

It may well be the case that a number of these middle-class "workers" are so affluent that they will never recognise or if they do never mind their exploitation; many are so well-off that, though in their current situation they do not enjoy the full fruits of their labour, they might consider themselves to be noticeably "worse off" were wealth to shared in an egalitarian manner.

Read any modern book on Sociology - you'l be pressed to even find a Marxist who dogmatically adheres to the proletarian-bourgeoisie divide in its original form.


Take for example colleges, who may have professors who are equivalent to such "lecturers." The college professor may be paid upwards of 70,000 a year to lecture three classes of 20 students each. His pay becomes something of a joke when you compare it even to just his PORTION of the money that the students pay to go to college.

...this is using rigid Marxist definitions of class, but the fact remains all these people are exploited workers, and that is what makes them a class

Yes they are "exploited" in the sense that they do not earn the full fruits of their labour embodied in any commodity or service, I never denied this.

In this sense the Marxist definition would make them a worker.

However whilst, strictly speaking, Marx's definition of "exploitation" was only dependent on surplus-value being extracted from a person's work, in his day, this connoted very much more - "visible" exploitation, actual squalor, hunger, disease and a pretty short life-expectancy to boot.

Some workers still experience this evils today, the "middle-class" does not.

You may posit that they're still "exploited" and, in many ways, yes, they are.

But when the excrement hits the proverbial wind-propelling device, are they going to care as much as "actual" workers? No.

I'm not just saying this, it is what actually tends to happen. How many middle-class "workers", for example, supported the British General Strike of 1936? How many ever voted for (old) Labour? How many have ever protested about the evils of capitalism? Not many.

And this is precisely why a distinction is necessary, or at least practical. The "middle-class" behaves in a different way to the working class, and some may well do so even when we begin to see class agitation again.

To lump them together and ignore their differences altogether is, therefore, folly.


Once again, you push this idea that I somehow said these people were revolutionary now, that they understood their exploitation and were ready to go. I don't believe most lower class working people in the US (or other similar countries) are ready for this. We're simply "not there yet." We have to see the global market change before we will ever see that.


I very much agree.

However I think the market would have to change sufficiently for much of the modern middle-class to slip into the working-class. If this were to happen then they might very well notice their exploitation and want to do something about it.

Those who stay in the middle class, I think, probably still won't care. The upper middle class may even side with the bourgeoisie in such a conflict.


Like I said, I could sit here and explain how Marx saw the expansion of capitalism, and it's means by which to sustain it's overproduction, and maybe in the end summarize it and show you what may very well happen in the next 40 years, but I shouldn't have to

And you don't have to, but this touches upon another point - that capitalism is much more complicated, and adaptable, than Marx ever forsaw.

Perhaps the post-war era was a mere "blip" on the gradual descent of workers into greater poverty; on the other hand, though, capitalism may be able to keep up its flexibility for a good time longer yet.

We'll have to see.


Material consciousness need not form out of living in poverty -- as proven by a large number of middle class people on this board who probably understand it very well.


No, revolutionary consciousness doesn't necessarily need poverty in order to arise- but it sure helps a lot.


but what makes you think a blue collar or even white collar worker can't recognize their exploitation?

If a worker lives in relative comfort, has some luxuries and doesn't have a completely "shit life", he is far less likely to realise his exploitation than one who does not.


Have you ever held a job? Have you really talked with your fellow workers about what they do and don't realize?


Yes, as it happens.

Nearly all do not like their jobs or their pay. Many do, indeed, realise their exploitation. Few would consider changing the entire structure of society as possible, or even desirable. None have ever come up to me to say "Fuck it, the boss has extracted the surplus value of my labour embodied in this service from my wages! Viva la revolution"

And most of the places I've worked have been distinctly shit, low pay jobs, where even I would, without hesitation, class the workers as working-class.

When I worked in an office the recognition of exploitation was next to zero. In fact I found that the workers, even if they were not paid greatly, would try their best to be considered "middle-class". At least in the UK, to be middle-class is to not complain about exploitation and capitalism.


I don't lump the middle class in with proletarians, I say that the middle class is non-existent

Which is practically almost to do the same thing.

[NovelGentry]

however it simply isn't the case that the difference between the owners of the means of production and everybody else is as great as it was in the 19th century.

You're missing the fact that the wealth is not owned by these people, the owners of the means of production still own it. I pointed out earlier the "booming" twenties for a reason. You had a very similar situation where credit was on the rise and even stocks (ownership of a portion of the means of production) were given out on margin. We are a world of credit, and the majority of the so-called "middle class" is riddled with credit card debt, car loans, mortages etc. Those are not are most likely not working class.

The US alone has 15% of it's population living on less than 5 dollars a day after housing. That is 5 dollars a day for food, toilet paper, car payment, gas for that car so they can get to work, etc..etc. 15% is not a low number by any means.

The first, second, and third 20% brackets of income in the US (that is 60% of the population, excluding people with no income on record -- who generally aren't too well off), made under 53,000 per year per family in 1999. That's NOT 53,000 from each parent, that's 53,000 total, however, with no specification of the average size of the family.

This is only getting worse as cost of living increase drastically with the minimum wage.

Speaking of which: http://www.adaction.org/mwbook.html

In 1990, the Times reports, the average was about $2,550 for those households that carried a balance. At the end of 2003, that balance averaged about $7,520 – an increase of nearly 200 percent! (Taken from a news report, from FOX nontheless, hahahah: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143037,00.html)

Now for 2004 credit stats: http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040209.html

Oh look, they rose again.

Today's middle-class families with two working parents, she said, have far less financial leeway than a single-income middle-class family of 30 years ago. What Ms. Warren classifies as "fixed costs" - mortgage, child care, health insurance, car and taxes - take up 75 percent of the income of today's two-income family. By contrast, the those costs represented about half of a middle-class family's income in the early 1970's. -- Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School

This IS your middle class who supposedly "owns"

Much of this will be covered by two chapters in my book, the first, "The Myth of the Middle" and the second "Poverty of Prosperity"

Your statement that the gap has been closing is simply false. The gap has been widening, what IS closing, however, is the "living conditions." Many of us drive the same cars, eat at the same restaurants, and have similar conditions of life as much of the upper class (bourgeois or otherwise). And that is the beauty of "credit" -- it can create the illusion of wealth to almost anyone, and people will "feel ok" so long as that illusion exists.

Imagine for a minute that every middle class person sold what they "owned" to pay off their debt. Most aftermarket cars running 16,000 or more will drop below 10,000 within a year and a half. Two years you're looking at 8,000 for such a car. That's a little less than the average credit debt alone. I'd be lucky if I could sell half of the other shit in my house (with the exception of the TV and some of the electronics) at a yard sale for a fraction of a fraction of what they're actually "worth."

Now for every person who has half of their house paid off, or 3/4, cut their living space according to how much they actually own, and watch a family of four be crammed into two rooms and a bathroom.

You've done little more here but show why a huge majority of the first world population is UNAWARE of their struggle, and little to show that they are struggling.


Perhaps all of your "workers" will realise their exploitation one day, we cannot know for sure.

No, there's no way of saying for sure that consistently worsening condition of capitalism for the lower class will make them aware of their exploitation, but regardless it will cause capitalism's failure. What they realize after that happens cannot be determined, but I would hope no one would be so foolish to reestablish the same system.


In the meantime, to ignore the differences between all classes besides the proetariat and the bourgeoisie seems futile.

I'm not ignoring the differences between other classes, I'm saying these supposed classes do not exist. Thus there is no difference to ignore.


The fact is that these classes are different insofar as they tend to behave in different ways, have different values and circumstances based on their economic situation, to the extent that they will behave in a noticeably different manner.

Once again, Marx accounted for this when he defined his classes. He realized a portion of the proletariat would live better than another portion, those of early capitalist nations would consistently live better than those of late, if for no other reason than that their job function changes (that is of course, ignoring income). Manufacturing for the most part is out of the US and other advanced capitalist nations which are now moving towards service economies while manufacturing has shipped out and continues to ship out to third world nations where it's cheaper. Things like NAFTA only promote this situation.

But then you seem to ignore the technological advancements too. In 100 years it may not take a single person to directly make a car. Only engineers to design it and a few guys to program the machines to build it. You'll have a few servicemen for the machines, and people who indeed MAKE the machines. But you still had that when cars required manufacturers too, as they are arleady partially automated.

Take China as a primary example of this. After it's collapse (though still unofficial) from it's "communist ways." It began to house a good portion of third world manufacturing labor, and it still does "Made in China" was a common label on any good throughout the early to late 90s. It still is on a fair amount of goods, yet you (like others) may begin to notice those labels being swapped more and more frequently for the "more third world" nations.

Assume capitalism can last another 100-150 years, wait till then, and get back to me about their "noticeably different behavior due to socio-economic conditions." When you do, we can ignore basic cultural differences then as well.


Read any modern book on Sociology - you'l be pressed to even find a Marxist who dogmatically adheres to the proletarian-bourgeoisie divide in its original form.

This is about classes, yes, but even your definition of class is a temporary one. Only after imperialism fails will you see what you consider "well off" people become a lot less well off.

There are three ways in which the bourgeoisie deals with their overproduction. The first is the conquest of new markets. This happens early as a productive force, but much later as a consumer force.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. -- Karl Marx

The second two are of course always "options" but they are not always the easiest, nor the cheapest, nor the best. The first of them is to more thoroughly exploit old markets. I would say this will for the most part happen alongside late imperialism. THIS is when you see our living conditions drop, not now. This is when the upbringing of foreign nations meets the downbringing of pre-existing capitalist nations. From which point fowards the bourgeoisie has no "cheap labor" because we are all consumers as well. And thus, we must be able to afford the goods we produce to continue giving them profit.

Their only "hold off" to the destruction of their system at this point IS credit. Which we have seen already here as they try to sustain the current working class as consumers while exploiting the third world working class as producers.

Is this a difference, yes. Does it mean there are separate classes? No. It's little more than a time gap, between a late capitalist nation and an early one. Does it mean we're not exploited? No. Does it mean we can't realize our exploitation? No (I'm living proof of that).

What we look to do is of course accelerate the consciousness of this exploitation. Whether we like it or not, the working class (of the world) will one day be faced by it, even if the "middle class" of the first world isn't at the moment, or even the lower class of the third world compared to even the wealthiest working class people of the third world. Once capitalism has "done it's time" so to speak, we will be forced to face this exploitation, and it will be felt by all -- I'd like to not wait until that point if it is at all possible.


Yes they are "exploited" in the sense that they do not earn the full fruits of their labour embodied in any commodity or service, I never denied this.

In this sense the Marxist definition would make them a worker.

However whilst, strictly speaking, Marx's definition of "exploitation" was only dependent on surplus-value being extracted from a person's work, in his day, this connoted very much more - "visible" exploitation, actual squalor, hunger, disease and a pretty short life-expectancy to boot.

Some workers still experience this evils today, the "middle-class" does not.

You may posit that they're still "exploited" and, in many ways, yes, they are.

But when the excrement hits the proverbial wind-propelling device, are they going to care as much as "actual" workers? No.

This is where you lose sight and take it out of context. Because you talk about the "shit hitting the fan," which I can only assume you're implying is revolution. What you seem to ignore is that "early" revolution, that is, revolution before the self-destruction of capitalism, is not going to occur if they don't care. Then you go on to further ignore the temporary nature of the "middle class" situation, and assume they will never care and thus we need "actual workers" to make the revolution, or at the very least to realize it's necessary and then act accordingly.

This is precisely why they are not a "class." People shift in and out of middle class every day, and there is nothing that makes them a class OTHER than their living conditions. You've yet to respond to what you make of people like my mother who work long hard hours to be "middle class." Is she not an "actual worker?" Does she not know the pains of labor? Can she not realize the futility of capitalism?

The middle class is made of all kinds of people. People who know what it's like to never work a day in their lives, to people like my mother, who work three times the amount of time she's not working. They may live in the same relative wealth, but they do not live the same lives, and no way no how can you assume they have the same interests, without a class interest, there is no class.

Unlike the "middle class" which says nothing about who these people are, how they obtained their wealth, etc... the proletarian work for their wealth, regardless of how much they have. It is within their class interest to END wage slavery and begin taking equal enjoyment out of their production. The bourgeoisie, who exploit these people for their own life and INSANE luxury, have the common class interest of maintaining wage slavery. This is what defines their classes, and what defines class struggle. Might I ask what is the defining interest of the middle class?


To lump them together and ignore their differences altogether is, therefore, folly.

Well then we can bring on nationalism, racism, etc..etc.. as well. And why not? Do the majority of african american people not "behave" different than the majority of caucasian americans? Do cultural differences not make us "behave differently?" Does religion not do this? I tend to find most females behave differently than most males... they are certainly a class too. Once again, you're making the return of the micro-class. All these groups have very small and unique interests that serve only their groups when you cut it down to it. But when it comes to socio-economics, the economics begins to play a factor... and if you're talking about socio-economic classes, you should at the very least have an economic class interest. Once again, what is your supposed middle-class class interest?


However I think the market would have to change sufficiently for much of the modern middle-class to slip into the working-class. If this were to happen then they might very well notice their exploitation and want to do something about it.

Those who stay in the middle class, I think, probably still won't care. The upper middle class may even side with the bourgeoisie in such a conflict.

I can't really respond to the first part of your statement, because you're still claiming that no one of the working class is middle class, and vice versa. You cannot "slip into" working class if you already are working class. Not saying the entire middle class is working class, but there does exist those people.

As far as the upper middle class "maybe event aking side with the bourgeoisie." Well that depends... and yes, it depends on their relation to the means of production. Are they LOSING something by fighting wage slavery? If you are working class (regardless of wealth) you lose nothing by destroying wage slavery, if you are petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie you lose something by destroying it. Marx had something to say about that as well. Maybe this time you can find it for yourself.


Perhaps the post-war era was a mere "blip" on the gradual descent of workers into greater poverty; on the other hand, though, capitalism may be able to keep up its flexibility for a good time longer yet.

There are plenty of blips. And I wholeheartedly believe capitalism will be able to keep it's "flexibility" for a good time longer, something of the likes of 200 years may be possible, although it accelerates itself more exponentially as opposed to earlier systems. So this could be a gross over estimate.


No, revolutionary consciousness doesn't necessarily need poverty in order to arise- but it sure helps a lot.

"Revolutionary consciousness" as you put it is a two part problem. It requires material consciousness and class consciousness.

You have two very obvious parts to material consciousness. The first is of course realizing your living condition, it is your "material condition." And thus you are always conscious of this, whether you're rich or poor you are aware of how you live. Material consciousness as a true consciousness, however, is founded in an understanding of your material existence. That is to say, you know not simply how you exist, but that it is a function of why you exist, more to the point, why you exist the way you do.

This can just about be had by anyone willing to take the time to really think about "existence." Certainly being poor might help you to seek out the why, but it does not answer the why.

Class consciousness (apparently something you lack) is the realization of how we are divided. It is born out of material consciousness as well. We see that we are material beings, and we need material conditions to be settled in order to exist. So the obvious question is, how do we get these material conditions. Well as a class, the working class becomes a wage slave to get these material conditions. If this is indeed what causes class consciousness, then it would be said that regardless of someone's wealth or living conditions, this is the ONLY requirement to become class conscious.

Once again, the middle class doesn't have this. You cannot become class conscious, and this is simply because it is not a class. If they are to be materially conscious, a middle class person might look at his suburban neighbor who works as a corporate executive with a decent stock portfolio. His house is only a little bit bigger, he drives a slightly nicer car (but nothing to out there), his wife need not work, and he has two kids who have their college paid for. What precisely is it that makes them share a class with that person if indeed they hold two jobs with mounting credit card debt to hold the same position? They are a "class" because what? Their houses are similar? Their cars are similar? Their kids play baseball together? Both of their kids will go to college?

Maybe I'm just not seeing this because I already AM class conscious, but what the hell do these people really have in common (once again) for thier "middle class" class interest?


If a worker lives in relative comfort, has some luxuries and doesn't have a completely "shit life", he is far less likely to realise his exploitation than one who does not.

Well thankfully him realizing it is not what deems his class.

It is not the realization of your exploitation that determines your class, it is that which determines class consciousness.


Few would consider changing the entire structure of society as possible, or even desirable. None have ever come up to me to say "Fuck it, the boss has extracted the surplus value of my labour embodied in this service from my wages! Viva la revolution"

Luckily, once again, this does not determine class.

I never said they used Marxist terminology. But I've heard countless times of their realization that they are being paid less than the value of their labor, which is of course, surplus value. Would they call it that? No. But the recognize it, regardless of it's name.


And most of the places I've worked have been distinctly shit, low pay jobs, where even I would, without hesitation, class the workers as working-class.

Strange that "actual workers" would be just as unconscious as "middle class" people.

Fact of the matter is, most workers remain reactionary. Even many third world workers who oppose their role are as reactionary as the workers of advanced capitalist nations. For many of them this is why ideologies like Leninism and Maoism are appealing. They're not looking for equality or an end to wage slavery... they're looking for a better life, and it is driven by simple reaction. If fascism was the dominating ideology there and it presented a possibly better life, they'd follow that just the same. For many of these people capitalism is actually what they want, they just don't realize it, because currently they're on the shaft end of the capitalist batton.

This is EXACTLY the same condition as the majority of workers at the moment. It is precisely why we see national animosity between workers. Americans hate Indians taking their tech jobs. Chinese workers see Americans as greedy Imperialists... etc. Just as Marx explained, workers are pinned against workers. We are battling the wars of the bourgeoisie for them, rather than turning our anger towards the system itself.

Until we see actual class consciousness among workers (from all parts of the world) -- there's not much hope. But that will come with time, and as I said, it may take 100 years before we begin to see an equalization in the wealth of the world and before third world workers are eating McDonalds paid in full with their new ViSA platinum card.

It's a tough task to see the full breadth of what is going on, and even when it happens, the current workers might not see it without existing Marxists to point out what has happened. Think about it for a minute. If you were a third world worker in 100 years when your country is now a consumer market too, and you're sitting there eating your McDonalds in your Kia on your lunch break... are you going to stop and think, wow, I'm an exploited worker... just like everyone else... just like people in the US, just like people in Europe, just like people in south America. More than likely you will not.

Once again, it's a time gap. The workers of then will not look back to the workers of now and say, wow... they were really exploited, look at what fools we've been played for by the bourgeoisie. Strange though, how we in advanced capitalist nations CAN look back on that time BEFORE imperialism, when WE were the workers in the most dire straights. When only 100 years ago it was OUR children chained to machines, etc.

But YET AGAIN, this has nothing to do with class, and everything to do with consciousness, both class consciousness and material consciousness. If anything, it hopefully shows why we ARE the same class.


Which is practically almost to do the same thing.

No, because I realize the supposed "middle-class" is made up of a number of different types of people. That is why it's not a class. It has proletarians, petty-bourgeoisie, and even bourgeoisie. This is not practically the same thing, it is realizing that there are existing classes, and the middle class is simply a superimposted "wealth class" created by capitalist economists to pretend the workers have nothing in common. How foolish we would sound if we said, this is a class struggle, the lower class is going to overthrow the upper class and make it all equal. Why? Why wouldn't they just bask in their power? Wealth classes are trash and as archaic as capitalism itself.

[RedLenin]

Ok heres what I think. Correct me if i'm wrong. I think that there are two classes. The proletariat and the borgeoisie. The proletariat is made up of people who A. do not employ others. B. Work for a wage. and C. do not own and control the means of production. The borgeoisie is the opposite. So I guess I would be considered a proletarian. My dad is middle-management but does not employ other, he works for a wage, and he does not own or control the means of production. Ok another question. How are you going to carry out a war against the ruling class? Are you going to go into neighborhoods that you "think" are borgeosie and start killing everyone? If you did this, a lot of proletarians would die. Not to mention relatives of the capitalists who would get caught in the cross-fire. So what would you do? In order to carry out this war you would have to have a lot of information on everyone. And what if one of the capitalists wants to help create communism for some odd reason. Will you let them or just kill them? :huh:

[minusthebear]

as Cobra already stated, the world is made of 2 classes, The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie.

The Proletariat is, essentially, those who dont own the means of production, works for a wage and one is exploited by the Surplus Labour Value.

The Bourgeoise is the class who exploits the S.L.V, owns the means of production and, due to the nature of SLV, doesnt work for a wage.

Middle class is a series of words which shouldnt concern us, as it is made up of the "professional" proletariat, Doctors, Policemen, Firemen, Nurses, Teachers and even soldiers, we are of the same class, the only difference is that the government employs them (over here in Britain they do anyway).

The Middle Class are on our side.

Also, its not about what your parents do or where you were brought up that defines your class, its about what you do for a living.

[NovelGentry]

Also, its not about what your parents do

Actually, it is very much about what your parents do. Hate to break it to you, but if your parents are working class, I doubt you're becoming a member of the bourgeoisie any time soon. Same goes the other way, the role and wealth of the bourgeoisie is kept within families. You can see how primitive such a system is, it does little more than extend the "nobility" so to speak under feudalism. These people are priveleged the minute they are born.

[apathy maybe]

I am of the opinion that if a revolution does happen anytime soon, it shall be one by the service workers as well as the industrial workers. By the hairdressers, as well as the miners, but also by the petite bourgeoisie, the small shop owners.

It shall be opposed by those in higher level management, by those who have the most to lose, sports stars, movie stars, all these are "proletariat" in the traditional sense, that is they don't own the means of production, though they are not property less. Politicians will also oppose any revolution; they want things done their way.

If a revolution happens, it shall be against the corporate capitalism. Not the individual capitalism where one man owned a factory, that almost no longer exists.

The class war of Marx's time was possible, but it is now the case that there are too many "workers" who stand to lose more from any revolution then they do to gain. Marx also discounted the small shop owners and small farmers, they may lose, but they have a lot to gain as well. It is simply isn't the case that all the "workers" have nothing to loose but their chains.

[NovelGentry]

It is simply isn't the case that all the "workers" have nothing to loose but their chains.

Why do you assume workers would lose more than their chains? Sports stars and Movie stars included. Are you planning to take houses away from "middle-class" to "upper-class" workers? There seems to be this strange idea that the government is to appropriate everything the prior society created and then redistribute it accordingly leaving people without houses and cars. Why do you assume this is the case, or even necessary?

There is nothing lost... there was never anything gained. This is class struggle, NOT individual struggle. Remember that every house and car owned by a movie star or a sports star was created by the working class, it is rightfully the working classes. If you are to appropriate those excess goods to the class as a whole, the class has lost nothing, they have only gained what was wrongfully "owned" by the bourgeoisie through their exploitation.

Once again, in order to be a class you must define class interest, and stick to those interests in the context of the class itself. Without doing this you abolish the fundamental principle of class struggle and are left with nothing more than every individual's personal loss or gain. The working class loses nothing -- if you have obtained private property you have obtained something which allows you to subjugate the labor of others, we seek not to abolish these things themselves, only the ability for labor to be subjugated. As was discussed in the thread on private property, we are not changing property, only the social conditions which makes it "private." And thus we are destroying class antagonisms by destroying what makes them possible.

What you probably also fail to realize is that their so called "wage slavery" (that is the wage slavery of actors and sports stars, etc) is more than likely icing on the cake and is not slavery at all. They choose to work. You ignore that because they have private property they are no longer forced to work, that private property can be turned into capital (and probably already has in the form of stock). The majority (and I do mean majority) of these people are NOT working class.

[Hiero]

I am not well read as some people and am not yet able to make a arguement on the situation, but im starting to find a problem. That is people will take a standpoint on who is revolutionary, who is explitoing or who is not exploting in relation to their situation. They keep refering to there situation as an example and then justifying there standpoint.

This is creating the discussion very subjective as it is personal. People do not want to be left out of the revolutionary class so they are bending the laws of class war to fit there situation. This is very bad as it can lead to opportunism (maybe thats not the correct word) and i can't see any labour movement moving forward if we take everything on a personal basis.

[Hiero]

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/ORQMS23.html

There is article about the middle class in pre Soviet Union Russia.

You should check it. Maybe make some comparisons to today.

And don't all *****y and childish "ohh that Stalinist trash he was just a power hungry fascist"

Be mature about it.

[NovelGentry]

This is creating the discussion very subjective as it is personal. People do not want to be left out of the revolutionary class so they are bending the laws of class war to fit there situation.

I don't see this a subjective or personal. I've shown time and time again why the middle class is a myth as a class. Do they exist? Yes, but only when talking about simple wealth classes. When you want REAL classes, with a defining class interest, with a reason why they are that class, and a reason why revolution will change that... you cannot bring in this mutt of a pseudo-class. Nor can you lump the whole pseudo-class on either side of that equation. You HAVE to look at each individual person in such a class and see where they stand. Some WILL lose nothing from revolution, others WILL. And this is where the split is.

I've seen MIM people argue the statement "You have nothing to lose but your chains" has to be taken literally, that you have NOTHING to lose assuming someone wanted to take it from you. I disagree with this and I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism.

The reason you have NOTHING to lose, is because up until now the products of the labor of the working class has only been exploited, and products/wealth only kept from them. You cannot LOSE anything by changing this. You can only gain.

[minusthebear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:28 PM

Also, its not about what your parents do

Actually, it is very much about what your parents do. Hate to break it to you, but if your parents are working class, I doubt you're becoming a member of the bourgeoisie any time soon. Same goes the other way, the role and wealth of the bourgeoisie is kept within families. You can see how primitive such a system is, it does little more than extend the "nobility" so to speak under feudalism. These people are priveleged the minute they are born.
Hmmm well....I can actually kill you off with that one because you can change between class.....like my mum for example, she once was a factory worker, just like me, now she owns her own business....

[VukBZ2005]

1
When Capitalism enters it's final days in a country - the probability
of Social Mobility will be reduced to the point that it would be hard
to get beyond your current status as the Rich upper class would
not allow such things to happen. The only way you would be able
to get to get "on top" would be to exploit your own fellow workers
- which is unfair and ultimately - very inhumane. In fact - it is very
much the case today - but it's not very much at the surface right
at this moment. But eventually it will surface.

[NovelGentry]

Hmmm well....I can actually kill you off with that one because you can change between class.....like my mum for example, she once was a factory worker, just like me, now she owns her own business....

I've addressed this a billion times before. I'm not saying you CAN'T change your class, I'm saying it's difficult and doubtful. When a member of the working class has the unique ability to become petty bourgeoisie (or stranger bourgeoisie) it represents little more than holes within the capitalist class system. Their system causes exploitation on strange market dynamics, not physical totalitarianism, thus there are always times where these are shifting back and fourth, or some company isn't "exploiting as good as it should be" (equatable to: not having a large enough profit margin as they could). It is these times when a few lucky ones can slip through.

It'd be very interesting to see the nature of your "business." I'm not saying you weren't one of the lucky ones, but it'd be interesting to see how your mother (and eventually you) gained the wealth to convert to capital to make a business.

[pandora]

A few are allowed through that acculturate and adapt the codes of the dominant culture to such an extent that they hate people from their own culture ( military officers in Central America of Indigenous descent who hate their own people, African American cops in the ghetto brutalizing their own people who they see as lazy ass thugs because they didn't shape up and fly right to march to the master's drum beat. Thing is in the ghetto people let you know it if you're pulling that shit, which makes these officers all the more violent then their white counterparts)

We see this even with Marxist professors who disenfranchise students from diverse backgrounds for not fitting in or having speech or mannerisms that don't match the upper class :lol: believe me it happens! ;) But if the people from diverse backgrounds can act upper class enough, speak posh and all that then they may even promote them as an assistant and allow someone to slip through the cracks.

The reason a few are allowed to slip through to make it seem like there are opportunities, but these people become the gophers of the upper class. They are worked nearly to death doing all the dirty work, and constantly put under stress with reviews that way people don't get too uppity and think they can change the system with the little power they've been giving, and then they become like the Marxist professor, afraid to take a chance helping a student lest they be judged.