The Modern Class System in U.S

[MKS]

Over my recent studies, I have come to an intresting question: Are the class systems that were in place during Marxs' time, still in existence or has technology and the "freedom" granted in the American markets created new classes of people. The middle class emerged, blue collar, white collar workers.

For instance a teacher in some states can earn less than a factory worker. Is the factory worker still more oppressed tan the teacher?

Where do we draw the line between burgoise and workingman? Is it only for people who work in industry (manufacturing, factories etc.) or can we include white collar workers?

Secondly, can we really blame those we call burgoise for being burgoise, I think that most people who we give this title are just hapless citizens who are working for surivial and success in their society.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:36 PM
Secondly, can we really blame those we call burgoise for being burgoise, I think that most people who we give this title are just hapless citizens who are working for surivial and success in their society.
It's nothing personal, it's a matter of class. I'm sure there are members of the bourgeoisie who are nice people, but the fact of the matter is that they are on the wrong side of the class line.

That makes them our enemy

[MKS]

they are on the wrong side of the class line

Are the class lines so clearly defined in todays society? Sure there are some burgoise that are conscience of thier stance on the latter, but i would contend that most do not, that most burgoise are simply people who are working for thier families and for there own surivial and success, they are not active oppressors and should not be called our enemy.

Can a Socialist really exist in a capitalist society? Because even the most adimant Socialist has to work within the capitalist system and in many ways depend on it.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:07 AM

they are on the wrong side of the class line

Are the class lines so clearly defined in todays society? Sure there are some burgoise that are conscience of thier stance on the latter, but i would contend that most do not, that most burgoise are simply people who are working for thier families and for there own surivial and success, they are not active oppressors and should not be called our enemy.

Can a Socialist really exist in a capitalist society? Because even the most adimant Socialist has to work within the capitalist system and in many ways depend on it.
If you are an owner of the means of production, you are bourgeoisie. What's unclear about that exactly? If you are an employer, you are exploiting the labor of the workers you employ.

Bill Gates probably has a family, and he may be a nice guy, but again, he's on the wrong side of the class line.

I tend to like Tom Wetzel's class analysis (http://www.workersolidarity.org/replytomacsimoin.html)

[redstar2000]

You could make a pretty strong argument that the details of class structure in modern capitalism are a good deal more complicated than they were in Marx's time -- you might go so far as to say that there is no longer a petty bourgeoisie but rather several distinct "middle classes", each with their own variant class interests.

But underlying those variations and complexities is the one that Marx pointed to and still very much exists -- those who must labor for others in order to survive and those who have sufficient capital that they can live entirely from the labor of others.

Bourgeois social "scientists" do everything they possibly can to obscure this fundamental conflict...but like the crocodile on the sofa, it's still there.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

If you are an employer, you are exploiting the labor of the workers you employ. Quote From SonofRage

But arent the employers being exploited by the CEO's and invesotrs and even the markets they work within? Obviously not to the extent of the laborers, but they are simply products of their society.


those who must labor for others in order to survive and those who have sufficient capital that they can live entirely from the labor of others. Quote From redstar2000

The richest of the rich. Therfore the middle classes can not be counted as burgoise techinicaly, they are not active oppressors they are simply living in the world they were borne, however one could argue that their mere existence creates the existance of the lower classes.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:33 AM


But arent the employers being exploited by the CEO's and invesotrs and even the markets they work within? Obviously not to the extent of the laborers, but they are simply products of their society.
huh? I'm not sure how you are defining employer.

[MKS]

Employer= someone who hires and supervises employees. Does not have to be the propietor of the businees, can be upper or middle management.

[YKTMX]

I was reading a British Industrial History book recently (not for fun, you understand). Basically, in a passage about the so-called "middle class society", the author says that home ownership "blurs the line between labour and capital". He says that home ownership means people can labour without fearing the expropriation of the surplus. He says Marxists "ignore the unpaid work which people do in their own homes".

He says that when people work on their own homes they are "surmounting" alienation by "reintegrating their labour and the objects of their labour".

Interesting, I thought.

[RedLenin]

I think class basically comes down to power relations. Ultimately there are the oppressed and the oppressors. Those who hold power over the workers are the ruling class, those who do not are the working class. I think that both middle mangament and capitalists can both be considered the enemy. There are basically three classes. Working class (has no power and must work to survive) Techno-managerial class (has power over the workers and manages them in the interests of the capitalists but must work to survive) and capitalists (have power over workers and managers and does not need to work to survive).

And yes some bourgeoisie are not conciouse and can be nice but when their interests are threatened, they will do whatever they can to maintain their power.

[MKS]

He says that when people work on their own homes they are "surmounting" alienation by "reintegrating their labour and the objects of their labour". Quote from YouKnowTheyMurderedX

A homeowner works to increase or sustain the value of his property, also to display his "value" to his neighbors.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:18 AM
Employer= someone who hires and supervises employees. Does not have to be the propietor of the businees, can be upper or middle management.
That's not the bourgeoisie, that's the petit-bourgeoisie although the term I prefer is "Techno-Managerial Class." check out that above link by Tom Wetzel

[MKS]

Working class (has no power and must work to survive)

The working class has all the power, we are what fuels industry. If no one worked, there would be no economic systems (capitalist, socialist or communist)

The working class allows the capitalists to hold power over them.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Just to play devil's advocate with a question that could lead to more discussion ... a vast number of middle-class people are white collar workers. They work in information, in insurance, in banking, in lower level management jobs. These people are homeowners, they have families, they work hard, they are, just as MKS said, simply people trying to function within their given society.

In other words, they do not own means of production, now, are these "working-class" people? (not in strict terms of course).

Are they not working for a larger employer, a large company? Do they not themselves feel isolated and alienated in their little cubicles?

They have no say about how things go, they are at risk of being laid off just like everyone else, would these people then be included in a revolution? If not, what do you do with them?

Just some thoughts.

TGOW

[NovelGentry]

In other words, they do not own means of production, now, are these "working-class" people? (not in strict terms of course).

Let's make something abundently clear. The term working class is a misnomer for the class we're talking about anyway, which is actually the proletariat. Is the proletariat a portion (or even the whole) of the working class? Yes. Do they have to be manufacturers? No.

A proletarian is someone who is forced to "sell" their labor to survive, and in doing so surplus value is extracted from that labor by those who "buy" it.

Whether you're a computer programmer sitting in a chair making 100,000 a year or a miner in Africa making 8,000 a year, you are a proletarian. Why do you make so much and them so little? Because the ruling class decided the software that you program which runs the machines that use the steel refined from the iron that the guy in Africa mines was worth that much more -- but either way, the final products acquired from each of your labor is still worth more than the cost of you and every other person's labor who went into those final products combined.

What the proletariat shares as a class is the possibility of gaining the world by overthrowing the bourgeoisie and the chance of losing nothing. And just like in capitalism, both of these people will have jobs under socialism -- but they will, along with all the others, benefit equally from their labor.

[Hiero]

You have to also put into the equation Imperialism.


Whether you're a computer programmer sitting in a chair making 100,000 a year or a miner in Africa making 8,000 a year, you are a proletarian

Lets say the computer programmer is a proleteriat, even though a miner would be on a wage system and a computer programmer wouldn't. The programmer has no need to overthrow the ruling class.

[MKS]

If the lines of the class systems are so blurred, how will we determine where our hostlity should be focused?

My concern is that by simply saying either you are a worker or an oppressor (burgoise), we will alienate large sections the prolitareate, or I as I refer to them, the middle class (upper middle class). While we can make the broad definition of proletariat, there are clear levels within the proletariat. (lower and upper middle class/white collar, blue collar). By being so general in our aims we risk losing the middle classes to the capitalist cause. We should be more specific when naming our enemies so that maybe we can gain wider acceptance, and destory the cloud of the "evil empire" which looms over communists and impedes our progress.

[RedLenin]

Basically, for me, class comes down to this: are you a boss? If you oppress another class you are not working class. I consider anybody but a boss to be an ally. We need not target our enemies. Keep in mind that some of the most dedicated revolutionaries have been middle class. Also, try to remember that we are trying to destroy institutions, not individuals.

[MKS]

Also, try to remember that we are trying to destroy institutions, not individuals.

Also remember insitutions are created and maintained by people. Destroying institutions will destory people.



I consider anybody but a boss to be an ally.

So a plant manager who works 40+ hrs/week is a boss, but he is also an oppressor? Even though he works and has worked the same jobs as the laborers, he is a laborer. Isnt he just living within the system which he was borne into.

this kind of blunt speration and allientation is what makes the middle class cringe at the word communist. Its seems there is no room for interpertation or adaptaion, it becomes or appears to be another form of oppression.
Sounds alot like either you are with us or against us, a great tagline from the current american president.

[RedLenin]

Remember that we are not going to tell anyone that they cannot participate in revolution. I am saying that, in general, the managers have the same interests of the capitalists. We are not going to turn anybody down. If they wish to help us in the struggle, they are more than welcome. We need all the help we can get. When a class struggle (hopefully a non-violent one) comes, people will have to choose sides. I am willing to accept anyone. I myself come from a middle class background and my father works middle management.

Middle management is sort of the middle ground. They can swing either way. What divides them from the workers and the capitalists is their interests. They are not on the best terms with their bosses, but they see the workers as inferior (at least this is the case with the managers i know, including my father). Some may choose to side with the capitalists to keep their privilaged position, while others may choose to side with the workers and unite against a common enemy.

I am willing to accept anyone regardless of class. As ive said before, some of the most dedicated revolutionaries have been middle class. But our goal is not to have a middle class revolution. Our goal is a proletarian revolution.

[NovelGentry]

You have to also put into the equation Imperialism.

Imperialism is capitalism seen through a lense with national borders drawn.


Lets say the computer programmer is a proleteriat, even though a miner would be on a wage system and a computer programmer wouldn't. The programmer has no need to overthrow the ruling class.

Let's not say. The computer programmer IS a proletarian. His labor is exploited, and he is forced to sell his labor to survive. If he stops working his 100,000 will dry up pretty damn fast -- UNLESS he hires someone else and exploits their labor with it.

It's not about how rich you are, it's about where your money comes from. Does the computer programmer have a difficult time relating? No, why should they? Their labor is exploited just the same for profit. Will he recognize it as easily? Maybe not.

But hey, I've seen people here argue that only the people who are paid the least amount of money are exploited. It's this kinda bullshit that gives rise to belief that the entire western world is a labor aristocracy and that third world nations need socialism first -- yet we know damn well they collapse when they try because their means of production are far too underdeveloped.

Capitalism hasn't really run it's course anywhere yet. People in the third world are pissed off, but no matter how hard they try, socialism isn't really possible -- the closest they come is state capitalism with planned economies. While people in the first world aren't so pissed off, but could easily make it if they wanted it.

So we have to wait until capitalism rears it's ugly head. There aren't too many computer programmers who can make 100,000 anymore, or even 50,000. Hell, many of them are jobless!!! Increased exploitation, and thus, poorer conditions will come into play for all workers when capitalism over extends itself.

The proletariat is formed, it's just not conscious yet.

[NovelGentry]

A plant manager working 40+ hours a week, no matter whose boss he may be does not make him bourgeoisie. This is class struggle not, beat the guy who happens to be given more responsibility than you. Unless he maintains ownership in the means of production and is exploiting your labor he is not bourgeoisie.

I don't see why people find these classes so damned difficult to define.

Do you own means of production? Do you have to work? Is your life sustained by the labor of others?

These are very simple questions which can determine which class people are in. Regardless, the division can happen any which way. You could be the poorest person in the world who gets shit on by all the capitalists, and if you raise a gun against the revolution, you are an eenemy. I don't give a shit what class you're part of. This is like questionong whether or not military personell will be "allowed to be shot at" since most of them working class. Shoot at them damnit, they're a function of the state, and they are there to kill you.

This isn't rocket science.

[MKS]

This isn't rocket science.

No, its not, however the lines are hard to see in todays modern world especially in developed nations.

Class sytems have evolved and grown since the eras of Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky etc. in Marxs' time it was easy to determine the oppressed and oppressor, easier than todays collage and subtle distinctions between the burgoise (sp) and the workers. Its hard for a factory worker to accept a middle or upper manager, or even just a guy working in an office as an equal in the class struggle.

[NovelGentry]

But it's not about oppressed and oppressor per se as it is about the bourgeoisie and proletariat, which are still quite easy to see. I'm not sure why you think it has changed so much. Because more wealth exists in the world? that's nice, it's not about wealth. It's about whether your labor is exploited, or whether you exploit others for labor. A computer programmer exploits no one to make his paycheck, no matter how large -- it is still the bourgeoisie who determines his paycheck and everyone elses. And we are all exploited by them. If they didn't make more money off of us than what they paid us, they wouldn't hire us!

[MKS]

that's nice, it's not about wealth. It's about whether your labor is exploited, or whether you exploit others for labor

Doesnt more oppression lead to greater wealth for the ruling class? If it didnt why would they bother.




But it's not about oppressed and oppressor

Burgoise=Oppressor Proletariat=oppressed (in most cases)




A computer programmer exploits no one to make his paycheck, no matter how large -- it is still the bourgeoisie who determines his paycheck and everyone elses

I agree, however one could argue that the computer programmer or middle manager, or even just a "white collar" worker is more a part of the oppression than the factory worker. I see the class system not as a simple division, but as a latter with each step gaining greater responsiblity for oppression, injustice, etc. Is that an incorrect view?

[NovelGentry]

Doesnt more oppression lead to greater wealth for the ruling class? If it didnt why would they bother.

But is all the suddent not exploitation if they're only "exploiting a little" ?? If they made $2 off every person every year that's still billions of dollars a year that is being extracted. And it is still control over means of production, and it is still forced labor, and it is still exploitation.

I don't see how a wealthy proletarian cannot relate to a poor proletarian -- they both are in the same condition. They may not live with the same troubles, but the share that aspect of being exploited, and thus can find something to relate on. While even the wealthiest proletarians cannot share the common aspects of bourgeoisie society.

You can go out, buy a boat, buy a nice big SUV, and fill it up every day full of gas... but at the end of the day the proletarian still balanches his check book and thinks about becoming rich, while the bourgeoisie pays someone to cook the books and become a bit richer.


Burgoise=Oppressor Proletariat=oppressed (in most cases)

Yes, but these roles exist in previous societies too -- furthermore, they exist within the classes. Can anti-gay proletarians not oppress gay proletarians? What about racist proletarians? Are we going to all the sudden pretend these forms of oppression do not exist? While we certainly see them upheld a great deal by the bourgeois interest to divide us, they still exist. So we cannot simply say "oppressed" and "oppressor" -- this is class struggle, that is my point.


I agree, however one could argue that the computer programmer or middle manager, or even just a "white collar" worker is more a part of the oppression than the factory worker.

Why? Because the boss told him to tell other people what to do. This is my point, it's not a game of "who's the boss." I was a boss once... the whole damn place was micromanaged. Your boss has a boss too, just because they tell you what to do doesn't mean they are forcing you into wage slavery.

Maybe we should go so far to argue it's the proletariat's fault because they work for the bourgeoisie -- so obviously they uphold the capitalist system!!! Kill all the proletarians!!!

The white collar worker has to make money too ya know, as does the blue collar, as does the no collar. But none of these people, unless they are exploiting the labor of others, can simply stop working and not have a care in the world. They live like they do on the condition that they work, not regardless of whether they work. The bourgeoisie is above this.

The way we determine class has nothing to do with how big of a house you live in, or what car you drive... although these can be indicators... many times they are, it is not how we define these classes.


but as a latter with each step gaining greater responsiblity for oppression, injustice, etc. Is that an incorrect view?

Yes, it is an incorrect view. Because there are two types of responsibility when bad things happen, the ones who actually do them, and the ones who sit by and let them do them. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, the vast majority of the population, including the vast majority of proletariats, sits by and let's them do them. This doesn't mean some white collar worker is the cause of third world sweatshops... that's nonsense. Is he in a position to oppose them? yes, the same position that every single proletarian is in.

General Manager says to store manager, "Hey Bill, we need to cut down on costs, fire 3 people." It's not the fault of the store manager, he is just as much held hostage to the will from above as anyone else. Even the General Manager might be. If he doesn't fire 3 people, he gets fired. We're all in this boat, assuming we want to keep our livlihood.

[Hiero]

Let's not say. The computer programmer IS a proletarian. His labor is exploited, and he is forced to sell his labor to survive.

Even if he is, his skills are thought of higher in society and he is payed well for it, he is most likely reactionary.



If he stops working his 100,000 will dry up pretty damn fast -- UNLESS he hires someone else and exploits their labor with it.

If the Capitalist stops doing his job his capital will dry up really fast. Whats your point?


People in the third world are pissed off, but no matter how hard they try, socialism isn't really possible -- the closest they come is state capitalism with planned economies.

With great increases in health, education, wages, democracy, life expectations and not to forgot a new thorn in the side of US imperialism.

[NovelGentry]

Even if he is, his skills are thought of higher in society and he is payed well for it, he is most likely reactionary.

Time for a wakeup call, the majority of the proletariat IS reactionary... for now.


If the Capitalist stops doing his job his capital will dry up really fast. Whats your point?

What? The capitalist doesn't have a job.


With great increases in health, education, wages, democracy, life expectations and not to forgot a new thorn in the side of US imperialism.

Well yes, that is what capitalism does, whether it's state capitalism or regulated capitalism or free market capitalism. The whole point of it is to advance the means of production and thus production itself and thus the products and services.

[MKS]

I don't see how a wealthy proletarian cannot relate to a poor proletarian -- they both are in the same condition

Are they? The wealthy proletariat has more comfrort, more earning potential, more "value", more wealth. They are comfortable, poor proletariats are not, they live paycheck to paycheck (if theyre lucky), usually live in urban areas which are infamous with horrible public educations systems, and face less job security as they are on the bottom of the latter, they're more expendable than the computer scientist, architect, etc. I consider myself lower middle class, if I didnt live with roomates and have generous parents I would be living in a box, however i still struggle for everything i have and often resent the "yuppies" who do not. Although they could be consdered proletariat I would never consider them equals in the struggle upon just a broad definition.


proletarian still balanches his check book and thinks about becoming rich

because its possible for them to become rich and for thier kids to become rich, but for the lower proletariat it wealth will never materialize.

You did make a good point in that the proletariat is apathetic or just ignorant about the class struggle and systems. However we could balme the proletariat for thier postition, why dont we rise up? why do we just let it be? I think because most of the proletariat, the middle classes see nothing wrong with the way things are and never will unless they are brought down a peg.

[Hiero]

Time for a wakeup call, the majority of the proletariat IS reactionary... for now.

Who has more of a class conscious an african miner or a $100000 year computer program?

I think you need a wake up call saying that


a computer programmer sitting in a chair making 100,000

and a


a miner in Africa making 8,000 a year,

have anything in common.


What? The capitalist doesn't have a job.

Don't be stupid. The capitalist does have work to do. If he didn't he would be screwed over by his employee's, investors, bankers, partners etc.


The whole point of it is to advance the means of production and thus production itself and thus the products and services.

And how didn't the USSR, Cuba, China and DPRK not do this? The means of production were centralised in the hands of the state for the benefit of the working class.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:36 PM
OFor instance a teacher in some states can earn less than a factory worker. Is the factory worker still more oppressed tan the teacher?
I don't think that's a useful question. As Engels pointed out, the important thing about the working class isn't its suffering, but its potential revolutionary power.

From that viewpoint, of course industrial workers aren't the only one who are working class - no Marxist has ever though so. (Rather, the working class is everyone who can live only by selling their labor power.)

But industrial workers do have a special importance due to their role in producing most value, and most profit, and their potential power due to their place in the production process. Working farmers and farmworkers are also important as producers of value, profit, and essential necessities of life.

I'd say public school teachers are workers. At some level of privilege, IMO, professionals cease being part of the working class...they have something to sell other than their labor-power, whether you wanna call it their diploma or whatever, anyway they have a special status and often an artificial scarcity of certain types of labor (the AMA!), which enables 'em to rake in much more than the value of their labor-power. These professionals do benefit from the exploitation of workers and working farmers worldwide, since the capitalists give 'em a cut.

Where exactly this line is drawn can be pretty fuzzy though.


Secondly, can we really blame those we call burgoise for being burgoise, I think that most people who we give this title are just hapless citizens who are working for surivial and success in their society.

No, the problems of the world are caused by a system, rather than bad individuals. But by the same token...so what if they're "just hapless citizens"? Their role in the system is the same. If they don't like it, it's pretty easy to leave the ruling class, y'know, just give away your money, much easier than joining it. But somehow few people choose to do so.

Class hatred is an essential revolutionary weapon.