Log in

View Full Version : Classes...



Everyday Anarchy
7th November 2005, 23:16
From my understanding, there is the working class, proletarian, and then there is the rich, bourgeois. Is this all there is? What makes you part of each class? What is 'rich'? What if you're unemployed? What if you're 'rich' AND a hardworking, society benefitting, rich man?


Just trying to understand the class differences and definitions.

enigma2517
7th November 2005, 23:38
Its more about means of production than actual wealth.

Workers in the United States or Europe for instance can be VERY wealthy, at least by comparison. My family, for instance, owns 3 cars, a big house, and still has money left over for me to go to college.

The crucial difference is, my parents are still employees. They don't own means of production so they have to sell their labor to somebody who has a building, machinery, etc.

The bourgeois are the people who own all of the capital in the world.

The question comes into mind...what did these people do in the first place to claim "ownership" of this private property. Who does it really belong to?

The people who dug up the raw materials to make it? The people who transported it over there? Oh come on, maybe at least the people who BUILT it? Nope...a single man who doesn't lift a finger holds claim to it.

Thus, communists call for common ownership of all means of production in the world, preferably through autonomous workers councils/syndicates :)

viva le revolution
7th November 2005, 23:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:16 PM
From my understanding, there is the working class, proletarian, and then there is the rich, bourgeois. Is this all there is? What makes you part of each class? What is 'rich'? What if you're unemployed? What if you're 'rich' AND a hardworking, society benefitting, rich man?


Just trying to understand the class differences and definitions.
Well there are other classes as well existing in society.
There are the workers(proletariat), peasants, the lumpen, middle class, then the bourgeois.

THE WORKERS: Or proletariat in marxist terms, constitute working men in industry and manufacture. they are propertyless and forced to sell their labour to survive. They are bound by wage-slavery to the bourgeois. They do not own the means of production, the only value they possess is their labour power, which they sell to the bourgeoisie.


The Peasants: These are present primarily in semi-feudal societies. They are not involved in industry, only on farms and landed estates. They do not however possess a class-consciousness like that of the proletariat, however will join a proletarian uprising due to their equally downtrodden existence. Certain forms of marxism do rely on peasant power to furthur proletarian movements, for eg, Maoism.


The Lumpen: These constitute of the unproductive elements of society and it's dregs, such as criminals etc. although themselves of working class origin do not assist in progressive movements, instead serving as tools of the bourgeois in suppressing proletarian movements. They are largely irrelevant in terms of class-consciousness.

The middle class(petit-bourgeois): These are largely irrelevant in terms of class struggle. going either way depending on whosoever wins. they are a vascillating class without a concrete position. However as a class shrinking in proportion to the proletariat. Constituting those who own small amounts of the means of production, or in employment of the bourgeois at managerial levels.

the bourgeoisie: These constitute the upper class. They own the means of production in society. employ labour on a large scale. EG. industrialists, etc.



In marxist terms the two classes that are most aggressive towards each other are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, representing two extremes in society. The middle class is shrinking in proportion to the proletariat and is slowly incorporated into it due to the advent of monopoly capitalism. The main players are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The rest are largely irrelevant, having no independant position, instead being incorporated into either side.



1. Rich in marxist terms means owning the means of production.

2. if you are unemployed, you temporarily become part of the lumpen class, since you are largely unproductive at that time.

3. Being rich and society benefitting? that's a contradiction, being rich in capitalism entails the exploitation of labour, furthuring oppression of the proletariat, since you then have a vested interest in the status quo. Therefore, being incorporated into the oppressing class cannot benefit society, instead tilts furthur towards class conflict. The entire basis of being rich means exploiting labour power, therefore can benefit self-interest but not society because you are in fact propogating an exploitative system.

Everyday Anarchy
7th November 2005, 23:47
Thanks :)

I think I get it now.


EDIT:
Another question...
What about disabled people who can't work?
And at what age is someone required to begin working for society in a Communist country?

Morpheus
8th November 2005, 01:06
Someone who is involuntarily unemployed for long periods of time and is not a capitalist is part of the lumpenProletariat (under capitalism). If that's caused by being disabled or other things, they're still part of that class.

Ric_god
9th November 2005, 13:09
Of course, part of the reason Communism seems so odd in the UK and US is that the Working Class still generally have very good income, and the classes can become blurred and harder to distinguish. In other, far poorer countries however, these classes can be seen far more obviously.