Class System - WTF is What

[hazard]

SO most proles out there think there are three classess, right? The upper, middle and lower class. Where did this come from? ANybody know?

Until I find out, I'll just assume that this ridiculous farce of a class system was purposefully constructed by the capitalists in order to disguise the truth from their slaves. Anybody who knows anything know that the upper middle and lower class are non-existent classess. They are all comprised out of one of the two classess, specifically, from the proletariate class.

Which brings me to the truth. There are really TWO classess. Count them. One. The borgeois class. Two. The proletariate class. Or, in layman terms, the ruling class and the slave class. Or, in PC laymen terms, the ruling class and the working class. The upper, middle and lower aspect apply only to the working class.

Any info will help. And I don't want any right wing corporate ass kissing zombies trying to argue. Just some facts.

[kylie]

rk

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It is figured out by using the General Registrar Scale, which is known by many different names.

It is a socio-economic class system from class A through to E:

A - Aristorcracy
B - Professions like Doctor, professors
C1 - Teachers, nurses, police etc.
C2 - skilled work
D - semi skilled work
E - Non skilled manual work

There is more criteria for each class, but you can generally get the picture. C2, D and E are generally regarded as your working class. C1 and lower B are middle class. then the rest is "upper". But in Britain its usually just divided into middle and working. and the line is between C2 and C1.

[mentalbunny]

In Britain there is a huge Middle Class, my family is quite near the top but it goes down quite a long way, then there's the working class, which unfortunately due to my sheltered life I know little about, and there is a small percentage at the top of upper class, aristocracy and such.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally the third was the landowner.

[MiNdGaMe]

It simply works on a pyramid system, you have the upper classes in smaller amounts at the top. Middle classes in medium amount in the middle, and lower classes on the bottom in large amount.

Here is a simple description. The upper classes exploit the lower classes, while the middle classes exploit the lower classes also, but are equally exploited by the upper classes.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well, no, it doesn't "simply" work like that.

Like mentalbunny said, there is a huge middle class. Much bigger than the working class. And it is the same in USA. I don't know where you are from, but I assume you are in either Britain or America. Forgive me if my assumptions are wrong.

Besides, hazard's question was where did this theory come from. Not how it works. You don't need to explain how it works to him, he knows that.

[Silent Eye]

This is a good piece of artwork on the "pyramid of capitalism":

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/capitalism.gif

[Wolfie]

Well you are right about Britian, however, the majority of middle class are lower middle class. Mentalbunny probboly comes from the south where there are a lot of higher middle class around west london, east anglia, bucks, berks, norfolk, dorset etc, but wales, the midlands, the north and scotland are mostly lower middle and working class.

In the national atlas of Great Britians national income section, it places people into 5 social classes:

Upper Class - 2%
Upper Middle - 18%
Middle - 30%
lower middle - 40%
Working - 10%

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

But it isn't meant to be measured on income..it is based on occupation.

[Just Joe]

economic class is split into the upper class of Industrialists and high earners, the middle class of managers, small businessmen, coppers, and the lower or working class of nurses, firefighters and dockers. The middle is by far the biggest. You get a small bit at the bottom who can't be defined; drug addicts, down and outs and so on.

Thats only in economic terms. In Marxist terms, everyone but the tiny minority at the top is 'Prolaterian'. They have to work for a living and are all exploited by the 'Bourgeosie'. There exploited to different extents, thats why Prolaterians are often split up into different sections.

Its really too hard a topic to go on about in one post. I happen to think class background defines someones thought more than there job. Then there the Labour aristocracy theory and the dividing of class into petty bourgeois and scabs and all that. Its a tough one.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The dude wanted to know how class is defined. And it is defined by the General Registrar Scale. He didn't want different theories on it.

Fact is, class IS defined by occupation. Fact is there are 7 groups. A, B, C1, C2, D, E. A to C1 is the "middle class" although A are just aristocracy. C2 and below is the "working class".

Income has nothing to do with class, theories aside. David Beckham is actually in class D. He is classed as a semi-skilled manual worker. He is therefore working class.

[hazard]

thanks comrades

I guess I was basically right, there are only 2 claseess, the ruling and slave classs

all other divisions exist within the slave class as a means to weaken them

as far as I have been taught, the classes, that is the false classess, are defined on income

lower class < 24,000
middles class > 24 000 < 55 000
upper class > 55 000

obviously, the capitalists fall into the "greater than " 55 000 a year category

its BULL anyway you look at it, and a demonization of what the true class system is that is demonized in order to protect the ruling class from revolution

[sc4r]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:49 pm on April 2, 2003
The dude wanted to know how class is defined. And it is defined by the General Registrar Scale. He didn't want different theories on it.

Fact is, class IS defined by occupation. Fact is there are 7 groups. A, B, C1, C2, D, E. A to C1 is the "middle class" although A are just aristocracy. C2 and below is the "working class".

Income has nothing to do with class, theories aside. David Beckham is actually in class D. He is classed as a semi-skilled manual worker. He is therefore working class.


On a technical note (I do work in the marketing industry). DB is an A. A is not as simple as 'aristocracy'; it is people at the very top of their field.

The middle class would certainly be most B and C1 but can also include C2's (many shopkeepers are classed as C2). In a converse way some C1's are not middle class by most definitions (nurses for example).

The basic distinction is that A is top of profession and/or rich enough not to need to keep a job. B and C1 are 'pen pushers' (with a few odd exceptions - Nurses, police in the public sector) C2 - E are manual workers and unemployed.

I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has mentioned the petit bourgesoisie , who are Marx's 'middle class'.

[hazard]

yeah, but sc4r, none of these are actually classess tho, are they?

that was what I was trying to get at, there are only two classes under the actual meaning of the term

all other "classess" are simply constructs of the ruling class that serve to agitate and segregate their workers, that way they are most unable to mass mobilize and revolutionize the mode of production

i can call a cupcake a class but that don't make it one, even if millions of people believe me

[sc4r]

Quote: from hazard on 8:39 am on April 3, 2003
yeah, but sc4r, none of these are actually classess tho, are they?

that was what I was trying to get at, there are only two classes under the actual meaning of the term

all other "classess" are simply constructs of the ruling class that serve to agitate and segregate their workers, that way they are most unable to mass mobilize and revolutionize the mode of production

i can call a cupcake a class but that don't make it one, even if millions of people believe me

The marxist classes are Bourgesoise; Petit Bourgesoise; and Proletariat. These correspond remakably well with Upper, middle and working classes.

The SEG classes I gave only because someone else introduced them and I corrected a very minor misunderstanding about them.

From the POV of understanding Socialism the role of the petit bouirgesoise is important. It is they who more than anybody prop up the system of Capitalism.

[hazard]

I think you misinterpret the intention, the entire conception, of the idea behind the communist manifesto

it is about the conclusion of the class struggle, for there are only 2 classess. the "petit bourgeois" are simply a subset of the proletariate class who will eventually have their means of production bought by the bourgeois proper and are thus forced into the status of wage labourer, that is, proletariate. Marx only mentions them as an illustration of how bi-polar the class struggle has become. the goal of a communist revolution is to remove the divisions based upon class, and is only possible ONCE the class struggle is divided into two classess and two classess only.

Upper class is not bourgeois. At best, the upper class is petty bourgeois. The bourgeoisis have purposefully, and intentionally, eliminated themselves from this false conception of the class system. That way, all the false divisions, such as upper and lower and middles, can struggle endlessly without bringing the actual capitalist class into jeopardy.

or something like that