Question for everyone?

[Abluegreen7]

I have a question for everyone? What happpens to the Middle Class during the Socialist Revolution? What happens to middle class citizens that suppourt the rise of the proletariot?

[Decolonize The Left]

I have a question for everyone? What happpens to the Middle Class during the Socialist Revolution? What happens to middle class citizens that suppourt the rise of the proletariot?

The middle class is an invention of the ruling class to further separate the interests of the working class and pit them against one-another. In reality there are only two classes - the working and the capitalist.

But to answer your question, the middle class would cease to exist as all members would be absorbed into either the working class or the capitalist/ruling class.

- August

[Abluegreen7]

Thank you very much August.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, it is impossble to say what will happen in a revolution ahead of time, but any non-working class individuals who support the working class will be welcome (after all, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trostsky -- and, indeed, most prominent revolutionaries -- were/are non-workers!).

[Abluegreen7]

The reason I asked is the fact that my father is Ultrasound.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry, but what does that mean?

[Abluegreen7]

My father is a sonographer. You know the people that scan pregnant women many times.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sounds like a worker to me then!

[Abluegreen7]

Thanks for your knowledge Rosa.

[N3p7uN3]

What about small merchants?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marx depicted this class as the 'Janus' class, after the Roman 'god' Janus, who had two faces, facing in opposite directions.

They are pulled one way by big capital, and another by the working class. Ever fearful of falling into the latter, they accommodate to the former. However, unremitting competition from the former pushes them toward the latter, so they look to the latter to help counteract the former.

Because of this unstable mix they often go to extremes: ultra-leftism or fascism.

[apathy maybe]

Marx depicted this class as the 'Janus' class, after the Roman 'god' Janus, who had two faces, facing in opposite directions.

They are pulled one way by big capital, and another by the working class. Ever fearful of falling into the latter, they accommodate to the former. However, unremitting competition from the former pushes them toward the latter, so they look to the latter to help counteract the former.

Because of this unstable mix they often go to extremes: ultra-leftism or fascism.
Here is what I said in Shit Chat recently regarding "petit-bourgeois".

The only "petit-bourgeois" who are a problem are the ones who are also bosses. Marxism fails to differentiate between self-employed workers who don't employ/oppress others, and those bosses who happen to have to work as well (either directly with their workers, or at another job).

I have started a much longer article on the subject, but I'm unsure if I've finished it or not. And I'm not about to dig it out just now.

But, the point is simple: if you don't oppress anyone, then you aren't obviously a problem.

Of course, it is to simplify the matter to say that all petit-bourgeois who employ others are going to join the side of "reaction". As Rosa mentioned, they could go either way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You miss the point; it is not a question of whether or not those involved oppress anyone, but their relation to the two main classes.

Even self-employed artisans face pressure from capital accumulation and competition -- a fall into the working class is ever before them. So, they are still pulled in two directions, and often go to extremes.

[apathy maybe]

You miss the point; it is not a question of whether or not those involved oppress anyone, but their relation to the two main classes.

Even self-employed artisans face pressure from capital accumulation and competition -- a fall into the working class is ever before them. So, they are still pulled in two directions, and often go to extremes.
Heh, I believe you miss my point ;). My point is that Marxism doesn't do enough to differentiate between the two types.

Of course, I guess it depends on your focus. If, as most Marxists, your focus is on relation to the means of production, then the "petit-bourgeois" category makes sense. However, my focus is on power and oppression, hence my disagreement on the relevance of the category.

But certainly, self-employed workers do face pressure from capital, and are constantly faced with a "fall" into the mass of "proper" working class.

But, many Marxists (or at least those that use the rhetoric of Marxism) claim that all "petit-bourgeois" are the enemy, even if they have much more in common with the rest of the working class (i.e. they have to work for a living) then with the capitalists (who don't).

[Red Anarchist of Love]

they either give up are are force to give up their status and become a worker in the new classless society

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


My point is that Marxism doesn't do enough to differentiate between the two types.

What do you mean by 'enough'?