Middle class revolution?

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is from last year, but I just strayed across it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news

According to the 2007 British Ministry of Defense report, "the middle classes could become a revolutionary class". They theorize this because the "middle class" will be torn between an established upper class and an increasingly volatile underclass.

Thoughts? Basically, I'm wondering if there is any truth to the idea that the "middle classes" will be spearheading any kind of revolutionary action in the future. (Not revolution according to the Marxian analysis, just general revolution.)

[Random Precision]

According to the 2007 British Ministry of Defense report, "the middle classes could become a revolutionary class". They theorize this because the "middle class" will be torn between an established upper class and an increasingly volatile underclass.

Obviously the British Ministry of Defense has a different idea of what's meant by the "middle class" than we do.

Nevertheless, it's precisely because of this that they won't become revolutionary. The first thought of every middle class when it comes to revolution is to a) protect their own privileges and b) put the brakes on before anything too radical can happen. They fear revolutions because revolutions can get "out of hand" all too quickly.

On the other hand, we have seen segments of the petty-bourgeoisie of developing nations carry out a partial national-democratic revolution by proclaiming a warped version of Marxism and basing themselves on the peasantry or in limited occasions on the workers- i.e., China, Vietnam, Cuba.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think what the Guardian addresses is the ruling class' fear that the proletarianization of parts of the middle class as part of the capitalist crisis might radicalize them, adding to the power of the working class.

And the Cuban revolution was indeed middle class - of course Castro had to utilize the working class to come to power, but that only means that his revolution was by them, not of them or for them.

[Eros]

The term 'middle-class' is very vague to begin with. It is more of a cultural term that relates to social status than an economic one which describes a particular stratum of society's relationship to production. For example; intellectuals, education professionals in particular, can often hold revolutionary views as their wealth isn't tied to production in the same way as a business owner. They would also technically be workers which I feel demonstrates my point perfectly as they may also be 'middle class'. People come to socialism for many different reasons, it may just initially be out of a sense of what is wrong and what is right.

[BlackCapital]

Totally agree with Eros on this one. The middle class are indeed still workers, although higher in the chain from an economic standpoint. I would imagine it would be the case that some would support and some would oppose, and it would really come down to a moral or idealogical dispute for the "middle" class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is from last year, but I just strayed across it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news

According to the 2007 British Ministry of Defense report, "the middle classes could become a revolutionary class". They theorize this because the "middle class" will be torn between an established upper class and an increasingly volatile underclass.

Thoughts? Basically, I'm wondering if there is any truth to the idea that the "middle classes" will be spearheading any kind of revolutionary action in the future. (Not revolution according to the Marxian analysis, just general revolution.)

I read this a couple of months ago. At that time, I was tempted to post something on this board regarding the article, but I kept quiet. :(

What is not mentioned here is that the MoD's definition of "class" is income-based, and not based on wage labour, value production relations, and legal economic relations.

The "middle class" that tends towards the "increasingly volatile underclass" is still proletarian, no matter what various manual "workerists" on one side or "Multitude" post-modernists like Hardt and Negri on the other would like you to believe.

[Revy]

"The middle class" is a falsehood, I believe. I think that it was more sensible that this was eventually divided into " lower middle class" and "upper middle class", though that defeats the point of a middle class entirely. There are only two main classes, no middle.

Workers defined as "middle class" are not "petty bourgeois" as some might claim - no, the petty bourgeoisie are the small business owners.

As for Che Guevara, that man so revered, he came from an middle class family, which the fetishists might be shocked and horrified to hear about. Indeed, he did not grow up as an impoverished child laborer. I am sorry to spoil it for you all ;)

[Eros]

"The middle class" is a falsehood, I believe. I think that it was more sensible that this was eventually divided into " lower middle class" and "upper middle class", though that defeats the point of a middle class entirely. There are only two main classes, no middle.

Workers defined as "middle class" are not "petty bourgeois" as some might claim - no, the petty bourgeoisie are the small business owners.

As for Che Guevara, that man so revered, he came from an middle class family, which the fetishists might be shocked and horrified to hear about. Indeed, he did not grow up as an impoverished child laborer. I am sorry to spoil it for you all ;)

The bulk of the 'Western' Left are probably from a middle-class background, they are in Ireland anyway; including the various Republican groups who probably have the highest level of support amongst the working class here.

The anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement are especially posh. :D

[scarletghoul]

Well yes, the middle class has always been 'torn between' the ruling and revolutionary classes. So many of them become revolutionary.

[Invincible Summer]

As mentioned earlier, I think the term "middle class" is simply a category created by the ruling classes in order to perpetuate the false notion that one can "move up" in society, or that there's a whole class of people who aren't necessarily poor, but aren't sitting around sipping champagne either.

Basically, it's a "Noble Lie" (to use Plato's words) told to the masses to quell any dissention