Does a landowner class still exist in the developed world?

[Fellow_Human]

As distinct from the capitalists in particular and the bourgeoisie in general. From what I gather, the landowner class faded into irrelevance by the World War period, in the process of the US Long Depression and the British Agricultural Depression (both 1873--1896), at a time when the bulk of the peasantry dissolved in the proletariat.

The reason why the landowners remained so important in the 19th century is because they often owned the very land on which the capitalists had their factories and enterprises built and run. This was certainly true in England, where capitalists paid rent; and even in the US, capitalists mortgaged their real estate.

I noticed that today, among the bourgeois, the most reactionary views are held by those sections whose wealth is concentrated in the "landed" industries: fossil fuels, mining, logging, fishing, real estate, construction, and perhaps agriculture. This group of bourgeois seems to be fully separate from both the finance capitalists (e.g., Wall Street) and the industrial capitalists (e.g., Silicon Valley, the manufacturing sector). Even if the landowner class has been done away with, there is the diverging sector composition in the economy, as maintained by the advanced division of labor.

Otherwise, I do not understand why the conservative movement has not gone extinct along with the nobility and the landowner class in general -- even the liberal conservatism (e.g., US Republican establishment, Thatcherism), let alone the truly reactionary classical/traditionalist conservatism (e.g., Toryism, Cornerstone Group, Dark Enlightenment). Whose interests does it serve? From my understanding, the nobility (around 2% of the European population) dissolved mostly in -- or merged mostly with -- the haute upper echelons of the bourgeoisie.

[ComradeAllende]

As distinct from the capitalists in particular and the bourgeoisie in general. From what I gather, the landowner class faded into irrelevance by the World War period, in the process of the US Long Depression and the British Agricultural Depression (both 1873--1896), at a time when the bulk of the peasantry dissolved in the proletariat.

My understanding is that the landowning class split in two following the end of the Gilded Age. The first part (i.e. the landed gentry) dissolved into the capitalist class, effectively becoming capitalists themselves. The second (and more impoverished) part merged with the petty bourgeois and was concentrated in the cities, renting apartments and cottages to working-class households and possibly owning small businesses alongside these holdings.

I noticed that today, among the bourgeois, the most reactionary views are held by those sections whose wealth is concentrated in the "landed" industries: fossil fuels, mining, logging, fishing, real estate, construction, and perhaps agriculture. This group of bourgeois seems to be fully separate from both the finance capitalists (e.g., Wall Street) and the industrial capitalists (e.g., Silicon Valley, the manufacturing sector). Even if the landowner class has been done away with, there is the diverging sector composition in the economy, as maintained by the advanced division of labor.

I would say that these reactionary views are rooted in the petty bourgeois nature of the poorer landowners, who are vulnerable to major economic shocks like inflation as well as the increasing concentration of capital in monopolies, trusts, and large corporations. Historically, small landowners have identified with fascism (i.e. "middle class socialism"), nationalism, and reactionary conservatism
(support for monarchy, military rule, etc).

Otherwise, I do not understand why the conservative movement has not gone extinct along with the nobility and the landowner class in general -- even the liberal conservatism (e.g., US Republican establishment, Thatcherism), let alone the truly reactionary classical/traditionalist conservatism (e.g., Toryism, Dark Enlightenment). Whose interests does it serve? From my understanding, the nobility (around 2% of the European population) dissolved mostly in -- or merged mostly with -- the haute upper echelons of the bourgeoisie.

I would argue that conservatism (in the European sense) has survived by adapting to capitalism; the merging of the aristocracy and the capitalists has led to an "ideological competition" of sorts between reactionary conservatism (favored by small capitalists, nationalist capitalists, and the petty bourgeois) and the various forms of liberalism (favored by cosmopolitan elites, the professional upper-middle class, and multi-national capitalists). You can see that in the fractious divide within the capitalist class over issues of immigration and globalization, as well as how the factions involved sway opportunistically from one pole to the other (Silicon Valley and Trump, for example). Conservatism survives because of its roots to far-right populism and fascism, which are ideological descendants and permutations of traditional throne-and-altar conservatism and disseminates it amongst the vulnerable middle classes (who are very receptive to far-right politics).

[Fellow_Human]

I would say that these reactionary views are rooted in the petty bourgeois nature of the poorer landowners

This is an easily overlooked nuance. We're both inclined to agree that landowners have ceased to exist as a class, so are you referring to small business owners in hospitality (innkeepers, motel owners, hostel owners, etc.) and small lessors (for most of whom rent is not their main source of income)? They cannot be very numerous today.

Secondly, my memory might be failing me on this one, and I wish I still had the source, but I've seen an analysis that even among US billionaires, support for the Republican Party is greater among members of the land-related industries.

At any rate, it's more difficult to determine whose interests a movement serves than whom it draws its support from. Since the bourgeoisie is a numerical minority, and since in modern liberal democracy each vote is equal, the bourgeoisie often has to rely on populism.

small landowners have identified with [...] reactionary conservatism (support for monarchy, military rule, etc).

And the Church.

I would argue that conservatism (in the European sense) has survived by adapting to capitalism; the merging of the aristocracy and the capitalists has led to an "ideological competition" of sorts between reactionary conservatism (favored by small capitalists, nationalist capitalists, and the petty bourgeois) and the various forms of liberalism (favored by cosmopolitan elites, the professional upper-middle class, and multi-national capitalists).

I'm sure there are some caveats. For example, in agriculture, big owners gain from free trade and immigration, while the workers stand to lose (at least in the short term). In fact, no other industry lobbied nearly as much for the TTIP as agribusiness & food.

If this "ideological competition" is the result of the merging of the aristocracy with the bourgeoisie, it represents a surprising inversion. While conservatism was originally the ideology of the aristocracy, you suggested that the landed gentry dissolved into the capitalist class, which you -- and many others -- associate with liberalism and opposition to conservatism.

You can see that in the fractious divide within the capitalist class over issues of immigration and globalization,

So you are suggesting that the most important distinction between liberalism and conservative-nationalist axis is internationalism versus autarky? That seems quite reasonable, despite the protectionism of social democrat-leaning "progressivist" liberals and the interventionism of neoconservatives, but also important is the liberal concept of limited government, when conservatism is more prone to authoritarianism (militarism, police state, retributive justice, capital punishment, prison labor, torture, various breaches of human rights, surveillance, favoring the executive branch over the legislative branch, etc.).

This is one reason why I'm unconvinced that the support base or beneficiary of liberalism is haute bourgeois, and of conservatism petite bourgeois, rather than the other way around. Why would the petite bourgeoisie advocate for greater government authority than the haute bourgeoisie does when the latter has more power over the government than the former does? More than that, why would then liberal conservatives support large-scale bailouts while classical liberals/neoliberals oppose them?

Also, agrarianism is a typically classical conservative phenomenon. Even if conservative politics doesn't *serve* the interests of the majority of the rural population, perhaps it reflects the antagonisms between the countryside and the city in some nation-states.

A prominent disagreement between nationalism and traditionalist conservatism is that the former promotes national autarky, but the latter promotes local/regionalist autarky. Moreover, fascism is explicitly imperialist/interventionist, whereas some other forms of nationalism are isolationist.

With all that in mind, I'm inclined to take to heart my former Marxist professor's assertion that the thriving of conservative separatist and regionalist movements in Europe (very often backed by Russia) is a reflection of the desire of local elites to control the financial flows from the extraction and processing of natural resources.

as well as how the factions involved sway opportunistically from one pole to the other (Silicon Valley and Trump, for example).

Please, I would like an elaboration of what you mean in this clause.

[ComradeAllende]

This is an easily overlooked nuance. We're both inclined to agree that landowners have ceased to exist as a class, so are you referring to small business owners in hospitality (innkeepers, motel owners, hostel owners, etc.) and small lessors (for most of whom rent is not their main source of income)? They cannot be very numerous today.

Secondly, my memory might be failing me on this one, and I wish I still had the source, but I've seen an analysis that even among US billionaires, support for the Republican Party is greater among members of the land-related industries.

I'd argue that the number of "petty landowners" is not as small as you might think, partly because I include groups that are only tangentially-related to "landed" industries, like realtors, property appraisers, and insurance salesmen. As for your second point, I'd argue that the "extractive" and "landed" elements of the capitalist class are more reactionary due to the peculiarities of their operations. For the most part, it is virtually impossible to outsource these industries to cheaper Third World nations, making these industries an integral part of local and regional communities (tying them to regional and national cultures) and effectively shielding them from the politically-liberalizing influence of globalization. And I remember reading a quote from President Eisenhower talking about how the "social democratic hegemony" of the postwar years was only resisted by crazies and Texas oil tycoons, the latter being among the most reliable elements of the Old Right in postwar society.

I'm sure there are some caveats. For example, in agriculture, big owners gain from free trade and immigration, while the workers stand to lose (at least in the short term). In fact, no other industry lobbied nearly as much for the TTIP as agribusiness & food.

If this "ideological competition" is the result of the merging of the aristocracy with the bourgeoisie, it represents a surprising inversion. While conservatism was originally the ideology of the aristocracy, you suggested that the landed gentry dissolved into the capitalist class, which you -- and many others -- associate with liberalism and opposition to conservatism.

I think that capitalism tends to have a "liberalizing" affect on the owners of the means of production. As the neoliberals often say, "markets aren't racist." A gross (and somewhat inaccurate) oversimplification, but it contains a kernel of truth. After all, multinational corporations have to engage in commerce with clients and partners from various "exotic" cultures; at some point tolerance and diversity is going to "win out" over ethnocentrism and nationalism, especially when competition is global. I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank where one of the guests refused to outsource his business in exchange for investment with the sharks; he even talked about how some of the people in his town had been dislocated due to outsourcing, and he mixed genuine sympathy with national pride in defending his business practices. The sharks obviously represent "Big Capital", which tends to prioritize profit margins over "irrational" matters like national pride or cultural membership. But for me, the guest effectively encapsulates the mentality of certain elements of the "national bourgeoisie", which prioritizes profits but is far more skeptical of globalization and cultural interaction. As capital concentrates into fewer and fewer hands, this view tends to dissipate, but like the petty bourgeoisie it is never completely squashed.

Why would the petite bourgeoisie advocate for greater government authority than the haute bourgeoisie does when the latter has more power over the government than the former does? More than that, why would then liberal conservatives support large-scale bailouts while classical liberals/neoliberals oppose them?

I guess that would depend on the social and historical context. In my mind, Big Capital (especially finance and industry) chafes under the rule of the "regulatory state" on their operations, as well as resenting the higher taxes that expansive social-democratic programs require. You see a lot of talk about "deregulation" and "fiscal responsibility" amongst corporate bigwigs like Michael Bloomberg and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, as well as the bond traders and expert analysts on Wall Street and CNBC. But you also see it in the petty bourgeoisie, particularly during the Tea Party protests that were tinted with libertarian-ish politics. I mean, the petty bourgeois is basically embattled on two fronts: on the one hand they have to compete with their bigger and more-efficient rivals, and on the other hand they have to deal with the administrative burden of the regulatory state and the taxes imposed under social-democratic regimes (which Big Business is much better at swallowing or even evading).

However, there are cases when this situation is inverted. In times of severe capitalist crisis, Wall Street was literally begging for bailout money from the Treasury and QE relief from the Fed. Likewise, the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie have been among the most consistent supporters of Trump's protectionist and tough-on-immigration platform, since they benefit from reduced global exchange and are thus far less susceptible to the "liberalizing" influence of globalization.

Please, I would like an elaboration of what you mean in this clause.

This is just a rehash of my earlier points. Big Business is anti-government until a crisis hits and they need a bailout; likewise, the supposedly-liberal tycoons in Silicon Valley were notoriously anti-Trump (most of their donations went to Clinton, as I recall) until Trump won the election, and then they lined up in front of the White House to make up and talk business.

[willowtooth]

As distinct from the capitalists in particular and the bourgeoisie in general. From what I gather, the landowner class faded into irrelevance by the World War period, in the process of the US Long Depression and the British Agricultural Depression (both 1873--1896), at a time when the bulk of the peasantry dissolved in the proletariat.

The reason why the landowners remained so important in the 19th century is because they often owned the very land on which the capitalists had their factories and enterprises built and run. This was certainly true in England, where capitalists paid rent; and even in the US, capitalists mortgaged their real estate.

I noticed that today, among the bourgeois, the most reactionary views are held by those sections whose wealth is concentrated in the "landed" industries: fossil fuels, mining, logging, fishing, real estate, construction, and perhaps agriculture. This group of bourgeois seems to be fully separate from both the finance capitalists (e.g., Wall Street) and the industrial capitalists (e.g., Silicon Valley, the manufacturing sector). Even if the landowner class has been done away with, there is the diverging sector composition in the economy, as maintained by the advanced division of labor.

Otherwise, I do not understand why the conservative movement has not gone extinct along with the nobility and the landowner class in general -- even the liberal conservatism (e.g., US Republican establishment, Thatcherism), let alone the truly reactionary classical/traditionalist conservatism (e.g., Toryism, Dark Enlightenment). Whose interests does it serve? From my understanding, the nobility (around 2% of the European population) dissolved mostly in -- or merged mostly with -- the haute upper echelons of the bourgeoisie.

Im curious as to how your defining landlord class, obviously landlords still exist, so do monarchies and nobility, in UK for example about half the rural land is owned by less than 1% of the people. I also wouldn't say the most reactionary views are held in "landed" industries, rural industries maybe. For example the real estate industry is largely based in the major cities, New york is often called the real estate capital of the world. The act of renting your farmland isn't very common in the US, especially without a working relationship more closely related to a tenant farmer or sharecropper than any fuedal landlord. so when you say you "do not understand why the conservative movement has not gone extinct along with the nobility and the landowner class" I have to ask what makes you think the nobility and landlord class have gone extinct?

[Fellow_Human]

I'd argue that the number of "petty landowners" is not as small as you might think, partly because I include groups that are only tangentially-related to "landed" industries, like realtors, property appraisers, and insurance salesmen.

Then that's not so much a social class -- or even the "stratum" of one, in the strict sense -- as merely a sector of the economy.

As for your second point, I'd argue that the "extractive" and "landed" elements of the capitalist class are more reactionary due to the peculiarities of their operations. For the most part, it is virtually impossible to outsource these industries to cheaper Third World nations, making these industries an integral part of local and regional communities (tying them to regional and national cultures) and effectively shielding them from the politically-liberalizing influence of globalization.

Exactly what I thought. And it applies to the small players and the tycoons alike.

so when you say you "do not understand why the conservative movement has not gone extinct along with the nobility and the landowner class" I have to ask what makes you think the nobility and landlord class have gone extinct?

The tendency of capitalism to polarize society into two prime classes? The landowner class, in its feudal incarnation, had been declining for a long time. Big companies no longer rely on lessors; they have their own land. If you look at Forbes's 2000+ item long list of billionaires, you will find a small minority of individuals whose net worth is derived from real estate or other natural resources, and then probably even not in the form of rent. Oil tycoons, hoteliers, agriculturalists and the like all run their businesses in typical bourgeois schemes.

But this is only if it *has* gone extinct. If it hasn't, then it's less surprising that political conservatism hasn't either. However, the question of demographics remains.

I've found circumstantial evidence for the estimation that the proletariat is ~80% of the population (30% lumpen and 50% steady), that the petite bourgeoisie is 15-20% of the population, and that the capitalist class is a smaller minority of perhaps 1-5%. This leaves little to no room for landowners. (Also, There's 3 million farmers and over a million hired farmworkers in the US (jointly 2.6% of the employed workforce, <2% of the general population), but I'm unsure as to whether they can be described as a distinct social class in their own right.)

obviously landlords still exist

Well, just because someone leases an apartment to someone doesn't in itself assign them to a particular class, especially when most of their income is derived from other sources. Even petty lessors seem to be few in number, to say nothing of the big landowner class of the past.

so do monarchies and nobility

There are still some absolutist monarchies around, such as Saudi Arabia, but none in the developed world.

The nobility is nominal. It no longer comprises a class, as its titles don't grant its members any specific relation to the means of production.

I also wouldn't say the most reactionary views are held in "landed" industries, rural industries maybe. For example the real estate industry is largely based in the major cities, New york is often called the real estate capital of the world.

Like in Donald Trump's case. I'm not sure if you've seen what I said a previous post, so I'll quote it:

[M]y memory might be failing me on this one, and I wish I still had the source, but I've seen an analysis that even among US billionaires, support for the Republican Party is greater among members of the land-related industries.

[willowtooth]

The tendency of capitalism to polarize society into two prime classes? The landowner class, in its feudal incarnation, had been declining for a long time. Big companies no longer rely on lessors; they have their own land. If you look at Forbes's 2000+ item long list of billionaires, you will find a small minority of individuals whose net worth is derived from real estate or other natural resources, and then probably even not in the form of rent. Oil tycoons, hoteliers, agriculturalists and the like all run their businesses in typical bourgeois schemes.

I seriously doubt that if you looked at the investment portfolios of everyone on the the forbes list you would not find any land ownership, in fact I would bet every single one of them owns land as an investment either directly or through a financial vehicle like a REIT, as well as their own land. The biggest problem with the things like Forbes list is that it fails to take into account things like family wealth. Bill gates or warren buffets children may end up being dirt poor one day, you can't say the same about the queen of englands kids. Sam walton was once on top of that list but when he died his fortune was divided amongst his children, now his kids aren't really wealthier than they were the day before he died, but together all 4 of them only have 30 billion each and no longer grace the top of the list. The same goes for a lot of wealthy families who on paper can be totally broke and own nothing but their families are worth billions.

The king of saudi arabia is the owner of saudi arabia. He is technically worth hundreds of trillions. The Queen of england is still the largest landowner in the world, she is worth atleast $20 trillion as well. Dwarfing everyone on the forbes list combined. There are still 26 monarchies left in the world. Not including the royal families of countries that have abolished or expelled there monarchists long ago, their families are usually still incredibly wealthy.

But this is only if it *has* gone extinct. If it hasn't, then it's less surprising that political conservatism hasn't either. However, the question of demographics remains.

It hasn't

I've found circumstantial evidence for the estimation that the proletariat is ~80% of the population (30% lumpen and 50% steady), that the petite bourgeoisie is 15-20% of the population, and that the capitalist class is a smaller minority of perhaps 1-5%. This leaves little to no room for landowners. (Also, There's 3 million farmers and over a million hired farmworkers in the US (jointly 2.6% of the employed workforce, <2% of the general population), but I'm unsure as to whether they can be described as a distinct social class in their own right.)

I could find circumstantial evidence saying the proletariat is 5% of the population, which country are you talking about? Are you estimating the entire world? I think your using lenin's analysis of post revolution russia, and applying that to the entire globe. The nobility was and landowner class was virtually eliminated in the USSR but not the entire world. Factory workers were some ridiculously high number like 45%, so maybe then you could extrapolate that into 80% back then, and in that country in particular but not the whole world.

Well, just because someone leases an apartment to someone doesn't in itself assign them to a particular class, especially when most of their income is derived from other sources. Even petty lessors seem to be few in number, to say nothing of the big landowner class of the past.

well thats why I am asking for a clearer definition, if I own a small investment property but I also work an unrelated job 9-5 I'm a landowner. But would I then qualify as the landowning class? If not then whats the line?

There are still some absolutist monarchies around, such as Saudi Arabia, but none in the developed world.

The nobility is nominal. It no longer comprises a class, as its titles don't grant its members any specific relation to the means of production.

Saudi arabia is pretty developed, i would much rather live in Riyadh then alot of democratic countries, and a monarch is still a monarch regardless of what their constitution says, so england and japan are both monarchies. With nobility with virtually the same relation to production they once had. We could include economic royalists in this definition as well, the vanderbilt's and rockefellers are still some of the wealthiest most powerful families in the world spread over dozens even hundreds of distant family members

Like in Donald Trump's case. I'm not sure if you've seen what I said a previous post, so I'll quote it:

Speaking of names, Trump interestingly enough earns a large chunk of his income renting his name to different companies, and would actually be wealthier today if he had simply stuck his inheritance into a safe investment like an ETF. But when you say landed industries, you can't then use a New York real estate financier like trump as the example of landowner, then on top of that make it seem like a wall st banker has less reactionary tendencies by comparison, which simply isn't true.

Republicans stick to whats called the southern strategy or "God, Guns, and Gays" this gives them a strong base in rural communities, as well as religious communities no matter where they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...r-vote/263942/

[Fellow_Human]

well thats why I am asking for a clearer definition, if I own a small investment property but I also work an unrelated job 9-5 I'm a landowner. But would I then qualify as the landowning class? If not then whats the line?

I suppose I could define a member of a landowner class as an individual who can live entirely on rent and most of whose income comes in the form of rent, or an individual who is a financial dependent of the same.

However, Karl Kautsky cautioned against conflating the petty landowner with the "haute" landowner, and yet I can't remember him instructing the reader on how to distinguish between the two. Obviously, there was no doubt as to the class status of the 19th-century Englishman who owned the land on which his capitalist tenant ran his factory. He, at least, doesn't exist anymore.

I seriously doubt that if you looked at the investment portfolios of everyone on the the forbes list you would not find any land ownership, in fact I would bet every single one of them owns land as an investment either directly or through a financial vehicle like a REIT, as well as their own land.

Yes, but only a small portion of their income would come in the form of rent.

Maybe it's just arbitrary taxonomy to say this, but you can't belong to more than one class at a time.

The king of saudi arabia is the owner of saudi arabia. He is technically worth hundreds of trillions. The Queen of england is still the largest landowner in the world, she is worth atleast $20 trillion as well. Dwarfing everyone on the forbes list combined. There are still 26 monarchies left in the world.

Well, that's just one individual or one family per state. A class is more than that.

I could find circumstantial evidence saying the proletariat is 5% of the population, which country are you talking about? Are you estimating the entire world?

I'm talking about the US (because US statistics are so readily available online), but it probably also applies to other Western countries. Globally, the proletariat has now become the largest class.

IRS statistics confirm that you have to go even smaller than the top 1% of American "earners" to find a group most of whose income comes in the form of *capital* income. To this, add the top executives, top bureaucrats, top military officials, judges, hedge fund managers, etc., and the figure still probably doesn't come close to 5%.

Then I estimated the number of petite bourgeois, based on the official US census. As a percentage of the workforce or of the working-age population, 15% seems reasonable, maybe 20, maybe less than 15. As you'll see, that's a liberal estimate. There are around 6 million small business employers in the US. To these, add middle management (less than 5 million), and the professionals: 7 and a half million legal and business professionals (lawyers, financiers, including accounts, and marketing experts, including sales & PR), as well as almost 6 million STEM, medical and academic professionals, closer to 9 million now if you account for the rapid growth of the software engineering occupation (professors, scientists; engineers, architects; physicians, dentists, opticians, audiologists, podiatrists, and pharmacists). You could also add journalists, authors, psychologists and such, if you want, but that's less than a million.

Now consider the lumpenproletariat. The unemployed, unemployable, unsteadily employed, etc. The employment-to-population ratio (0.674 in the US) is not an impeccable measure because it doesn't account for the fact that a large proportion of the 15-to-64-aged population is still in school, but neither does it account for those who are insecurely employed. I have seen at least one other source, not in my possession now, suggesting a "declassed" population of 30%. This is without counting financial dependents who are stay-at-home spouses.

Finally, that leaves us with a 50% of steady-proletarian population.

The majority of the Medieval population was made up of peasants, so it's not surprising if the majority of the Modern one is proletarians.

Saudi arabia is pretty developed, i would much rather live in Riyadh then alot of democratic countries

I mean, if you're a man.

I admit I referred mainly to Western countries, and perhaps some of the Eastern Asian ones (like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan).

and a monarch is still a monarch regardless of what their constitution says, so england and japan are both monarchies.

Constitutional monarchism is closer to republicanism than to absolutism. The bourgeoisie is quite at peace with constitutional monarchy.

We could include economic royalists in this definition as well, the vanderbilt's and rockefellers are still some of the wealthiest most powerful families in the world spread over dozens even hundreds of distant family members

They're bourgeois AF.

When has a liberal ever been against inheritance rights? You're a capitalist if you live off capital regardless of whether you inherited it or acquired it through whatever other means. Inheritance doesn't make you a monarch or a royal.

[Fellow_Human]

On second thought, it's questionable whether "limited government" (and "liberal democracy") is an integral principle of liberalism. There have been authoritarian liberal regimes, such as those of Augusto Pinochet and Lee Kuan Yew, or even Napoleon I.

[willowtooth]

I suppose I could define a member of a landowner class as an individual who can live entirely on rent and most of whose income comes in the form of rent, or an individual who is a financial dependent of the same.

However, Karl Kautsky cautioned against conflating the petty landowner with the "haute" landowner, and yet I can't remember him instructing the reader on how to distinguish between the two. Obviously, there was no doubt as to the class status of the 19th-century Englishman who owned the land on which his capitalist tenant ran his factory. He, at least, doesn't exist anymore.

okay so your talking strictly about a feudal landlord like a king or a baron who owns 1 million acres or something, and all the peasants who live on his land must pay him a form of rent, and they may own their own houses and factories and farms but no matter what they do they must pay a certain amount to the king/baron/duke/landlord or whoever. I think marx liked to use the example of the people who would put a toll on a river, and charge everyone who came down a fee to use the river, despite him not providing anything. Other than his permission to use a naturally existing resource due to his property claim, which didn't amount to anything but collective robbery and parasitism.

so it might be better to say the landless peasant class no longer exists, because we would really have to stretch the definition of landless peasants to include maybe some people in rural swaziland or migrant laborers to claim they still exist as a class today

I'm talking about the US (because US statistics are so readily available online), but it probably also applies to other Western countries. Globally, the proletariat has now become the largest class.

IRS statistics confirm that you have to go even smaller than the top 1% of American "earners" to find a group most of whose income comes in the form of *capital* income. To this, add the top executives, top bureaucrats, top military officials, judges, hedge fund managers, etc., and the figure still probably doesn't come close to 5%.

Then I estimated the number of petite bourgeois, based on the official US census. As a percentage of the workforce or of the working-age population, 15% seems reasonable, maybe 20, maybe less than 15. As you'll see, that's a liberal estimate. There are around 6 million small business employers in the US. To these, add middle management (less than 5 million), and the professionals: 7 and a half million legal and business professionals (lawyers, financiers, including accounts, and marketing experts, including sales & PR), as well as almost 6 million STEM, medical and academic professionals, closer to 9 million now if you account for the rapid growth of the software engineering occupation (professors, scientists; engineers, architects; physicians, dentists, opticians, audiologists, podiatrists, and pharmacists). You could also add journalists, authors, psychologists and such, if you want, but that's less than a million.

Now consider the lumpenproletariat. The unemployed, unemployable, unsteadily employed, etc. The employment-to-population ratio (0.674 in the US) is not an impeccable measure because it doesn't account for the fact that a large proportion of the 15-to-64-aged population is still in school, but neither does it account for those who are insecurely employed. I have seen at least one other source, not in my possession now, suggesting a "declassed" population of 30%. This is without counting financial dependents who are stay-at-home spouses.

Finally, that leaves us with a 50% of steady-proletarian population.

The majority of the Medieval population was made up of peasants, so it's not surprising if the majority of the Modern one is proletarians.

that analysis wouldn't work in places where the majority of population earns less than $1 a day, Maoists often say there is no proletariat at all in the 1st world

I mean, if you're a man.

I admit I referred mainly to Western countries, and perhaps some of the Eastern Asian ones (like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan).



Constitutional monarchism is closer to republicanism than to absolutism. The bourgeoisie is quite at peace with constitutional monarchy.

thats not a question of development though Haiti is one of the oldest democracies in the world, go compare capital cities, you'll see Ferraris in Riyadh and scooters held together with duct tape in Port au Prince. I guarantee you that one month after not being able to use toilet paper, you will give up your right to vote pretty quickly

They're bourgeois AF.

When has a liberal ever been against inheritance rights? You're a capitalist if you live off capital regardless of whether you inherited it or acquired it through whatever other means. Inheritance doesn't make you a monarch or a royal.

what else is inheritance for, except to create your own monarchy?

[Fellow_Human]

so it might be better to say the landless peasant class no longer exists, because we would really have to stretch the definition of landless peasants to include maybe some people in rural swaziland or migrant laborers to claim they still exist as a class today

Hm, okay, so at least *that* is clear.

that analysis wouldn't work in places where the majority of population earns less than $1 a day

Mhm, perhaps. At any rate, I limited the question to the developed world, for reasons precisely such as this. It's still commonly accepted that the proletariat has become the largest class globally.

Maoists often say there is no proletariat at all in the 1st world

Only Maoists-Third Worldists.

thats not a question of development though Haiti is one of the oldest democracies in the world

I simply preferred to limit the question to those parts of the world because the others are not at the same stage of capitalism. I'm not even convinced yet that all states today can be classified as fully capitalist rather than semi-feudal.

I guarantee you that one month after not being able to use toilet paper, you will give up your right to vote pretty quickly

Bidets, comrade. I know, bourgeois, but hey, they're good for the environment.

what else is inheritance for, except to create your own monarchy?

For the option of threatening your heirs into submission by the power to remove them from your will.

[willowtooth]

For the option of threatening your heirs into submission by the power to remove them from your will.

I like this

[mr perfidy]

What about the class of land lords in the hood? From experience I would describe them as imagined heirs of feudal privileges. They relate to the sheriff similarly, they have attendant craftsmen families in their orbit, and their tenants are broke and subject to all of the legal constraints of the new Jim crow drug and family laws. Some of them very clearly sympathize with the principle of prima nocta, and anyone that can direct me to where feminists are talking about that please do. Why does their have to be historical continuity? Class is a fluid narrative that can be activated when analogous conditions are consciously related to. Hollywood made Italians right?

[guevarism]

In india they still exist ,Mostly in rural regions - Most would say .....But my answer will remain landowners still own big malls buildings and retail outlets in posh areas .They are still the masters

[mr perfidy]

What about how, in the US anyway and presumably the west in general, hard-won civil rights are denied to anyone working anywhere except on government property, bc of deference to the land lord? Land ownership privileges still shape all of productive society.

[willowtooth]

What about the class of land lords in the hood? From experience I would describe them as imagined heirs of feudal privileges. They relate to the sheriff similarly, they have attendant craftsmen families in their orbit, and their tenants are broke and subject to all of the legal constraints of the new Jim crow drug and family laws. Some of them very clearly sympathize with the principle of prima nocta, and anyone that can direct me to where feminists are talking about that please do. Why does their have to be historical continuity? Class is a fluid narrative that can be activated when analogous conditions are consciously related to. Hollywood made Italians right?

What about how, in the US anyway and presumably the west in general, hard-won civil rights are denied to anyone working anywhere except on government property, bc of deference to the land lord? Land ownership privileges still shape all of productive society.

What in the living fucking sideways cockatoos are you on about?

[Prof. Oblivion]

No, they don't. Real estate is an asset class for investors, not a caste of lords ruling over society. It's just like any other investment now.

[mr perfidy]

Re: hood land lords. Haven't you ever paid rent in a house? There are whole districts in the rust belt and thru nj where no one owns the home they live in. In upstate ny the landlords even had a suite of offices near their houses
They were all upper class educated men and as I explained in parallel to their petty nobility historical counterparts, they assume a host of privileges in society tied to the fact that they own property. The cops work for them while persecuting tenants, and the courts are set up like a drivethru to defend their interests. Also similarly, they have orbiting attendant families that administer their holdings. And plenty of them are sleazy and sexuality exploitative, re: prima nocta.

Re: having no rights on other people's property, comeon
How many jobs you had? They all start w signing something that acknowledges the rights of the plantation master to set whatever arbitrary restrictions on behavior that they want. They claim ownership of their employees blood and urine even and the general consensus is, "well it's their property."

[mr perfidy]

Maybe a point of contention is in the idea that "land owner" did not necessarily denote high rank or real wealth except in relation to the landless. Most landowners had little manors with no real access to any productive commodities except what maintained sustenance farming tenants. The power disparity and social between a serf and a landlord in that dynamic is like identical