New terminology

[Invader Zim]

When you think about it the terminology used by Marx, etc is now incorrect. For example the Prolatarian (god knows if thats spelt correctly), serfs now those words or names have no meaning in socioty, but yeat people still live in the past and use them all the time especially in theory. But how can you have any theory that even remotly reelevant to the modern day which uses names refering to jobs and existances related to 100 years ago.

Another one is bourgeoisie, how can any one use that word when relating to modern middle class people, when it refers to a section of the French middle classes who took the land formarly belonging to the émigrés, after the revolution.

Infact there is no real line between the Upper, middle and lower class's any more. You may have a teacher, traditionaly a job of the middle classes and a builder, a traditional job of the lower classes. However to day they live in the same areas of town, eat at the same resteraunts, read the same news papers, were the same clothes, shop at the same stores, etc.

Another point is that one of the main destinctions between the working class members and middle class members, was the wage. However now Teachers traditionaly middle class get paid *less than most Jobs, whether they are traditionaly working class or not.

This is why a new set of classes and definitions must be made, as much of the terminology used on this site is completely meaning less if you appriciate the actual meanings of the words.

[Conghaileach]

I disagree. The terms 'proletariat' and 'bourgeoisie' can simply be replaced by poor and rich, worker and parasite, or whatever else makes you feel more comfortable. These are the two opposing classes in society.

Teachers and builders are both working class. All that really exists in this idea of the middle-class is working-class people who earn a little more than most of their brothers and sisters.

[sc4r]

Quote: from AK47 on 5:39 pm on April 18, 2003
When you think about it the terminology used by Marx, etc is now incorrect.

I agree wholehearedly. In fact I would go further and say that Marx's whole analysis of class is outdated and misleading except in a very crude approximate way when applied to most of western civilisation.

Most of us have been turned into a sort of hybrid version of proleteriat and petty bourgeois and this makes quite a major difference to how the average punter reacts to the idea of realising socialism.

This badly needs addressing.

[mentalbunny]

I'm planning on working out some terminology sometime, I don't knwo if it will be what you guys are looking for but I'll let you know when I've got somewhere.

[redstar2000]

Terminology comes into existence under specific historical circumstances--there's no objective reason why so many scientific terms have Greek and Latin roots...except that during the beginnings of science, every educated person was expected to know Greek and Latin. It wasn't a mass of obscure terminology then; it is now.

There's nothing wrong with phrases like "working class" or "capitalist ruling class" that I can see. Their meanings are clear and self-evident.

The reason "middle class" is problematical now is because the ruling class has cleverly substituted that term for "working class" in the popular imagination. When people say they are "middle class", they often mean working class...and think of "lower class" as the permanently poor, unemployed, criminal, or despised racial/ethnic minority.

This is definitely one of the great "public relations" triumphs of 20th century capitalism...but it's irrelevant to the structure of modern class society.

By all means, coin such new terminology as you think appropriate. If people find it more useful, then they will gladly drop the "old words".

But be careful. If your "new words" turn out to really be just an attempt (another attempt) to erase the revolutionary content of Marxism, then you won't get away with it.

Don't say you weren't warned.

[Conghaileach]

I'm in agreement with RedStar here. At the end of the 19th century, Bernstein scathingly attacked Marxism under the cover of trying to update it. This was 50 years after the Communist Manifesto.

Now, 150 years after, the same attacks are still present, but Marxism is just as relevant now as it ever was.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CiaranB on 9:19 pm on April 18, 2003
I disagree. The terms 'proletariat' and 'bourgeoisie' can simply be replaced by poor and rich, worker and parasite, or whatever else makes you feel more comfortable. These are the two opposing classes in society.

Teachers and builders are both working class. All that really exists in this idea of the middle-class is working-class people who earn a little more than most of their brothers and sisters.

I disagree. The terms 'proletariat' and 'bourgeoisie' can simply be replaced by poor and rich, worker and parasite, or whatever else makes you feel more comfortable.

You could think that way but if you were to go into a serious conversation with people who actually know what they are talking about and refered to the bourgeoisie, in particualr in that manner people would think you are a fool.

The bourgeoisie, is a section of the middle classes, not all rich people. The émigrés are not bourgeoisie, infact they are traditionally the enemy of the bourgeoisie, but they were often rich. As the entire class system is now thourghly out of date, people will know even less what your on about as your terminology is screwed.

Teachers and builders are both working class.

Actually a teacher is a traditional job of the middle classes, it is known as a white coller job. Where as a builder is a lower class job, they are known as blue collers.

All that really exists in this idea of the middle-class is working-class people who earn a little more than most of their brothers and sisters

Possibly, however you would not not call an office worker a working class person, would you? Well at least not in the same terms as a toilet cleaner. Yet the toilet cleaner may even get paid more, than a secratery.

Now, 150 years after, the same attacks are still present, but Marxism is just as relevant now as it ever was.

No one denies that, however the terminology used must be upgraded. If you go up to a person in the street and tell them that you are fighting to free the proletariat, and fight the bourgeoisie, then they are not going to have a clue what the hell you are on about... Unless you happen to get a historian, or other follower of Marxs theorys.

How can you possibly tell people to fight a revolution to free the proletariat, when they dont even know what the proletariat is, also considering modern socioty changes, they are probably not proletariat any way. Whether they would be considered working class or not.

[redstar2000]

Well, just so you know what you are proposing to replace...

Proletariat -- the property-less class of Roman citizens in the old Roman Republic, considered the lowest class of free Romans. It was the class from which common soldiers originated and, in peacetime, performed the labor normally performed by slaves in exchange for wages. Sing. proletarian; pl. proletarians.

Bourgeoisie -- from medieval French, the class which lived in cities and towns and engaged in trade and manufacture, the middle class between the nobility and the serfs. Sing. bourgeois.

It is curious how words evolve. What was once considered the "middle class" is now the ruling class. And what was once considered the "working class" is now usually referred to as the "middle class".

Still, "middle classes of all countries, unite!" seems to lack a certain punch.

[Pete]

I am with RedStar on this one. The terms are still very valid, it is just the fact that someone pulling in 500 000 a year call them selves middle class bourgeois, while someone earning 18 000 is also considered middle class bourgeois. The only people who do not consider them self part of this 'class' are the homeless. These wide definitions are a tool of the ruling to class to perhaps subdue complaints. If you are middle class why are you complaining? If you are lower class you don't work hard enough.

In modern terms I will try to define these terms.

Proletariat- Those who are paid by $/hour, or commission. Aswell those who work in physically challenging jobs (like construction work), but people like software designers who spend endless hours in cubicles are also workers.

Bourgeois- Those paid by salary, or who have people who are responsible to them, such as managers, principles (at schools making teachers proletariat), military officers, ect.

Crossovers a.k.a. Traitors- those from the proletariat who support the bourgeoisie and fight against the proles, such as police, soldiers or ultraconseravtive 'trash' (be it white black ect, we are all human we can all be trash).

[Conghaileach]

from AK47:
The bourgeoisie, is a section of the middle classes, not all rich people. The émigrés are not bourgeoisie, infact they are traditionally the enemy of the bourgeoisie, but they were often rich. As the entire class system is now thourghly out of date, people will know even less what your on about as your terminology is screwed.

In the French revolution, the middle class (bourgeoisie) became the ruling class. The term bourgeoisie has evolved from meaning the middle class under feudalism to the new ruling class under capitalism.


Actually a teacher is a traditional job of the middle classes, it is known as a white coller job. Where as a builder is a lower class job, they are known as blue collers.

Possibly, however you would not not call an office worker a working class person, would you? Well at least not in the same terms as a toilet cleaner. Yet the toilet cleaner may even get paid more, than a secratery.

The amount workers earn is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that they are all - teacher, builder, office worker, janitor, secretary, whatever - forced to sell their labour in order to survive. The term proletariat, whether you want to use it or not, still fits as a description of the working class.


No one denies that, however the terminology used must be upgraded. If you go up to a person in the street and tell them that you are fighting to free the proletariat, and fight the bourgeoisie, then they are not going to have a clue what the hell you are on about...

I don't deny that. The first time I heard the terms, I didn't have a clue what they meant either. (I think that Marx may have actually gotten off on big words, but that's debatable.) If you don't like them you can use other words in their place; if you use them and the person you're speaking to doesn't understand, explain.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:37 pm on April 19, 2003
I am with RedStar on this one. The terms are still very valid, it is just the fact that someone pulling in 500 000 a year call them selves middle class bourgeois, while someone earning 18 000 is also considered middle class bourgeois. The only people who do not consider them self part of this 'class' are the homeless. These wide definitions are a tool of the ruling to class to perhaps subdue complaints. If you are middle class why are you complaining? If you are lower class you don't work hard enough.

In modern terms I will try to define these terms.

Proletariat- Those who are paid by $/hour, or commission. Aswell those who work in physically challenging jobs (like construction work), but people like software designers who spend endless hours in cubicles are also workers.

Bourgeois- Those paid by salary, or who have people who are responsible to them, such as managers, principles (at schools making teachers proletariat), military officers, ect.

Crossovers a.k.a. Traitors- those from the proletariat who support the bourgeoisie and fight against the proles, such as police, soldiers or ultraconseravtive 'trash' (be it white black ect, we are all human we can all be trash).

Well then by your own, logic there is no landed class and every body is part of the same class apart from the homeless. We might as well say every body unite to smash every one else.

You have managed to make my point better than i ever could.

Compair to quotes, one from CiaranB, the other from Redstar2000

CiaranB
The amount workers earn is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that they are all - teacher, builder, office worker, janitor, secretary, whatever - forced to sell their labour in order to survive. The term proletariat, whether you want to use it or not, still fits as a description of the working class.

Now Redstar2000's quote
It is curious how words evolve. What was once considered the "middle class" is now the ruling class. And what was once considered the "working class" is now usually referred to as the "middle class".

As you can see tyhere are conflicting opinions of the meaning of the words among the traditionalists camp. CiaranB is under the immpression that because of the changing work patterns and changes in meanings that all standard jobs such as teaching and building and working in an office are now all working class jobs. Where as on the other hand Redstar2000 wou is in agreement with CiaranB, thinks that most jobs now have become middle class.

Belive me i am not critisising either of you , just pointing out how confusing this is even to people who have shown them selves to understand the origional meanings of the words.

I hope this shows you my point.

[mentalbunny]

Well most people sell their labour, only a few a rich enough not to have jobs and these are the aristocracy which is getting pretty small here in Britain and is almost non-existant in the rest of the world, at least as far as I know.

Therefore maybe land-ownership is a possible way of distinguishing class, or type of job, like managers and execs are bourgeois, while builders are proletariat.

I think that wages/salaries do make a difference as they define your lifestyle (well in most cases, I can't think of any where it doesn't).

[redstar2000]

AK47, do not try to create confusion where none exists.

CiaranB, Crazy Pete, and I are all essentially agreed on what class we are talking about that is exploited and what class does the exploiting.

Working class and capitalist ruling class are modern words that everyone understands and can be used in pretty much any context. Footnotes can be applied to the "classics" where appropriate.

Among Marxists, the informal use of the phrase "middle class" refers to small/medium capitalists...not to working class people who are paid unusually high salaries.

By the way, I suspect CiaranB is right about Marx; with a classical German university education, I don't think he was "above" showing off his erudition now and then. But don't forget that the Communist Manifesto which contains those "old words" was written for and understood by workers.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I agree, Redstar, that many people use 'middle class' to refer to proletarians these days. However, I also find a great variance in what exactly people mean by 'middle class'. Some use it to embrace a wide variety of occupations, while other use it in a more restrictive sense. I still think it can be a useful term.

For example, I consider myself of a middle class background. That is to say that when attending public school in Canada my family was wealthier than 70-80% of my friends families, without being extremely rich (my mum is a teacher and my father in school administration). Now that I live overseas and attend an international school almost all my friends of of 'middle class' backgrounds. What I see the middle class as is on of poeple who are richer than most of the proletariat, without being truly upper class. This then embraces engineers, professors, teachers, diplomats, etc.

As for exploitation... the middle class is not actively exploiting in the same way as the upper class, but it not generally fighting against upper class dominance either as it has received benefits from the upper class.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:50 am on April 20, 2003
AK47, do not try to create confusion where none exists.

CiaranB, Crazy Pete, and I are all essentially agreed on what class we are talking about that is exploited and what class does the exploiting.

Working class and capitalist ruling class are modern words that everyone understands and can be used in pretty much any context. Footnotes can be applied to the "classics" where appropriate.

Among Marxists, the informal use of the phrase "middle class" refers to small/medium capitalists...not to working class people who are paid unusually high salaries.

By the way, I suspect CiaranB is right about Marx; with a classical German university education, I don't think he was "above" showing off his erudition now and then. But don't forget that the Communist Manifesto which contains those "old words" was written for and understood by workers.

CiaranB, Crazy Pete, and I are all essentially agreed on what class we are talking about that is exploited and what class does the exploiting.

Yes however by what you said, you must obviously believe that the middle class exploit the middle class. Because from your own words: -

And what was once considered the "working class" is now usually referred to as the "middle class".

the working class are now middle class, but the bourgeoisie, are middle class.

There is some confusion somewere, and i did not create it. So as you can see among educated people this causes great confusion, imagin trying to explain to a poorly educated person in Kenya, why they must have a revolution, if people like you guys dont understand what they mean, the poor guys not going to have a clue what you are on about.

But continue to live with your grammatical failures if you must.