The Myth of the Middle Class
[COLOR=Black][B]UPDATE: This entry has been superseded by [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=891"][I]The Myth of the Middle Class: Blurring Class Lines and Dividing Labour[/I][/URL][/B]
All historical and current social classes are defined by property ownership or their relation to production. So where does this ambiguous "middle class" fit in with respect to property ownership or a relation to production? Nowhere, it is merely an attempt to disprove Marxist social theory by claiming that the vast majority of First World citizens are in fact part of the same social class when, in fact, they are split between the Proletariat (which owns no private property; also known as the working class), the [Haute] Bourgeoisie (which owns the most private property; also known as the upper or ruling class) and the Petit Bourgeoisie (which owns the small remainder of private property; self-employed). Further playing with technicalities, the Bourgeoisie claim that they constitute a distinct section of the middle class called the "upper middle class" . By doing this they show that there is in fact a difference between themselves and the rest of society but they are still part of the ambiguous middle class - along with most of what is correctly termed the working class (or Proletariat).
In First World history books, the definition for the term "Bourgeoisie" has been bent to mean a "middle class" (which was never mentioned in Marx's or any later theorists' writings) or an upper class. In some books the meaning is completely twisted to be the "middle class".
Coupled with a false class-consciousness that is spread through misinformation via Bourgeoisie propaganda outlets (such as the corporate-owned media, the voice of Bourgeois politicians and the educational establishment), this idea tricks the working class into thinking that Marxism is irrelevant for them as they are either not part of the working class or the working class that it seeks to liberate does not exist and that Communists seek to overthrow the entire middle class and put the supposed minority working class in control. This First World "working class" is thought to be stereotypical manual labourers that work in factories - which are something of a rarity in the First World.
The Proletariat can be defined as the class which does not own any private property and provides labour for and gets exploited (through a greed for profits) by the Bourgeoisie which owns the means of production (or private property) that the Proletariat works on.
As for the middle class, how is it defined? It is defined by income (which can vary widely due to Marxian social class, the division of labour and racial or nationalistic attitudes), and a wildly varying standard of living - from small apartments for what would be the working class to mansions for the Bourgeoisie.
Another point that is necessary to mention is that the modern concept of a "middle class" only came into being in the 1950s, whereas we have been living under capitalism since the 1700s. The basic social class structure did not change since about the 1800s so why did a middle class miraculously appear when there were no new major changes regarding private property or relations to production? Why did it appear when nothing happened that would result in the creation of a new class? No-one invaded the beast that is America and enslaved it's people. The state did not give the working class, the Petit and Haute bourgeoisie equal property rights. Nothing happened that would trigger the birth of a new class, so why did it appear? It appeared as a measure to stop the spread of Communism by attempting to disprove basic Marxist class theory. The idea was soon adopted by the American Bourgeoisie in their fight against the purportedly socialist states of the past in the Cold War.
[B]The working class must not fall victim to this capitalist indoctrination, they must see to what class they really belong to and arise as one to overthrow the social conditions that arise as a result of exploitation and alienation.[/B]
[/COLOR]
All historical and current social classes are defined by property ownership or their relation to production. So where does this ambiguous "middle class" fit in with respect to property ownership or a relation to production? Nowhere, it is merely an attempt to disprove Marxist social theory by claiming that the vast majority of First World citizens are in fact part of the same social class when, in fact, they are split between the Proletariat (which owns no private property; also known as the working class), the [Haute] Bourgeoisie (which owns the most private property; also known as the upper or ruling class) and the Petit Bourgeoisie (which owns the small remainder of private property; self-employed). Further playing with technicalities, the Bourgeoisie claim that they constitute a distinct section of the middle class called the "upper middle class" . By doing this they show that there is in fact a difference between themselves and the rest of society but they are still part of the ambiguous middle class - along with most of what is correctly termed the working class (or Proletariat).
In First World history books, the definition for the term "Bourgeoisie" has been bent to mean a "middle class" (which was never mentioned in Marx's or any later theorists' writings) or an upper class. In some books the meaning is completely twisted to be the "middle class".
Coupled with a false class-consciousness that is spread through misinformation via Bourgeoisie propaganda outlets (such as the corporate-owned media, the voice of Bourgeois politicians and the educational establishment), this idea tricks the working class into thinking that Marxism is irrelevant for them as they are either not part of the working class or the working class that it seeks to liberate does not exist and that Communists seek to overthrow the entire middle class and put the supposed minority working class in control. This First World "working class" is thought to be stereotypical manual labourers that work in factories - which are something of a rarity in the First World.
The Proletariat can be defined as the class which does not own any private property and provides labour for and gets exploited (through a greed for profits) by the Bourgeoisie which owns the means of production (or private property) that the Proletariat works on.
As for the middle class, how is it defined? It is defined by income (which can vary widely due to Marxian social class, the division of labour and racial or nationalistic attitudes), and a wildly varying standard of living - from small apartments for what would be the working class to mansions for the Bourgeoisie.
Another point that is necessary to mention is that the modern concept of a "middle class" only came into being in the 1950s, whereas we have been living under capitalism since the 1700s. The basic social class structure did not change since about the 1800s so why did a middle class miraculously appear when there were no new major changes regarding private property or relations to production? Why did it appear when nothing happened that would result in the creation of a new class? No-one invaded the beast that is America and enslaved it's people. The state did not give the working class, the Petit and Haute bourgeoisie equal property rights. Nothing happened that would trigger the birth of a new class, so why did it appear? It appeared as a measure to stop the spread of Communism by attempting to disprove basic Marxist class theory. The idea was soon adopted by the American Bourgeoisie in their fight against the purportedly socialist states of the past in the Cold War.
[B]The working class must not fall victim to this capitalist indoctrination, they must see to what class they really belong to and arise as one to overthrow the social conditions that arise as a result of exploitation and alienation.[/B]
[/COLOR]
Total Comments 7
Comments
-
This makes a lot of sense...I've been having a hard time defining the proletariat for myself in current times. Do you think that income has nothing to do with class and that it is solely based on owning the means of production? It seems tricky,at least in my opinion, to define someone's class sometimes when you can have someone who owns the means of production who makes substantially less than someone else who doesn't. Comparing a small business owner to someone in the financial sector might be an example.Posted 14th March 2010 at 12:25 by SandiNeesta 
-
[QUOTE=SandiNeesta;bt2342]This makes a lot of sense...I've been having a hard time defining the proletariat for myself in current times. Do you think that income has nothing to do with class and that it is solely based on owning the means of production? It seems tricky,at least in my opinion, to define someone's class sometimes when you can have someone who owns the means of production who makes substantially less than someone else who doesn't. Comparing a small business owner to someone in the financial sector might be an example.[/QUOTE]
Capitalists value people who manage their business for them (accountants; finance sector) much higher than the manual labourers or shop attendants. Classes are based purely on relation to production; these income distinctions within the proletariat are cause by the Bourgeoisie themselves as a result of profit motivation and to keep the protect the "integrity" of the capitalist system.Posted 15th March 2010 at 07:48 by AK
-
The concept of a middle class came into being long before the 1950s. Check this out:
http://www.google.com/search?as_site...&as_oq=&as_eq=
These are all of the instances where Marx or Engels wrote about the middle class. Are Marx and Engels capitalist indoctrinators?Posted 3rd April 2010 at 18:03 by CartCollector
-
[QUOTE=CartCollector;bt2459]The concept of a middle class came into being long before the 1950s. Check this out:
[URL="http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search%21&as_epq=middle+class&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq="]http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search!&as_epq=middle+class&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=[/URL]
These are all of the instances where Marx or Engels wrote about the middle class. Are Marx and Engels capitalist indoctrinators?[/QUOTE]
When I talk about a middle class, I mean the term that is used today to mistakenly refer to a large section of the working class. The term has adapted over time from covering professionals to most workers.
Middle classes have existed before, but they don't exist today.Posted 4th April 2010 at 13:03 by AK
-
[QUOTE=Alpha Kappa;bt2463]The concept of a middle class came into being long before the 1950s. Check this out:
[URL="http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search%21&as_epq=middle+class&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq="]http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2F marx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search!&as_epq=mi ddle+class&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=[/URL]
These are all of the instances where Marx or Engels wrote about the middle class. Are Marx and Engels capitalist indoctrinators?[/QUOTE]When I talk about a middle class, I mean the term that is used today to mistakenly refer to a large section of the working class. The term has adapted over time from covering professionals to most workers.
Middle classes have existed before, but they don't exist today. Especially in the case of the Bourgeoisie which had middle class status during feudalism but gained upper class status in capitalism.Posted 4th April 2010 at 13:31 by AK
-
Oh OK. Yeah, I noticed that you also clarified it in the second post on the Myth of the Middle Class. If you could, you should edit your post to say that "Another point that is necessary to mention is that the modern concept of a "middle class" only came into being in the 1950s", without the bold.
Posted 7th April 2010 at 03:21 by CartCollector
-
[QUOTE=CartCollector;bt2473]Oh OK. Yeah, I noticed that you also clarified it in the second post on the Myth of the Middle Class. If you could, you should edit your post to say that "[COLOR=Black]Another point that is necessary to mention is that the [B]modern[/B] concept of a "middle class" only came into being in the 1950s", without the bold.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Thanks.
Although I'm going to delete this entry soon anyway as it's pretty much been replaced by [I]The Myth Of The Middle Class: Blurring Class Lines and Dividing Labour[/I].Posted 9th April 2010 at 00:54 by AK
