General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs "Chained CPI" a 50 year plan to put the former American middle class in chains?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022623198
(Yep.)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the much-vaunted and frequently-discussed "American middle class" never existed. It was and is the working class. The redefinition of the working class as the middle class is an act of political sleight of hand that has served to blunt the political influence of socialism, as socialist movements require class-consciousness on the part of the proletariat to succeed (as happened in Europe).
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)While I whole-heartedly second the plea in the subject line of your post, I must point out that "middle class" and "working class" are terms pretty much devoid of meaning, and that "socialism", "class-consciousness" and "proletariat" are all pretty wooly.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"working class" has a pretty clear meaning and is well-understood, sociologically (the fact that Americans specifically don't understand it because the American working class think they beling to the bourgeoisie is something else; it doesn't mean that it's a term devoid of meaning); socialism is also well-understood (as being a more or less mixed economy with some state or collective ownership of the means of production, see nationalised industry in postwar Europe for instance); and the proletariat are the broad class of wage-workers who have no ownership of the means of production and whose only tradeable resource in the marketplace is their labour (which is, mostly, the broadest part of the so-called American "middle class" .
starroute
(12,977 posts)There was a time when lower middle class meant blue collar workers, middle-middle was white collar, and upper middle was doctors, lawyers, and other professions. All of these contrasted with an underclass of people who did not have jobs they could live on and with people who were independently wealthy and did not work unless they chose to. And despite spanning a range of economic and cultural differences, the middle class really did include a majority of Americans who had broad political interests and values in common.
You can call that "working class" if you like -- since it consisted of people who had to and did work for their living -- but nobody 50 years ago would have understood what you meant. "Working class" at that time was considered a vaguely old-fashioned term that if used at all was taken to mean the same thing as lower middle class.
The economic pressures of the last 50 years have destroyed the old middle class. With the loss of factory jobs and unions, the former lower middle class has been virtually obliterated. The former middle-middle, rather than being comfortable and socially valued has become insecure and beleaguered. And the upper middle has been picked off, turned into wannabe rich folk who complain about the fact that they can't quite afford genuine mansions and the very best private schools.
If anything, the efforts of the right have been directed towards destroying that ideal of middle class solidarity -- largely by way of wedge issues ranging from the Vietnam War and racism to abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, the hopes of Marxism were pinned in the first place on the idea that industrialization had created a new class of factory workers with enough power over the operation of the system to make their voice heard. And to the extent that was ever true -- though briefly, and never to the extent Marx might have hoped -- its moment is over. Workers today have no power at all, and that may be our greatest problem.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"Blue-collar" jobs have always been working class. Everywhere in the English-speaking world except the US? If you get paid by the hour, if your job involves manual labour, if you spend the working day on your feet? You're working class, not middle class. The lower middle class are office workers, clerks, salesmen and such; the general middle class are professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants); "middle" in the term "middle class" has never referred to "the broad middle of the population". (But thanks for illustrating my point about how working-class Americans have been convinced they're "middle class", even though it's not true.)
starroute
(12,977 posts)There was a point when unionization had raised the pay rates of many blue-collar workers to the point where they could enjoy a middle-class lifestyle -- moving to the suburbs, taking vacations, buying a new car every few years. That sort of thing.
When that happened, it seemed to make perfect sense that the middle class would consist of people between, say, the 25th and 75th percentile of income -- people who had decent jobs but weren't rich.
The definition you're using seems closer to what used to be called the bourgeoisie. It starts at roughly the 50th percentile and goes upward from there. From what I've been finding online, it may not even be considered to include all white collar office workers, but only those with some sort of managerial position.
I understand that this more upscale definition is widely used. Nut all I can say is that if you'd told my parents and their friends back around 1960 that they weren't middle class, that would have stared at you incredulously -- and because they'd been brainwashed. They had middle class tastes, enjoyed a middle class lifestyle, and expected that their children would be better educated and have better paying jobs than they did but that they would be identifiably of the same class as their parents.
At that time, and in that place, the lower class was the people who lived in the projects and were clearly poor. But perhaps it was a New York thing and matters were different elsewhere.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And "clearly poor" people are not "working class", they're the underclass (who are, yes, of a lower socioeconomic class than the working class). This seems to me to represent a fundamentally confused understanding of socioeconomics.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I understand what you are posting and think it would make a very good topic for DU conversation.
A part of that conversation, for me, is to point out that those who are working at higher paying jobs aren't "the enemy".
The object, IMO, is to get more workers paid higher wages.
And really going over the tax dodging wealthiest Americans would also be ideal.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Nope. I guess you are right.