Define some terms

[DonCoquixote]

I have seen the terms "middle class" and "working class" used here a lot, but I do not have a consistent definition of what those terms mean in practice:

What I am asking is not just a definition like you might get in a dictionary, but could people give examples.

For example: Teachers need a college degree, but they make low salaries. Where are they?

Also, one lawyer is a public defender that makes 30K a year, one lawyer makes 100K, I have seen some that say all lawyers are middle class, and some that say some are, some are not.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. What happens to you if you lose your job for.........

an extended period of time? If you wind up living in your car, you're working class. Just my personal definition.

[leftstreet]

2. There are only two classes. Ruling Class and Working Class

'middle class' is a myth

[DonCoquixote]

3. so

where is the cutoff? I have had some people say 100K per year, some50K, some that say even a millionaire is not what they used to be.

[leftstreet]

4. One class sells it's labor. The other profits from it

Dollar amounts are insignificant

You could ask as easily: Is it owning 10 chickens? 100k chickens? Some say that even KFC isn't what it used to be.

[DonCoquixote]

10. There is one problem with that

Granted, a Millionaire is not what is used to be, but a milionaire that owns a kfc is less likely to be bankrput then the people working the fryers.

[readmoreoften]

7. It's not really about money.

In the end game of late capitalism, the petit bourgeois class is reduced to a bare minimum and all workers (even the old union jobs that used to pay well) are reduced to obscene levels. (see my other post for clarification)

[obxhead]

5. Both are terms that are losing value.

We are coming to an elite class and an everyone else class. Some of the everyone else class can still cover the bills and others can't come close. Many of the everyone else class have one thing in common though, a negative net worth.

[readmoreoften]

6. Depends on if the terms are deployed in a capitalist or Marxist sense.

Capitalist/American sense: the "middle class" is a comfortable class of regular people who are neither rich nor poor. Americans base class on income. They may be union pipefitters with a two-car garage and vacation time or they may be a professional lawyer making 150K (usually referred to as "upper-middle class"). "Working class"--when its even used-- means struggling workers without representation or education who are about to fall into poverty or who are poor: waitresses with kids and no education, McDonald's fry cooks, supermarket cashiers, immigrant day labor etc. "Poor" refers to homeless people and "working class people" who can't find work and need public assistance.

Marxist sense: Marxists view class in relation to the "means of production". The capitalist class/bourgeoisie own the factories, the banks, the TV networks. The petit bourgeoisie ("middle class") own small businesses or provide services to the capitalist class (corporate lawyer, accountant, restauranteur, doctor with a private clinic, chair of a department at a private university), the proletariat or working class are the people who create and maintain the commodities that generate the whole economy (plumber, barista, doctor or nurse at a public hospital, mechanic, fry cook, engineer), the lumpenproletariat are a dispossessed class: the long-term unemployed, the homeless, those too ill to work who need care.

This second schema is not based on income. An eBay seller who makes 10K a year is petit bourgeois where a union worker making 100K a year is working class. The point of examining classes for a Marxist is to identify the strata capable of dismantling the system. That would be the working class (who can strike and reorganize society) with the help of the lumpenproletariat and the poorer strata of petit bourgeois.

Teachers used to be "petit bourgeois" when there was no public education because schools groomed elites for their petit bourgeois and bourgeois lives. Now teachers have been largely proletarianized: for example, adjunct faculty at a university "make" courses for the university and sell them for a cheap price to pay their rent. That relation to the economy is one of a worker, not a "middle class" small business owner or petit bourgeois.

Hope this helps.

[leftstreet]

8. And that's the ironic thing about the American sense

'working class' (as you say - 'when it's even used') is a term used not by the class itself. Those already identifying themselves as 'middle class' give the label to...those they identify as working class. And LOL the same people appear annoyed when learning the 'working class' defines itself as 'middle class'

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Far easier to explain quantum physics than American class self identity

Marx would shit himself

[DonCoquixote]

9. Thanks

So far, this has been the clearest answer.

[BeFree]

11. Neat, cool read good info

My 2 cents

3 classes

Owners who own nearly everything they can and who hire...

Managers to keep their possessions safe from the...

Workers who want to be managers and owners.

Which would force the owners into sharing the wealth.
Which is why they hire the managers. To keep the worker's grubby hands off their hoard.

[bhikkhu]

12. I have a definition that might be of some use:

If you look at any person's basic situation, we all eat, wear clothes, have various things, live in houses or apartments, etc. All of those things we made by people, so basically all of our needs and comforts are the products of other people's work. To be a part of society is the goal of any person, and mostly that means giving back something in return for what we use ourselves; everyone deserves something for their work, and everyone's work that you use deserves something for you. If you are a regular person, you probably work and return about what you use, and are a meaningful part of society. Sometimes that whole system could be called "working class".

Everyone by necessity needs things and everyone by nature wishes to be a part of society and to fill a role. "The Poor" are those who are denied a role, who have jobs considered lowly or worthless, or who by some means or other kept out of society. Because they still need things, they are often hated as they have nothing sufficient to give in return. More often than not they are simply "working class" who got sick and couldn't afford the care needed to recover, or people who have been broken by some misfortune or other. In many societies, its "one strike and you're out".

If you think about the basic situation of using things made by other people's work, and working yourself in return, then of course there is the refinement (or complication) that all of this exchange is mediated by currency in our modern system. The maintenance of currency itself has some valid roles for people to play - banks are handy places to store it, you have to have cashiers to keep track of transactions, and so forth. But then there is an entirely artificial role beyond that, where people manipulate money and transactions to multiply their money, without actually producing or contributing anything. They leverage the profit of one deal into the influence needed to profit in another, they create phony markets which deal in deals, and potential deal, and in the risks of potential deals, and so on. In any sane society, this would be seen as fraud, theft, and parasitic criminality destructive to society as a whole. In our society, however, the people who practice this are "the wealthy", and they generally receive nothing but deference and respect.

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. The "middle class" is an income distinction vs that of the Marxist working/ruling class

distinction.

Of course, lower, middle, upper class describes income. Nobody can agree on income figures that make up the classes, and as such is often used both to divide the working class against itself, and to convince those in lower (income) classes that they are always just a step away from the American Dream - assistant shift manager.

The Marxist ruling/working class depends on who owns the means of production. That can be a factory or a special tool/product required or simply the structure by which to produce wealth from the labor required to produce it. In professional sports, that's the league. So while the top-paid baseball player may be very much upper class, he is a member of the working class because his labor was used to provide entertainment, a service that people pay for because they don't like to remember how much their lives suck. The person who writes the athlete's check is of course a member of the ruling class.

That's really what we're getting at when we say the working class. Generally, the owning class is rich and the working class is poor, but it has to do with whether or not you sell your labor to someone who derives further profit from it - not money.

In my opinion, we must stop using the terms of upper, middle, and lower class - even in discussion of politics and policy - as they are far too imprecise to seriously form arguments upon. Income distinctions need to either have a number attached to them, or be discarded.

A quick overview of proletariat ---> bourgeoisie, as technically used by Marx vs the slightly more generic, slightly less descriptive working/ruling class distinction.


Proletariat - sells their labor, does not own means of production. Usually considered to be the poor and "working class" of the world.
Petit bourgeoisie - controls their own labor and owns the means of production. This could be an independent bakery owner, for example.
Haute bourgeoisie - does not produce anything with own labor, but owns the means of production. This is the owning and ruling class.

Hope this helps.

[DonCoquixote]

14. Good

Though many might not agree with that,especially those who consider teachers bourgoisie

[rucky]

15. they've got the basics covered and a little to put away for extras. n/t