[Varax]

I'm of the opinion that getting the support of much of the middle strata together with the proletariat is key for building a winning coalition capable of posing a serious challenge to the entrenched ruling class. This is especially true in first world countries where the middle strata is quite large and prominent while many proletarians identify themselves as "middle class"(though of course many lack class consciousness altogether). Vera Politica makes an excellent point in that "white collar", "blue collar", "pink collar", etc. are all part of the working class of course - they are just part of different divisions of labor.

I think there's a lot modern socialist movements can offer the professional class, intelligentsia, civil servants, etc. in terms of freeing them from the whims and subordination to monied interests. We can fully take advantage scientific and technological innovations unburdened. The socialist mode of production would improve distribution of goods and services as well in a more even way. There is a lot of benefits we can offer to middle strata here, we need to take advantage of it.

Even more to the point - socialism should ultimately push for the benefit of all humanity, pushing towards a more advanced economic mode. This includes not just the proletariat but others as well and in time as we elevate working class from their exploited state to an eventual classless society such distinctions become less relevant all together.

[voxlashi]

The new labour movement has driven service workers away from the mainstream left. They simply can't relate to middle class academic politicians who haven't worked outside the political arena, and suspect them of misrepresenting working class interests. Instead these service workers turn to neo-liberal "progress" parties and whatnot because their representatives often do have working class backgrounds, and are thus deemed more trustworthy. Although they certainly serve bourgeois interests, they assume the soapbox anti-elitist role which inspires votes from (non-industrial) workers. I don't know to what extent this relates to the UK, though it's very noticeable in Scandinavia, at least.

For that reason, it's healthy for the left itself to assume a skeptical view on the middle class, as long as it doesn't treat the middle class as an immediate threat to working class interests. We need to have more balanced ballots, and replace some of the academics with proletarians whom service workers feel they can trust to represent them.

[Lexington]

Of these, the salaried professionals are "proletarian", the small entrepreneurs are "petty-bourgeoisie", and the managers are somewhere in-between depending on how high they are up in the company hierarchy. However, none of them identify themselves as "proletarian" and they all choose to think of themselves as "middle-class" instead.

This system puzzles me.

I figure in Marx's day that the petty-bourgeois shop-owners and small entrepreneurs were at the same level as low-level management, but...today is rather different. I'm not even sure that "salaried professionals" as they exist today existed in Marx's time to this scale.

[Vera Politica]

I figure in Marx's day that the petty-bourgeois shop-owners and small entrepreneurs were at the same level as low-level management, but...today is rather different. I'm not even sure that "salaried professionals" as they exist today existed in Marx's time to this scale.

Most certainly not. We can also see significant differences between the West and emerging economies on this point. What is it that puzzles you, exactly?

[Decky]

I'm sick of him insulting me with the term just because I live in London

as if that makes me a bad socialist

Na it is your anarchism that does that.

Point is that Decky and his ilk would 'look down' on a 'white colour' young call center worker with a middle class accent will standing side by side with a train driver or builder on 40k+ a year because of identity politics.

This doesnt match up with the economic reality anymore.

I have fucking worked in a call centre the only thing that does not fit in with reality are your statements.

In what way are people working in call centres not working class? They are on less than min wage (commision theoreticaly makes it possible to earn min wage ad thus it is legal). They are controled more than workers in any other industry I can think of off the top of my head, they have their toilet breaks timed so they can be taken out of their pay and the fact that they are talking the whole day means that work place organisation is next to imposible.

The shitness of call centre conditions are one of the most written about things in the modern British left and the most oft used example of what the working class have to look forwards to if we fail. You know nothing as is evidenced by the example you used, I have never met a British socialist who would count call centre workers as middle class and come to that I have never met any non management middle class person while I was working there. It was entirely working class (not supprising since it is such a shit job) mostly white and strongly skewed towards females.

But I can see the point of Decky, considering that how these middle class intellectuals in second half of 20th century virtually destroyed communism in Europe with nonsense of eurocommunism, frankfurt school and the petty sectarianism over trivial theoretical issues.

Indeed, if the Labour party experiment proved anything it is that we need to represent ourselves, letting toffs who claim to be on our side lead us has none nothing good for our movement. At the end of the day an effete, southern, middle class fop will never know what benefits the working class since they have never lived a working class persons life (and that is if we accept they can be trusted to try to do what is best for the working class which is a whole diferent argument).

I'd like to know more about the motivation toward such views. To me it seems no different to racism, sexism or homophobia. Someone born to a middle-class family and brought up with middle-class values can't help that, in the same way that they can't help their colour, gender or sexual orientation

Yes.

What everyone seems to fail to understand is that my hatred of the middle class in a tribal apolitical thing. Lots of working class people who are as right wing as they come hate toffs. It is a working class thing not a Marxist thing. If I had ended up a working class tory (shudders)/ facsist/ fake "socialist" (for example an anarchist) rather than a Marxist I would still hate the toffs. You are confused because you have tied two things together that are entirely seperate.

We do need a surge of working class in upper echelons of the movement.

Indeed after all why would any working class person with even an ounce of self respect want to spend their days at the party being lecured to by a toff, they already have that at work and with politics? The whole point of the party is to stop that type of thing.

After all look at the steaming pile of shite unions have turned into since you stopped having to do decades on manual labour before getting to the top. Now middle class office boys can somehow have a hand in running the union without ever have worked alongside the workers they claim to represent, it makes me sick. They already run the whole fucking country, nay the whole fucking world and now they have stormed into our organisations that we only founded in direct opposition to them as if they have any right to be there.

Middle class people already had the Tories and the Lib Dems but no that wasn't enough for them, they had to muscle into our Labour party and drove us out to the miriad tiny socialist groups and now not content with having every mainstream party and most of the unions they are also trying to steal the last working class groups leaving us with nothing. And not only do they do this, they do all this while calling themselves socialists.

It is like they are making a concious efort to leave anti establishment working class people with no option apart from scum like the BNP who at least manage to look marginally more sincere about pretending to give a shit.

[layman]

the distinction is a social, not an economic one.

The economic one is the only one that should matter to marxists surely?

That is what makes deckys snobbery against the middle class call center worker with a low level degree (who may likely never get decent money) ironic.

The cultural attachments to who were and are the people who make up the class just confuse the stuggle - or so I would have thought. Pay bracket is the bottom line right?

you have tied two things together that are entirely seperate.

The whole point is they are not.

[Goldberk]

What everyone seems to fail to understand is that my hatred of the middle class in a tribal apolitical thing. Lots of working class people who are as right wing as they come hate toffs. It is a working class thing not a Marxist thing. If I had ended up a working class tory (shudders)/ facsist/ fake "socialist" (for example an anarchist) rather than a Marxist I would still hate the toffs. You are confused because you have tied two things together that are entirely seperate.

And this is what makes you a bad socialist

[Decky]

That is what makes deckys snobbery against the middle class call center worker with a low level degree (who may likely never get decent money) ironic.

What the hell are you on about? Read what I just fucking posted.

Otherwise I am starting a thread about your bigotry agaist the Jews and your love of orgies with columbain dwarves.

I have fucking worked in a call centre the only thing that does not fit in with reality are your statements.

In what way are people working in call centres not middle class? They are on less than min wage (commision theoreticaly makes it possible to earn min wage ad thus it is legal). They are controled more than workers in any other industry I can think of off the top of my head, they have their toilet breaks timed so they can be taken out of their pay and the fact that they are talking the whole day means that work place organisation is next to imposible.

The shitness of call centre conditions are one of the most written about things in the modern British left and the most oft used example of what the working class have to look forwards to if we fail. You know nothing as is evidenced by the example you used, I have never met a British socialist who would not count call centre workers as middle class and come to that I have never met any non management middle class person while I was working there. It was entirely working class (not supprising since it is such a shit job) mostly white and strongly skewed towards females.

[Vera Politica]

The economic one is the only one that should matter to marxists surely?

Marxists are as much interested in ideology as they are in economics. That we have social distinctions in class is important: it is part of the ideological superstructure that reaffirms the conditions under which economic relations are stable.

[ThereBeDragons]

I think the primary social distinction at work is that the middle class believes that if you work hard you are assured a good and comfortable life. The working class does not.

I'd like to know more about the motivation toward such views. To me it seems no different to racism, sexism or homophobia. Someone born to a middle-class family and brought up with middle-class values can't help that, in the same way that they can't help their colour, gender or sexual orientation, but they can at least change and modify their values if they are brought to the realisation that they are misguided.

Middle-class people are often seen as having lived easy lives and looking down on the working class (ranging anywhere from "lazy fucks" and "uncultured thugs" to "poor bastards" and "there but for the grace of god"), and spouting off shit about things they don't really understand (the stereotypical know-it all college sophomore, except older and working). Often they are seen as (and often are) constantly affecting a certain air, trying to have refined upper-middle class hobbies, own refined upper-middle class things, participating in a constant competition for social status among their middle-class acquaintances.

In short, toffs.

It's pretty uniformly present everywhere in the UK, so if he keeps this up he should logically end up becoming a Third Worldist once he realises that poverty is mostly 'exported' to the global south, and hardly at all to the north-west of England by comparison.

Access to cheap unskilled labor abroad has materially contributed to the decline of unskilled labor domestically. Perhaps not in consumer goods due to the fact that said access to said foreign unskilled labor has decreased the cost of consumer goods, but certainly in terms of job security and stability.

There is an important socio-cultural components to this distinction and many small business owners are socially working class, not middle class. They have little to no access to cultural capital, etc. An obvious example would be a recent immigrant running a small family business. In this sense they constitute a different economic class, but it is less clear that they constitute a different social class.

While they themselves may not have access to cultural capital, many of them are aiming for their children to join the "proper" middle-class. It's an aspirational thing.

I figure in Marx's day that the petty-bourgeois shop-owners and small entrepreneurs were at the same level as low-level management, but...today is rather different. I'm not even sure that "salaried professionals" as they exist today existed in Marx's time to this scale.

Salaried professionals today were the highly skilled laborers of yesterday. Of course they did not exist anywhere near as often in the past because the level of technological development was lower, and the vast majority of people were unskilled laborers and peasants.

"Low-level management" can range from everything from the manager of the local chip shop (perhaps who may be "socially working-class") to a low-level engineering manager (who may be more "socially-professional-class"). For the working class, the manager is an asshole who exists to make life miserable in the eternal quest of a few more pennies. But for the professional class, the manager is the guy you think you can be in a few years. Your manager will be his manager. And so there's a sense of cultural continuity rising all the way to the top. The senior VP of the company is not the member of some alien or enemy class. He's "like me, but more successful."

I think there's a lot modern socialist movements can offer the professional class, intelligentsia, civil servants, etc. in terms of freeing them from the whims and subordination to monied interests. We can fully take advantage scientific and technological innovations unburdened. The socialist mode of production would improve distribution of goods and services as well in a more even way. There is a lot of benefits we can offer to middle strata here, we need to take advantage of it.

The middle strata is pretty happy with the way things are. In general they tend to identify with the way things are because for them, the system is working. A successful engineer can easily make six figures (USD) late in life, with a generous benefits on top of that. Furthermore, they can be fairly sure that they can promise a similar life for their children by making sure they get the right education and get good grades at the right schools. There's not much reason for them to give up stability and success for the uncertainty of political struggle, and possibly violent revolution. After the ultra-rich are expropriated they might fear to find the upper-middle class (who often own stocks and property) next on the chopping block. Even under an ideal, stable, socialist system they may see their salaries leveled.

The working class has nothing to lose but its chains, but the middle class stands to lose a whole lot.

[Lexington]

Most certainly not. We can also see significant differences between the West and emerging economies on this point. What is it that puzzles you, exactly?

Again, it's this:

Of these, the salaried professionals are "proletarian", the small entrepreneurs are "petty-bourgeoisie", and the managers are somewhere in-between depending on how high they are up in the company hierarchy. However, none of them identify themselves as "proletarian" and they all choose to think of themselves as "middle-class" instead.

Salaried professionals today were the highly skilled laborers of yesterday. Of course they did not exist anywhere near as often in the past because the level of technological development was lower, and the vast majority of people were unskilled laborers and peasants.

"Low-level management" can range from everything from the manager of the local chip shop (perhaps who may be "socially working-class") to a low-level engineering manager (who may be more "socially-professional-class"). For the working class, the manager is an asshole who exists to make life miserable in the eternal quest of a few more pennies. But for the professional class, the manager is the guy you think you can be in a few years. Your manager will be his manager. And so there's a sense of cultural continuity rising all the way to the top. The senior VP of the company is not the member of some alien or enemy class. He's "like me, but more successful."

The thing that puzzles me is that it's about the legal relation between some guy and his means of income. If he owns his business (regardless of income) he's some kind of bourgeois, but if he doesn't (even if he's a highly salaried professional making many times more) he's proletarian. That makes little sense to me.

If I had to classify global class it would look something like this (and very simply):

- There are some extremely wealthy people who own businesses.
- There are some salaried professionals who own their own businesses (doctors/dentists/lawyers mainly) but this is hard to distinguish in terms of interest from highly paid salaried employees.
- There is the working class in developed nations.
- There is the rest of humanity who make your shirts, including for the working class in developed nations.

The point being that there is some logic in describing a "middle class" in developed nations since the interests of salaried employees and middle management and so on overlap so completely it is strange to see any distinction.

[layman]

Marxists are as much interested in ideology as they are in economics. That we have social distinctions in class is important: it is part of the ideological superstructure that reaffirms the conditions under which economic relations are stable.

Materialism is the bottom line of Marxism - at least I thought. Can someone with less money be in a higher class than someone with more money? If so then socialism is even more stupid than I thought.

I have noticed this with Union rep types in various places where I work. It was all about whether you face fitted. Felt like more of an exclusive club than an inclusive group.

[Decky]

Materialism is the bottom line of Marxism - at least I thought. Can someone with less money be in a higher class than someone with more money? If so then socialism is even more stupid than I thought.

Class is about your relation to the means of production.

You have nothing to seel but your labour= Prolatarian
You own part of the means of production distribution and exchange= Bourgeois

You have a small bussines where you work alongside the person that you exploit (for example a carpenter who has a van and sells his skills as part of a bussines but also employed a labourer and an aprentice) =Petite Bourgeoisie

[Cartertonian]

Class is about your relation to the means of production.

Yes we know that. In which case, who are these 'middle class wankers' of which you speak?

[Decky]

Social class and economic class are two diferent things.

As I said my bigotry agaist the (social) middle class is just an upbringing hangover (like your bigoted views on union members). It is as political as my hatred of mayonnaise.

It is seperate from my political view that the (economic) middle class are parasites who only live off the labour produced by the (economic) working class.

Of course there is a lot of cross over between the economic and social middle class so they synergise quite well.

I mean you must understand this you were bought up by a copper wouldn't you have grew up hating black people or something even if you don't now?

[Cartertonian]

Good answers.

No, I had no 'hereditary' racist tendencies. My dad was one of the old school (he joined in 1947) of firm but fair coppers who looked for the good in people rather than assuming the worst in them. He died in 1998, but in all my life (I was 31 at the time) I never heard him utter anything remotely racist, or sexist, or homophobic.

As far as synergies and overlaps goes, my view is that because there are no clear boundaries and because we humans inherently like to simplify things to aid comprehension ('good guys' vs 'bad guys') we invent boundaries of our own, which as per my OP are not always helpful.

In my own case I have been loudly complaining of late that, as someone who has been a public servant all his working life to date, the commercialisation of higher education is more than just alien to me, it's offensive. Yet, I almost certainly would not qualify as proletarian in the eyes of a dyed in the wool socialist. So in actual fact, perhaps the question is why should I lend my support to socialism if socialists would question my credibility on 'social' class grounds?

[layman]

Of course there is a lot of cross over between the economic and social middle class so they synergise quite well.

So they are not completely seperate then ... ?

Middle class people generally dont live off the back of workers - that is nonsense. We generally just work better jobs with a bit more, much of which can be taken by the increased taxes.

[Decky]

They are seperate but it just so happens that socialy middle class people adopt a lot of the views and manerisms of the bourgeoisie (I guess they look up to them or aspire to be them or something). They even try and sound posh. There is nothing more pathetic than a Brummie trying to sound southern.

[layman]

middle class are parasites who only live off the labour produced by the (economic) working class.

This sentance is still bullshit though. How does a school teacher, IT worker, Junior accountant etc live off the backs of workers?

[Decky]

I am sorry but I can't simplify it any further.

Social class and economic class are two diferent things.

As I said my bigotry agaist the (social) middle class is just an upbringing hangover. It is as political as my hatred of mayonnaise.

It is seperate from my political view that the (economic) middle class are parasites who only live off the labour produced by the (economic) working class.

the (economic) middle class