[Rei Murasame]

Indeed, I can't understand how - even just on a money-based measure which is all I was using here anyway - the Americans think that having enough money for saving for your children's tuition fees, going on lots of vacations, and living in a nice neighbourhood, is top level.

To me that's just 'normality of the middle class'. The middle class comprising the 22%.

Upper middle class is where a person begins to actually emanate hostile wealth vibrations that produce feelings of envy and/or hatred, and upper class is when you have an inherited title or are 'very old money'.

I'm pretty sure the breakdown is like this:

• Working class: 67%
• Middle class: 22%
• Upper Middle class: 10%
• Upper class: 1%

That is what it is, right? I'm pretty sure that polls taken in the UK show results that look like that.

[Saeko]

Indeed, I can't understand how - even just on a money-based measure which is all I was using here anyway - the Americans think that having enough money for saving for your children's tuition fees, going on lots of vacations, and living in a nice neighbourhood, is top level.

The way the class breakdown works in America is like this:

Working class: About a third of the population, lowest income group, no more than a high-school education.
Lower middle class: About a third of the population, median income, often have a bachelor's degree.
Upper middle class: What you're describing. High income, post-graduate education.
Upper class: These people make most of their money from capital gains rather than an annual salary.
Super-rich: Those who could purchase a whole country if they felt like it.

[Brother of Karl]

Indeed, I can't understand how - even just on a money-based measure which is all I was using here anyway - the Americans think that having enough money for saving for your children's tuition fees, going on lots of vacations, and living in a nice neighbourhood, is top level.

To me that's just 'normality of the middle class'. The middle class comprising the 22%.

Upper middle class is where a person begins to actually emanate hostile wealth vibrations that produce feelings of envy and/or hatred, and upper class is when you have an inherited title or are 'very old money'.

I'm pretty sure the breakdown is like this:

• Working class: 67%
• Middle class: 22%
• Upper Middle class: 10%
• Upper class: 1%

That is what it is, right? I'm pretty sure that polls taken in the UK show results that look like that.

It hardly matters, because any formal definition based solely on individual income or wealth will be incomplete, as it doesn't factor in family culture, obligations, spending habits, personal influence, and many other aspects.

The way the class breakdown works in America is like this:

Working class: About a third of the population, lowest income group, no more than a high-school education.
Lower middle class: About a third of the population, median income, often have a bachelor's degree.
Upper middle class: What you're describing. High income, post-graduate education.
Upper class: These people make most of their money from capital gains rather than an annual salary.
Super-rich: Those who could purchase a whole country if they felt like it.

You can't really make this both about income AND education. After all, there are plenty of college grads in debt or in low earning fields who might end up paying off debt for most of their working lives, but the working class label doesn't really make sense for them either. Traditional education level is somewhat correlated with earning potential, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, while I agree that it's not solely about income (the person's role in the economy is important as well) my biggest complaint against the American way of describing these things, is that the base level percentage that you all are using cannot possibly be even close to true. If you have only 1/3 of the population as 'working class', then how precisely does that economy run?

So that part seems like it's impossible even before I start asking questions about the rest of it.

It reminds me of when American presidents come out and address "middle class families" in their speeches, it mystified me as to why they'd address a small slither of the total population of their country. But then I was later told that the Americans believe that the middle class comprises the largest number of people in the country. And I was like, "well, that's obviously impossible".

[fuser]

I am working class as well as middle class, the two classifications are based on different things, by my role at economy I am working class while according to my income I am middle class.

The confusion arises when one mixes the two different set of classifications into one.

[Rei Murasame]

Oh, I should ask, Fuser, what are your bargaining rights like where you work though? Are you with one of the unions that covers everyone, or are you with one of the unions that is just for people in your field? According to some communists who are probably correct, this makes a significant difference in what your class is, where some working class people become 'the labour bureaucracy', which they say is no longer working class, if their union takes the latter strategy.

[Brother of Karl]

Well, while I agree that it's not solely about income (the person's role in the economy is important as well) my biggest complaint against the American way of describing these things, is that the base level percentage that you all are using cannot possibly be even close to true. If you have only 1/3 of the population as 'working class', then how precisely does that economy run?

So that part seems like it's impossible even before I start asking questions about the rest of it.

It reminds me of when American presidents come out and address "middle class families" in their speeches, it mystified me as to why they'd address a small slither of the total population of their country. But then I was later told that the Americans believe that the middle class comprises the largest number of people in the country. And I was like, "well, that's obviously impossible".

Oh, I see. In America, the "rise of the middle class" in the 20th century refers to the higher standards of living for workers than in the past. Then they talk about the American Dream, and say that the middle class is the group of people who can achieve this dream of owning a house in the suburbs, a car, and a quality education for their children, including paying for university. They also can take at least one family vacation per year, have enough leisure time to pursue a hobby, and can hope to retire comfortably by age 65.

[fuser]

Oh, I should ask, Fuser, what are your bargaining rights like where you work though? Are you with one of the unions that covers everyone, or are you with one of the unions that is just for people in your field? According to some communists who are probably correct, this makes a significant difference in what your class is, where some working class people become 'the labour bureaucracy', which they say is no longer working class, if their union takes the latter strategy.

Yeah, I am part of the former and this is the only union for people in my field that is affiliated to communists and cover both type of employes in my field clerical and officer grade. I belong to the latter category.

But all other option of unions for me are exclusive for officers which are also non communist. Communists are correct that union based on specific field does create a labor aristocracy and its a big problem inside our union too for our officer section of the union is rather weak.



Edit : typo

[Rei Murasame]

Oh, I see. In America, the "rise of the middle class" in the 20th century refers to the higher standards of living for workers than in the past. Then they talk about the American Dream, and say that the middle class is the group of people who can achieve this dream of owning a house in the suburbs, a car, and a quality education for their children, including paying for university. They also can take at least one family vacation per year, have enough leisure time to pursue a hobby, and can hope to retire comfortably by age 65.

But I'm saying that since the middle class had all of that at the beginning of the saga anyway, what they are actually offering when they talk about the American dream, is actually 'a new settlement' (or a 'deal'), which is sold squarely at the working class.

The middle class would have entirely different problems.

So while I get what they are saying, the terminology they are using is bizarre, and probably leads to everything else being upshifted by one step. Since if workers believe that they are middle class, then middle class people will begin to believe that they are upper middle class. And no one will view themselves as being working class.

This produces weird things like what happened in the earlier part of this conversation. But it also produces a problem on the other end where you cannot address the broad range of people who comprise the working class, if they do not respond to that label when they are hailed as such. For example, if I were to go to the USA and get up on a podium and say, "this is a message for all American workers", crickets might end up chirping because half of the American workers falsely believe that they are middle class because they have bought a new car last year.

It would make it very difficult to find that audience, but basically if you want to talk about getting people to join unions or guilds or something, they don't think it's about them because they don't think they are the workers, even though they are.

The other problem is that if you try to form an organisation that caters to middle class interests, you'll get complete havoc as lots of American workers would show up when they aren't the people you actually were calling for.

_________

Yeah, I am part of the former and this is the only union for people in my field that is affiliated to communists and cover both type of employes in my field clerical and officer grade. I belong to the latter category.

But all other option of unions for me are exclusive for officers which are also non communist. Communists are correct that union based on specific field does create a labor aristocracy and its a big problem inside our union too for our officer section of the union is rather week.

Fair enough.

[annatar1914]

But I'm saying that since the middle class had all of that at the beginning of the saga anyway, what they are actually offering when they talk about the American dream, is actually 'a new settlement' (or a 'deal'), which is sold squarely at the working class.

The middle class would have entirely different problems.

So while I get what they are saying, the terminology they are using is bizarre, and probably leads to everything else being upshifted by one step. Since if workers believe that they are middle class, then middle class people will begin to believe that they are upper middle class. And no one will view themselves as being working class.

This produces weird things like what happened in the earlier part of this conversation. But it also produces a problem on the other end where you cannot address the broad range of people who comprise the working class, if they do not respond to that label when they are hailed as such. For example, if I were to go to the USA and get up on a podium and say, "this is a message for all American workers", crickets might end up chirping because half of the American workers falsely believe that they are middle class because they have bought a new car last year.

It would make it very difficult to find that audience, but basically if you want to talk about getting people to join unions or guilds or something, they don't think it's about them because they don't think they are the workers, even though they are.

Marxian 'False Conciousness'. American Capitalists being better readers of Marx than Marxists are, they took that imminently sensible step of doing to the American Worker exactly what you suggest they did-make them think they aren't Proles.

[Brother of Karl]

This produces weird things like what happened in the earlier part of this conversation. But it also produces a problem on the other end where you cannot address the broad range of people who comprise the working class, if they do not respond to that label when they are hailed as such. For example, if I were to go to the USA and get up on a podium and say, "this is a message for all American workers", crickets might end up chirping because half of the American workers falsely believe that they are middle class because they have bought a new car last year.

Well no, as soon as you take away the word "class", suddenly most of the stigma of the position goes away, and you will find that all tradesmen, as well as a large portion of white collar workers of one stripe or another will answer to the title "worker". It's because Americans believe that they live in a post-class society.

[Saeko]

Well no, as soon as you take away the word "class", suddenly most of the stigma of the position goes away, and you will find that all tradesmen, as well as a large portion of white collar workers of one stripe or another will answer to the title "worker". It's because Americans believe that they live in a post-class society.

In some ways, we do live in a post-class society. Except for the upper class, i.e., the 1%, nobody else is even a little class conscious. The main social divisions outside of the 1% are along racial-ethnic, religious, urban-suburban-rural, and regional lines.

[Decky]

Haute bourgeoisie =\= upper middle class. Haute bourgeoisie == upper class. At least if we're going based on percentile of income. Where do you put "upper middle class" in terms of income percentile? By your standard it would have to be within the top 1% or so, and then the actual global elite would only be within 0.1% or so.

That's nonsense, Rei is right and you are wrong. The Haute Bourgeoisie is the upper middle class, the upper class are the aristocracy.

[Sephardi]

Parents, because of my father owning a business, were part of the tiny rising bourgeoisie class in the Soviet Union during the 80s when the economy opened up. My dad was raised poor in the Soviet Union though.

I was born when they moved to the US, raised working class up until age 11, then raised lower middle class until 17, then middle class from there on. This time it was my mom who started as a Nurse's Ace (making $26000 a year), then moved up to an LPN (making $54000 a year), then moved up to a fully registered Nurse (making $90000 a year). American dream, I guess She worked really hard for us though and I'm really grateful.

I'm a small-business Capitalist/producerist so it influences my views a lot. Both the lower class and the top bankers and money changers are parasites. The most successful person is the one who takes a risk, invests his money into a small business, and then sees it flourish. That's the American dream to me. It is unfortunate that things like inflation are out of our control and one can work extremely hard and save up $200,000 only to have its value turn into what $20,000 is worth because some people at the top made some stupid decisions and fucked up your currency.

I'm from a neighborhood where the Russian Jews moving in from the Soviet Union are becoming pretty wealthy through both illegal and legal means and are having a crapfest trying to outbuild and outstyle each other. My parents are a lot more humble than that and are afraid of illegal shit, but with that being said, I'm not against bending or breaking the law to achieve financial success. As long as you aren't embezzling money or running a ponzo scheme. I think a roxy dealer is more moral than a banker.

[Political Interest]

Should I support an ideology or political cause because it is in my interests or because of idealism? I have often wondered if ideology is merely something which evolves and changes with the times to suit the needs of the masses. If the left best serve the interests of the people, then the people will choose the left. If the right are the best option, the people will choose the right. How many people would hold onto ideals for their own sake rather than simply because these ideals will ensure them a better existence?

If ideals are merely there to serve the needs of the masses, then is there any point in reviving old ones or should we deal with what we have in our current situation? In other words, not try to resurrect Stalinism, Maoism, fascism etc but rather deal with those ideals of the contemporary world?

[Istanbuller]

They are minorly influenced by them. Also, It should be noted that Western types of social classes never existed here. But I can say that I am coming from a wealthy family and currently working class myself.

[Deutschmania]

socioeconomic status

Hard to say really. I'm a twixter. My family background is a mixture of petit-bourgeois, on my mother's side, and proletarian on my father's. My father himself eventually went on to graduate from trade school, and became a licensed plumber/HVAC technician. The last and only paid job I ever had was working for his company, digging trenches by hand, as an unskilled, part time day laborer. But ever since his business closed up, after a year or two, I've been part of the reserve army of labor. I feel that my experiences growing up have been living proof of this passage from the Communist Manifesto

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

.

ideology

Simply put I'm a neocommunist. More specifically, my personal political influences are a combination of western marxism/liberal socialism and libertarian marxism/Communalism, however schizophrenic that might sound.

Is ideology always determined by these things?

No. I think that hypothetically speaking someone like me could have just as easily developed into a [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism]social liberal[/url], or a neofascist, or even an anarchist. While social class does shape consciousness to an extent, it's not the only guiding influence. There are other experiences, and exposure to various ideas that can shape one's worldview.

If you are upper middle class or middle class can you be a communist?

If you are working class can you support the free market or conservatism?

Yes, one need not have been a slave in order to be an abolitionist, same with wage slavery in respects to socialism. For example Engels was both a factory owner, and a socialist, as was Robert Owen. And as I posted above, someone of humble origins can be influenced to support some sort of right-wing ideology, however faulty his social consciousness might be.

[Joe Liberty]

To what extent are your political or ideological choices influenced by your socioeconomic status?

Minorly

In your answers I would be interested to hear what your socioeconomic status is and what ideology you hold. Please explain the relationship between your politics and socioeconomic status, if any.

Socioeconomic status has changed throughout my life (which I think has had more influence on my ideology than my socioeconomic status at any given time). Born into a lower-middle-class family, struck out on my own and was poor for a few years, then worked my way into solid middle-class status.

My ideology has also changed, although I don't think my economic status had much to do with it, it was more about maturing and learning about the nature of government and how politics really works. I've gone from social democrat to somewhat conservative to (now) libertarian/anarchist.

Socioeconomic status can have tremendous influence on one's ideology, but if that's the only factor then I think a lot of data is being ignored.

[nucklepunche]

My politics are influenced by my class to a small extent.

Class: Working class.

Politics: Center-right, but not libertarian.

I admit that financially I am not well off, by the standards of many leftists I should be one of them. These things being said I have hope for the future that my financial situation will improve. I don't hold pipe dreams of becoming a great captain of industry, just the goal of becoming comfortably middle class. I remain center-right in spite of my financial situation because I believe I can work my way to that place financially.

[Goldberk]

just the goal of becoming comfortably middle class.

In a way that's what most leftists hope a socialist revolution will bring