371
They created the middle class to act as a buffer between the working class and a front line to defend their interests (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🎯 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Not a fan of this one.

Classes aren't designed, there's no moustache twirling villain behind the curtain. They arise through historical process as people struggle over control of the means of production.

The middle class, which I hate as a concept because it's weird fuzzy idealistic liberal nonsense rather than something that can be theoretically grounded, is roughly analogous in most people's thinking to a mix of petite bourgeois and labour aristocracy. The bourgeois began to arise hundreds of years ago as a class, as technological changes allowed merchants to challenge the aristocracy. They were closely followed by the labour aristocracy.

I agree with the idea that the threat of communism during the cold war gave workers more power with which to negotiate for a larger share of their labour (at least, within certain countries) but again this is class struggle and complex. Political and economic realities colliding with increased class consciousness and high degrees of labour organisation. There was not some secret meeting of the capitalists where they all agreed to give people sick leave and a raise to avoid revolution.

I think as leftists we should not invent conspiracy and boogiemen. There are enough solid pieces of propaganda that do not obscure the sensible and systemic explanations for why we find ourselves in this historical moment, and I think that since reality has a left wing bias engaging with it only strengthens the cause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    The middle class can definitely be theoretically grounded, though not by its relation to the means of production because it's just a subset of the working class in that regard. Notice how all the economists on the news always cry for increased consumption when the economy isn't growing like it should? You need consumers for there to be consumption. For that you need a subset of the working class to have enough money to buy shit. It's an incentive like any other the capitalist follow, and one that ceases to exist when the real economy stops growing and the growth transitions from the production of commodities and services into coming primarily from financialization and rent extraction (from you guess who). No need for caricature villains behind the curtains.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    Define the middle class such that you can point to any person and definitely classify them as middle class or not. Everyone is buying shit, what separates middle class from not?

    Grounded theoretical meaning belonging to some theory. There is not rigourous and non arbitrary (e.g. middle class are consumers that purchase a ratio of luxury to essential goods of 0.21 or higher) definition which is in use (or can be constructed). Marxist class analysis is useful because the definition are physically/politically meaningful and thus universal. Liberal class analysis comes out of hand driers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    "Financialization" is the key.

    The upper class is the investor class. They live off of passive income generated by their owned capital- interest, dividends, rents. Their wealth grows faster than they can spend it.

    The lower class is the working class is the debtor class. They live paycheck to paycheck, exchanging 80 hours of labor for another two weeks of housing and food. Any big thing they 'own' is bought with debt, and interest on those debts eats up most of what they would otherwise be saving.

    So obviously it's a fuzzy continuum but the middle of the middle class is someone who has both investments and debts and is making nearly the same amount in passive income as they are for paid labor. They are living better than most anyone without investments, but still can't stop working tomorrow. They hope to be able to stop working someday.

    Those people are motivated to defend the system as it is because the same financialized economy that keeps the rich getting richer is- or was- also their only ladder out of a lifetime of wage slavery. They may even know that a radical socialist restructuring of society would be better for them, but have no faith in the moderate liberal political parties to pull it off, and aware of how precarious their position is.

    The ultra wealthy could lose half their wealth and half their income, and barely even notice. The almost-wealthy would fall off those ladders and never get back up. But when it finally comes time to eat the rich, they'll be the closest thing to an actual rich person the hungry masses have ever even seen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    This is arbitrary and not useful. An actually useful formalisation is when someones primary means of subsistence is no longer wage labour, aka bourgeois.

    This comment is literally what I was criticising. Mashing labour aristocracy and bourgeois, unfocusing your eyes, and calling the blurry mess a useful concept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Ok, I stand corrected on that one. But I still think that it's a phenomenon worth investigating. I would like to hear your thoughts on the rest of that earlier comment of mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I would say that your thoughts on the evolution of the economy under capitalism aligns very closely with basic Marxist theory. So if you're curious about these apparent contradictions that lead to capitalism eating itself as capitalists buy up increasingly larger amounts of production until workers can no longer purchase enough to keep the system going you should read Marx/post Marx leftist economics (Marx, living 200 years ago and being one guy got a few things wrong but nothing fundamental).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    I'm quite familiar, just overestimated how clearly defined the middle class as a societal phenomenon. Cannibal capitalism by Nancy Fraser is a great book, highly recommend.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Classes aren’t designed, there’s no moustache twirling villain behind the curtain.

    Laughs in South African.

    If your neatly arranged theoretical abstractions clashes with easily-observable reality the incongruity usually won't be found in the latter.

    it’s weird fuzzy idealistic liberal nonsense rather than something that can be theoretically grounded,

    You mean... like liberalism itself?

    Your failure to "theoretically ground" it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    vagueposting will not be tolerated after the revolution.

    If you've an argument to make, make it. Information to add then plainly state it for everyone's benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •