Whatever happened to Marx’ “ownership of the means of production” definition? Also, even beyond that, it makes sense to have an understanding that the precarity felt by an upper middle class person is not remotely the same kind of daily struggle faced by a lower middle class person. Not being able to afford property vs. not being able to afford food.
Ultimately it is important to recognize that all humans in the capitalist system are recruited to participate in an extractive, antihumanist global process.
Americans seem to feel that middle class means having your own “home”, meaning a small plot of land with a house. The number of such homes, within a certain distance of workplaces, schools, and various urban amenities, is limited. There’s nothing any economic system can do about that. At some point, people have to accept smaller plots of land and/or stacking the dwellings (ie living in apartments).
Germany is not traditionally a property-owning nation. The proportion of renters is far higher. Does that mean that Germany has fewer middle class people than its neighbors? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I think this is a toxic view. It means that there is a limited supply of middle class status. People who already own property, have a strong financial incentive for NIMBYism. You also have a financial incentive to make property more scarce and thus more expensive. It incentivizes a fuck you, I got mine attitude. When your dwelling is not just a place to stay, but a source of status and identity, this is made all the much worse.
Maybe you’re thinking, we should just sell off all the property owned by corporations or the state, so that more individuals can get their middle class badge. Well, that’s what Margret Thatcher did. It’s exactly the kind of neoliberal thinking that got us the society we have today.
Middle class isn’t a thing, it’s a made-up bourgeois tool to give the working class an idea of what’s “enough” with no respect to actual labor output, nor is it a Social relation to the Means of Production.
The popularization of the stock market make the “means of production” definition fuzzy. If you own .001% of Tesla, do you own the means of production? What about 1%? What about 20%? Is it 51%? Elon Musk is obviously in the owner class, but he only controls 20% of Tesla. But if it’s 20%, then does going in with 4 buddies to buy a $500,000 surface parking lot make you an owner? You only need $100k for that and you might not even be employing anyone, and you’re not producing anything except parking. You’re not like set for life at $100k.
I assume this is solved by using money as the “means of production” instead of thinking of it as ownership of a business or machine, but that still doesn’t solve the fuzzy nature of it, you need to set a border at an amount of money.
It’s really not fuzzy. The stock market existed during Marx’s time. If you own enough to live off of without labor, you’re Bourgeoisie. If you own a small business but also must labor to run it, you’re petite bourgeoisie. If you do not own enough to live off of and do not make your primary income via ownership, you’re Proletariat.
The fuzzy part is picking an amount to consider “enough to live off of.” Elon Musk still works, it’s not a question of if you are currently working but a question of whether you need to. But some people “leanfire” retire with $300k in stocks. So is everyone with a net worth of $300k or more part of the Bourgeoisie?
And apologies to the true theorists because I’m sure Marx covered this somewhere but this makes me wonder about the elderly or unfortunate living off of government payments like Social Security with zero net worth…they don’t work to survive, but they don’t have any money.
Choosing to take an active managerial role, and needing to, is what separates bourgeoisie from petite bourgeoisie. Musk is firmly, firmly bourgeoisie. The most bourgeois bourgeoisie, one could say.
Leanfire is bourgeoisie. Being able to live off of your investments and choosing to makes one bourgeoisie.
You’re trying to tie net worth to class interests, which defeats the purpose of class analysis in the first place. What connects class is not material conditions, but shared interests.
I see what you’re saying but I don’t think you’ve closed any gaps. If leanfire is bourgeoisie at $300k, then people with the same amount of money who are working instead of retiring are choosing to work, just like Musk.
I get that it shouldn’t be a net worth calculation, but that’s really a stand-in for the conundrum that occurs when someone could retire but isn’t, and who gets to define what “could retire” means. Is someone staying one extra year in the coal mines to pay for their granddaughter’s college in the bourgeoisie for that year? Does it matter what the goal is? What about staying multiple years? What if the goal is making enough money to launch a mission to Mars? I’m back on Musk.
You’re either setting the definition at literal need, in which case you’re making a pretty huge bourgeoisie of whom a large percentage work for a living, or it’s just fuzzy because you need to know interests and intentions and internal thoughts and feelings.
Leanfire requires setting up and actively living in a manner that has you living off the labor of others by virtue of your own ownership.
Being able to retire, yet getting your money via labor does not make one bourgeois.
Again, think in shared class interests. What does the coal miner do to get their money? At most, they would be petite bourgeoisie.
Have you read Marx? I do think Marxism can help you out a bit. Classes are described as aggregates, it isn’t fuzzy but it also isn’t binary, and most of all relying on net worth defeats the purpose of class analysis as they share no class interests.
Whatever happened to Marx’ “ownership of the means of production” definition? Also, even beyond that, it makes sense to have an understanding that the precarity felt by an upper middle class person is not remotely the same kind of daily struggle faced by a lower middle class person. Not being able to afford property vs. not being able to afford food.
Ultimately it is important to recognize that all humans in the capitalist system are recruited to participate in an extractive, antihumanist global process.
By what definition is somebody who can’t afford property “upper middle class”?
Common definitions for the middle class range from the middle fifth of individuals on a nation’s income ladder, to everyone but the poorest and wealthiest 20%. (Wikipedia)
Americans seem to feel that middle class means having your own “home”, meaning a small plot of land with a house. The number of such homes, within a certain distance of workplaces, schools, and various urban amenities, is limited. There’s nothing any economic system can do about that. At some point, people have to accept smaller plots of land and/or stacking the dwellings (ie living in apartments).
Yes but apartments can be owned. I’m German and I also think middle class means the family either owns or is currently paying off a house/apartment
Germany is not traditionally a property-owning nation. The proportion of renters is far higher. Does that mean that Germany has fewer middle class people than its neighbors? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I think this is a toxic view. It means that there is a limited supply of middle class status. People who already own property, have a strong financial incentive for NIMBYism. You also have a financial incentive to make property more scarce and thus more expensive. It incentivizes a fuck you, I got mine attitude. When your dwelling is not just a place to stay, but a source of status and identity, this is made all the much worse.
Maybe you’re thinking, we should just sell off all the property owned by corporations or the state, so that more individuals can get their middle class badge. Well, that’s what Margret Thatcher did. It’s exactly the kind of neoliberal thinking that got us the society we have today.
-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society
Middle class isn’t a thing, it’s a made-up bourgeois tool to give the working class an idea of what’s “enough” with no respect to actual labor output, nor is it a Social relation to the Means of Production.
The popularization of the stock market make the “means of production” definition fuzzy. If you own .001% of Tesla, do you own the means of production? What about 1%? What about 20%? Is it 51%? Elon Musk is obviously in the owner class, but he only controls 20% of Tesla. But if it’s 20%, then does going in with 4 buddies to buy a $500,000 surface parking lot make you an owner? You only need $100k for that and you might not even be employing anyone, and you’re not producing anything except parking. You’re not like set for life at $100k.
I assume this is solved by using money as the “means of production” instead of thinking of it as ownership of a business or machine, but that still doesn’t solve the fuzzy nature of it, you need to set a border at an amount of money.
It’s really not fuzzy. The stock market existed during Marx’s time. If you own enough to live off of without labor, you’re Bourgeoisie. If you own a small business but also must labor to run it, you’re petite bourgeoisie. If you do not own enough to live off of and do not make your primary income via ownership, you’re Proletariat.
The fuzzy part is picking an amount to consider “enough to live off of.” Elon Musk still works, it’s not a question of if you are currently working but a question of whether you need to. But some people “leanfire” retire with $300k in stocks. So is everyone with a net worth of $300k or more part of the Bourgeoisie?
And apologies to the true theorists because I’m sure Marx covered this somewhere but this makes me wonder about the elderly or unfortunate living off of government payments like Social Security with zero net worth…they don’t work to survive, but they don’t have any money.
Choosing to take an active managerial role, and needing to, is what separates bourgeoisie from petite bourgeoisie. Musk is firmly, firmly bourgeoisie. The most bourgeois bourgeoisie, one could say.
Leanfire is bourgeoisie. Being able to live off of your investments and choosing to makes one bourgeoisie.
You’re trying to tie net worth to class interests, which defeats the purpose of class analysis in the first place. What connects class is not material conditions, but shared interests.
I see what you’re saying but I don’t think you’ve closed any gaps. If leanfire is bourgeoisie at $300k, then people with the same amount of money who are working instead of retiring are choosing to work, just like Musk.
I get that it shouldn’t be a net worth calculation, but that’s really a stand-in for the conundrum that occurs when someone could retire but isn’t, and who gets to define what “could retire” means. Is someone staying one extra year in the coal mines to pay for their granddaughter’s college in the bourgeoisie for that year? Does it matter what the goal is? What about staying multiple years? What if the goal is making enough money to launch a mission to Mars? I’m back on Musk.
You’re either setting the definition at literal need, in which case you’re making a pretty huge bourgeoisie of whom a large percentage work for a living, or it’s just fuzzy because you need to know interests and intentions and internal thoughts and feelings.
Leanfire requires setting up and actively living in a manner that has you living off the labor of others by virtue of your own ownership.
Being able to retire, yet getting your money via labor does not make one bourgeois.
Again, think in shared class interests. What does the coal miner do to get their money? At most, they would be petite bourgeoisie.
Have you read Marx? I do think Marxism can help you out a bit. Classes are described as aggregates, it isn’t fuzzy but it also isn’t binary, and most of all relying on net worth defeats the purpose of class analysis as they share no class interests.
The knowledge economy and non-physical services economies make that definition worthless.
Those existed during Marx’s time.
No they didn’t, not in any way that’s recognizable when compared with today’s global economy.
Yes, they did.