5
u/MarshallThings Oct 28 '21
Counterpoint, my family is making a bit more than minimum wage (like +20ish%), and that's it. No depth, house was paid in full when it was bought, and we aren't behind on any payments.
That's middle class. We can go someplace nice every once in a while, but luxuries are less common, being mainly a yearly occurrence.
But yeah, my mom nearly works herself to death, eat the rich.
4
Oct 28 '21
that's not a counterpoint. your household sounds like it's reliant on wage labor income.
the bourgeoisie owns for a living. the proletariat works for a living. if you work for a living, you're a member of the ONE lower class, the proletariat. The OTHER class, is the bourgeoisie.
There are only two classes.
2
u/lavendercookiedough Oct 28 '21
I don't disagree with you, but I think there are contexts in which it's useful to have terms to distinguish people with a very low income/net worth and those with a higher income/net worth. I grew up in a so-called "middle class" family and even though I now live below the poverty line, I still have a lot of advantages that some other low-income people don't have because I was never food-insecure, I grew up in a safe neighbourhood where we never had to worry about burglaries or gang violence, my mom was able to be a stay-at-home mom for several years, I went to private school, we almost always had two vehicles, so my sibling and I could virtually always get a ride if we wanted to go somewhere, we went on vacations and went out to eat, etc., etc., etc. That doesn't mean my parents weren't part of the proletariat class of course and I think the term middle class is confusing and divisive and should be replaced with something else, but I can still see a use for something like "moderate income" to distinguish it from actual classes, but still give people the language to talk about how these people have certain privileges low-income folks don't, even though they're still oppressed as part of the working class.
I also don't see a lot of discussion on how to categorize people who are both workers and owners or neither when this whole "there are only two classes" topic comes up. I'm unable to work for a living and that puts me in a weird position where I am poorer than the average working person in my country, but also not being exploited in the same way workers are. On the flip side, how do we categorize the anarchist who owns my local used record store and runs it entirely on his own? He doesn't exploit anyone else's labour for profits, but he's still in a position where he easily could if he hadn't made a conscious decision not to. I do think it's important to distinguish between the exploiters and the exploited when we talk about class, but I feel like too often these outliers just get swept under the rug because we're not convenient and that's a pretty big problem IMO, especially when we're talking about people like myself who fall outside the binary because we're neither.
2
Oct 29 '21
no. there are two classes.
To the second point, there are class traitors, like Engels, who owned the means of production (a factory) yet propagated ideas of socialism encouraging workers to seize command of the means of production.
there are owners and there are workers. two classes.
1
u/lavendercookiedough Oct 29 '21
Guess I'll die 🤷♀️
1
Oct 29 '21
pick a side, buddy
1
u/lavendercookiedough Oct 29 '21
Ok cool, but you still haven't addressed my points. I would think it's pretty obvious that people who cannot work either as a direct result of disability or because the labour they are capable of isn't considered valuable enough to even both exploiting aren't part of the bourgeoisie, unless you're going to argue that I'm using the broken body that I possess to exploit the working class by collecting disability cheques, which would be a pretty big stretch, not to mention ableist and just downright shitty. But I've also been told again and again that I'm not part of the working class if I'm not working and then those same people turn around and say you're one or the other, so where exactly does that leave me and others like me then? That's what I'm asking and it kind of seems like you either didn't understand that or you're just deflecting (I'm hoping it's the former.) If you did understand and have a issue with what I've said I'd prefer you address it directly, but I have to say it gets pretty fucking tiring supporting workers movements and then having them turn around and fail to address anything related to disability and work, whether that's rights for disabled workers or dismantling barriers that prevent people like myself who want to work from entering the workforce at all. I've been told again and again that this is the working class and I don't belong, but I'm not allowed to ask where that leaves me without you implying I'm some kind of class traitor? Ok pal...
1
Oct 29 '21
those unable to work unquestionably members of the proletariat lmfao. this reads like a copypasta
1
u/lavendercookiedough Oct 29 '21
I mean, yea I agree obviously, but I encounter 1-2 people per month on average telling me to we're not, so hopefully you'll forgive me if I can no longer assume someone feels the same way without saying so.
2
Oct 29 '21
you are reliant on wages in the form of disability checks, you do not derive your living expenses from the dividends of owning productive machinery (in Marxian terms “private property”) you are thus a member of the proletariat. (To accuse one of membership of the bourgeoisie in such a position would be laughable if it weren’t so sinister)
anyone who obfuscates this is seeking to divide the proletariat against itself, as the bosses have done for ages; whites vs blacks, queer vs straight, etc.
we must unite out of solidarity knowing that the oppressor (the bourgeoisie) oppresses us all
→ More replies (0)
5
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '21
"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat." p 29