'The middle class'
Oct 13 2009 12:53
I think most of the people who post on here would agree that the term 'middle class' as it is usually used in the UK isn't of much descriptive use, and is generally an insult referring to particular consumption habits and levels of education.
However, I have thought for a while that there is the need for a term or terminology to describe the role of senior management in workplaces. For instance, I work for a small financial organisation. Or the four people there who could be called 'management', two are essentially operational staff with some mostly meaningless 'managerial responsibilities', and two could definitely be described as having a meaningful decision-making power in the workplace, with control over hiring and firing, pay, working conditions etc. Similarly, at my job before that - manual handling at a tourist attraction - there were a bunch of largely powerless 'supervisors' and a manager again capable of making meaningful decisions (in this case withholding people's contracts and threatening them when they complained) but who was still technically a wage worker.
How do we describe such people? All are technically wage workers, living off salaries. I don't think 'bosses' is a very good term, as due to the way managerial and supervisory roles have been pushed down into the workforce in recent years there is a whole tier of line management who have little to no power whatsoever. Talking about 'bosses' can be confusing if it incorporates such people.
I think that there were attempts to address this in the Libcom/Parecon debate, where the libcom side discusses capitalism as a 'bipolar' system. Its a bit of a clunky way of describing it, but interesting nonetheless.
Any ideas? Any suggested reading on the subject?
Oct 13 2009 14:08
#2
I think on abstract level it's quite easy to tie yourself in knots about this. I think it's important to define what you naturally want to get out of something first, and how you want to use the analysis.
What I mean here is that the concept of a "middle-class" is very important for understanding a significant events and developments in societies. For example, the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa - This had working class and more middle-class or proto-bourgeois aspects to it.
In the end, the struggle was bought off by apartheid nominally being abolished, and the creation of a (tiny) black bourgeoisie and black middle-class. The large majority black working class is still in as bad - if not worse - state as ever.
But in terms of classifying individuals, it is not useful.
In your example, I'm not really sure what you want to get out of this.
What's wrong with just referring to them as "senior management" for example? If you want to be very specific, then things can get very confusing. For example, most senior managers in private enterprises own significant amounts of shares in them, and so also part owners.
Often completely powerless lower-level managers are the ones responsible for enforcing shop floor discipline on workers. So these people are definitely the "bosses" of their direct subordinates, but often they will have good relationships with other rank and file workers whom they don't directly supervise.
When you go further up the chain people do have seemingly more meaningful decision-making power. But actually, the decisions they need to make are enforced on them by the market, and the level to which they can implement them regulated by workers organisation and militancy of the workforce.
It's not like they have the power to do just whatever they want. If they didn't do what the market was dictating, they would be sacked by the shareholders, or their company would go bust.
I think referring to them as managers, bosses, etc is fair enough. And most of them would be part of the sociological "middle-class" of use in the first example. In some instances they could also be allies, for example in widespread dispute strike over public sector pensions. So I think how you refer to them depends on the circumstances.
Unfortunately, I think most written stuff I've seen on this sort of thing has been really bad "coordinator class" kind of stuff which is actually completely inconsistent.
Oct 13 2009 14:18
#3
The thing is, I think it's misleading to call waged managers an' that "middle class". Fact is, "middle class" is a cultural identity that is shared by wage workers, capitalists, and those in between. As a cultural identity it is both derived from material conditions and an important fact of capitalist society.
So while I think that what you're talking about re the roles of lower level 'managers' is pretty interesting terrain, I think we should be clear that that's a separate thing from "the middle class".
More on topic, the way I see it, the crucial thing in class analysis is not so much one's source of income, but one's relationship to capital. Managers, whether or not they have a wage, manage and control capital, while workers have little to no say in how capital is managed.
~J.
Oct 13 2009 14:50
#4
I've been a supervisor before and on one job it was informal and I just wrote up the handover sheets to make it look as if we'd been working and made sure the guys did the bare minimum necessary so we wouldn't get an actual manager put on the shift. Our interests were the same pretty much.
In the other job I organised staff, made sure work was done etc. I thought I was good at it and people certainly liked working with me but I was formally in charge of making sure that they worked and I was paid more than them. Although I did my share rather than skive it was a more difficult position, for me to be in. I probably would think twice about such a job now. It was always us against them with management but as management were fairly nice to us I don't know how it would have gone if push had come to shove. I think it all fitted into the toyotaist model if I'm honest. I looked out for the people I worked with, but I also made sure that they did their work (not that I really needed to)
Oct 13 2009 16:38
#5
I think this guy wrote something on the subject. I read this article in russian years ago, when i just started to study communist theory. As i remember, it was quite sensible.
Oct 13 2009 18:44
#6
I quite agree, describing a large number of people by a label that can be misleading doesn't really help.
Why do we have to use a label at all? I know it might be less simple, but why not just describe the situation we are talking about in context?
I think we are all individuals with a large range of circumstances.
I think we should all be treated equally, and if that means speaking out against unfairness, then we need to do that while explaining what is unfair. I think a label under those circumstances although brief, can be misleading.
Oct 13 2009 21:47
#7
In the U.S. if you have a decent paying job (meaning you more or less can pay your bills) you are considered middle class. I'm not sure of conditions elsewhere but in the US it becomes obvious very quickly that the term "middle class" has no useful value in analyzing class relations. Politicians regularly call for "middle class tax cuts" to the an ovation of working class people who all assume, "They're talking about me!!!"
Django, I have always been partial to the term "Upper Management" or like Steven. said above "Senior Management" works equally as well.
In most non-specialized fields in the US the only way to get a decent bump in pay and the seemingly natural step for more talented workers is to more or less become a member of management. The idiocy of the three class analysis is a Team Leader in the service sector would be a member of the coordinator class making under $25-30K a year which, depending on where you live, is more or less just enough to get by without government assistance. Meanwhile a UAW Ford line worker with years of experience is making somewhere in the range of $50-$60K. But according to the three class analysis, the Team Leader--with little to no real decision making ability--has different class interests than the Ford worker, and while I'm sure from time to time this holds true it just doesn't jive with the experiences of most people I know. It really is just lunacy imho as the primary reason for creating positions such as Team Leaders is to avoid paying overtime, divide workers, and neuter the more intelligent and talented members of the workforce by bringing them into the management fold.
Oct 14 2009 00:31
#8
all depends on if you are talking about class in relation to the means of production or based on how much money they make.
i think the only thing that matters is the former in relation to communism/anarchism, etc
i would call these folks the managers, mediators, coordinators, or the technocracy...
Oct 15 2009 08:26
#9
Django
If "middle class" has any acceptable use, it is only when talking of capitalist society generally, but even then it would have to be clearly defined. For the specific instance you mention, I would think that terms like "senior management" or "upper management" and "junior management" or "lower management", and if necessary "middle management", would suffice. I would say that senior or upper management is definitely part of the ruling capitalist class. Lower or junior management is technically or sociologically part of the working class, but don't expect them (generally) to ever fight for working class interests.
Oct 23 2009 17:22
#10
It seems to me that "middle class" describes people who are comfortable enough in their own lives and willing enough to live off of the sweat and blood of others that have become complacent and have no desire for change. Middle class are the people who just don't really give a shit about the rest of us, capitalism has been decent to them and so why should they complain? They have a few cars, a nice house with a yard. They go on vacations when they want to and can afford to send their kids to school without having to take out massive loans. Above them is the ruling class who fleeces both the middle class and the working class for profits and let millions starve to turn a buck. The elite. The working class is the rest of us, busting our asses to get by, giving up any kind of luxury or quality time in the interest of not finding ourselves on the street, hungry and cold.
I could be wrong but that's how I see it.
Oct 23 2009 17:30
#11
Middle class you can usually tell by where their chidren go to school. There is gonna be the odd clever poor person but the majority in grammer schools will be of the future professional/controlling class-i sound like david icke.
This is pretty simplistic but usually a good guide.
Oct 23 2009 17:44
#12
killyerlandlords wrote:
It seems to me that "middle class" describes people who are comfortable enough in their own lives and willing enough to live off of the sweat and blood of othersMiddle class are the people who just don't really give a shit about the rest of us,
They have a few cars, a nice house with a yard. They go on vacations when they want to and can afford to send their kids to school without having to take out massive loans.
Like doctors?
Oct 23 2009 19:08
#13
Some doctors, yes. Not all doctors are in the profession to help people and almost ALL doctors take their cues from the pharmaceutical companies.
Oct 24 2009 00:24
#14
killyerlandlords wrote:
Some doctors, yes. Not all doctors are in the profession to help people and almost ALL doctors take their cues from the pharmaceutical companies.
Doctors, of course, have full control over their sources of medication. They decide what medicine gets developed, they decide what gets covered by the various health insurance policies and, therefore, they are to blame for the current condition of the medical system. Stalin had the right idea. </sarcasm>
(Edited for clarification)
Oct 23 2009 19:28
#15
Good point about doctors, but please let's not forget about greedy bankers.
Oct 23 2009 19:35
#16
and the super rich
Oct 24 2009 01:22
#17
And the euronazis.*
*Full irony.
Oct 23 2009 21:21
#18
The people who are making joke posts, bear in mind that a lot of people won't realise this!
killyerlandlords wrote:
It seems to me that "middle class" describes people who are comfortable enough in their own lives and willing enough to live off of the sweat and blood of others that have become complacent and have no desire for change. Middle class are the people who just don't really give a shit about the rest of us, capitalism has been decent to them and so why should they complain? They have a few cars, a nice house with a yard. They go on vacations when they want to and can afford to send their kids to school without having to take out massive loans. Above them is the ruling class who fleeces both the middle class and the working class for profits and let millions starve to turn a buck. The elite. The working class is the rest of us, busting our asses to get by, giving up any kind of luxury or quality time in the interest of not finding ourselves on the street, hungry and cold.
I could be wrong but that's how I see it.
kill, this is a definition that you are decided on yourself - but is this what anyone else takes a definition to be? If not, and it's just your personal opinion, then what is the political utility of this definition? And what about people that you would consider to be "working class" who don't dislike capitalism?
Django, I'd be interested to see what your view on this discussion now is.
Oct 24 2009 00:02
#19
Well, why should my personal outlook be any less worth while than anyone else? I think it's a pretty fair summation. Again, I could be off the mark but there are most likely some (perhaps many, I dare not assume how many) who would agree. As far as working class who don't dislike capitalism, well it would seem that most of those folks have been misled to believe capitalism is something that it isn't and that they actually have a fair chance to really improve their position which is obviously rarely the case. Capitalism has been so heavily tied to patriotism that for many folks it's a matter of pride NOT to be open to socialism of any kind. Look at all these "tea parties" in the states. People are actually trying to call Obama a socialist. Clearly those people don't get what socialism is. I'm not trying to say that I have all the answers but from where I'm standing that would seem to be a reasonable way to put things. Do you think I'm way off the mark? If so I'm open to other opinions or facts that I'm not aware of.
Oct 23 2009 23:38
#20
I agree with Django's first post that Middle Classness is very much connected to consumption habits. Specifically, consumption habits that are geared around communicating that they do not consider themselves part of the working class but rather a more privileged and elite group. Veblen in The Theory of the Leasure Class goes on about this if I remember correctly. I read that years ago before I was on the political tip.
Oct 24 2009 00:04
#21
smg wrote:
I agree with Django's first post that Middle Classness is very much connected to consumption habits. Specifically, consumption habits that are geared around communicating that they do not consider themselves part of the working class but rather a more privileged and elite group. Veblen in The Theory of the Leasure Class goes on about this if I remember correctly. I read that years ago before I was on the political tip.
I also agree with this point, middles class, to me (this is a perspective, not a definition) also would mean folks who produce waste beyond reason, who drive SUVs with one person in them while the rest of us worry about how we're going to get to work, who buy things on impulse and then throw them away without considering that someone else might be able to use them, etc. Also, i just downloaded The Theory of The Leasure Class, thanks for mentioning it by name. I'm always open to learn.
Oct 24 2009 09:05
#22
killyerlandlords wrote:
smg wrote:
I agree with Django's first post that Middle Classness is very much connected to consumption habits. Specifically, consumption habits that are geared around communicating that they do not consider themselves part of the working class but rather a more privileged and elite group. Veblen in The Theory of the Leasure Class goes on about this if I remember correctly. I read that years ago before I was on the political tip.I also agree with this point, middles class, to me (this is a perspective, not a definition) also would mean folks who produce waste beyond reason, who drive SUVs with one person in them while the rest of us worry about how we're going to get to work, who buy things on impulse and then throw them away without considering that someone else might be able to use them, etc. Also, i just downloaded The Theory of The Leasure Class, thanks for mentioning it by name. I'm always open to learn.
So driving an SUV or buying things on impulse then throwing them away means you could live without selling your labor power for money? Does any of these things make it impossible for you to join a strike at your workplace?
Oct 24 2009 11:05
#23
killyerlandlords wrote:
Well, why should my personal outlook be any less worth while than anyone else? I think it's a pretty fair summation.
my point was not in saying that your personal opinion was irrelevant. What I did ask, however, and what you haven't answered is if it is just your personal opinion then "what is the political utility" of the definition?
Because if it's just your definition you use in your mind and nothing else, then it doesn't matter if it's right, wrong, consistent or whatever. If you are using it to assess who you think your " class enemies" are, then there could be a problem.
Quote:
Again, I could be off the mark but there are most likely some (perhaps many, I dare not assume how many) who would agree.
I don't think you'd find many people that did agree with you. In the population as a whole certainly, but even amongst anarchists.
For starters, your definition doesn't really make any sense. You state that middle-class people live off "the sweat and blood of others", but then later you say that the "ruling class" is that which fleeces the middle and working classes. So who exactly do you think the middle classes are exploiting?
You also have a simultaneous definition as being those who don't complain about capitalism, or who have no desire for change, or who "don't give a shit about the rest of us". So what about working class people who don't give a shit about other people? or working class conservatives? Are you saying that no middle-class people Socialists, anarchists or whatever? Or by becoming anarchist does that automatically make you working class then?
killyerlandlords wrote:
I also agree with this point, middles class, to me (this is a perspective, not a definition) also would mean folks who produce waste beyond reason, who drive SUVs with one person in them while the rest of us worry about how we're going to get to work, who buy things on impulse and then throw them away without considering that someone else might be able to use them, etc.
again, this is getting more and more messy now.
I'm guessing you're American, if you're saying that middle-class people drive SUVs. In Europe, hardly any people drive SUVs. This does not mean that there are no middle-class people in Europe.
On waste, again lots of middle-class people are super into things like recycling. And on amount of waste produced, this has much more to do with what country you live in than what "class" you are. Unless you think that say the entire population of the US and Western Europe are middle-class, and pretty much the whole rest of the world is working class.
Oct 24 2009 11:56
#24
Is being working class and middle class mutually exclusive? I dont think so. Both work, thus surplus value is extracted from their labor by capital. Are anti-middle class sentiments part of a process of mystification that serves to further disguise how capital actually functions and divides workers?
Oct 24 2009 12:36
#25
Perhaps there's no sharp dividing line more of a foggy blur.
Working class people have to work for a living.
Ruling class people get to make decisions about the rest of us.
Perhaps the Middle class are just those in the comfortable middle.
Oct 24 2009 15:00
#26
Alright guys, I see your points. I wasn't trying to make a messy definition and you are right I do live in America. Clearly I missed some key factors in defining exactly what the middle class is and tied some things to it that don't necessarily stem directly from it, even considering that that was not what I was attempting to do beyond my personal perspective. I guess in answer to your query there is no political utility to me view point. I do have to note that I have as yet still not seen a clear definition of what exactly middles class is, if there is such a thing. Is it tied to consumption? Is it tied to the amount of money one makes? Is it even a useful term to begin with? As stated before I'm always open to new ideas and facts that I may not know about and I appreciate the opportunity to share and learn from one another.
Also, i was not trying to say that any of the above listed things would prevent someone from being involved in striking or any other action of that nature, i was just listing some of the characteristics of those who appear, from where I sit, to exist among the "middle class". And I am open to being incorrect.
I have begun reading The Theory Of The Leisure Class and one striking thing that I think more clearly defines what it is to be "middle class" is the exemption from industrial labor. We're talking people involved in upper and middle management, athletes, politicians, etc. The people who sit on top of the lower or working class. They are not part of the highest class, the bankers, rulers, elite, but rest atop those who do manual labor, who are directly involved in industry beyond a managerial position. Do you think that makes sense?
Oct 24 2009 16:29
#27
I'd say your definition is what you say it is.
What point is the definition being used to make?
Oct 24 2009 16:41
#28
tina wrote:
I'd say your definition is what you say it is.What point is the definition being used to make?
Well, it's a question of political utility. What good does my personal speculation do in the grand scheme of political thought if it isn't grounded in actual fact? One could say that the middle class are people who wear turtle necks and own horses but that's not a useful summation, and in all likelihood holds a very limited truth. Some people who are "middle class" wear turtle neck sweaters and own horses but that is not a definition of "middle class".
Oct 24 2009 17:18
#29
right but isn't that the point? "middle class" is a sociological classification and really doesn't expand our understanding of class relations under modern capitalism.
Oct 24 2009 17:48
#30
It might offer useful insight if we could ever establish it's role in class relations. How DOES the middle class relate to or view the working class? Is there an actual separation between the two or is it more of a blurred line? What issues can be dealt with to bridge that interpersonal gap, if there is one?
Even company CEOs ostensibly live off of a salary, and are ultimately accountable to the Board of Directors or to the shareholders. On the other hand, a lot of small-time shareholders, ostensibly capitalists, have actually been made so through their pension plan, or even if they did choose this directly, have very little say in how the company does.
Finally, it used to be very common to give stock options as a salary alternative. This whole subject seems very dodgy to me, good on you for bringing it up, though it has been discussed on libcom even before that parecon debate.