Middle class and working class

[Denise]

Since when is the middle class not also part of the working class? Serious? I am "middle class" but I also have to work at least 40 hours a week. Would you consider a union steelworker who makes 25 bucks an hour "working class" or "middle class" and what do the unions have to say about this?

[Denise]

I posted this because I cannot understand how Bill O'Reilly's family was not considered working class.

[a_unique_person]

When doing sociology, I learned that everyone wants to bump themselves up a class.

The classes are a marxian invention.

His definition was

Upper class, the billionaires, aristocracy, company presidents, etc.

Middle Class, the multi-millionaires, doctors, lawyers, senior managers. That is, people who have enough assets to live comfortably, and for whom work produces much more income than they actually need.

Working Class, those who have to work to make ends meet. That means most of us.

When we talk about most of us, we are talking about divisions within the working class. There are the upper working-class, the well paid day to day workers, the middle working class, people who struggle to make ends meet, and the working poor, people who work but don't get paid enough to live above the poverty line.

[Kthulhu]

Recently I've been seeing them used inplace of blue collar and white collar. /shrug

~The Thing That Should Not Be

[a_unique_person]

Anyway Denise, you really should watch using Marxist terminology. Who knows where it could lead, or what people could think.

[Denise]

I don't think the concept of classes was invented by Marx.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Working Class, those who have to work to make ends meet. That means most of us.



Most people in the US belong to the middle class.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Tony


Most people in the US belong to the middle class.

And most in the middle class have to work to make ends meet as well.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Denise


And most in the middle class have to work to make ends meet as well.

You're absolutly right. AUP doesnt know what he's talking about.

[susheel]

I think the problem here is Marx's creation of the term was for a period in specifically English industrrial society.

The 'upperclass' were the rich land owners, industrialists, royalty and the like.

The 'middle class' were the people of 'independent means' (a moderate annual income through inheritence or trust fund) and those employes in white collar work.

The 'working class' were the blue collar workers employed in the then new industrial complexes. Their living conditions were pretty bad.

These days the demarcation though changed slightly remains similar in essence in many developing countries. The situation is that the classes feed off each other. But while there is a mossibility for the middle class to attain 'upperclassdom' with relative ease, it is a lot more difficult for the 'working class' to achieve 'middle classdom".

In many societies there is an undercurrent that ensures the working class stays where they are. It is important that it does so for the other two classes to thrive.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Denise
I don't think the concept of classes was invented by Marx. Invented, maybe not, but described?

I'm admittedly an ignorant here, who described the classes that way before he did? :confused:

[jj]

Originally posted by susheel
In many societies there is an undercurrent that ensures the working class stays where they are. It is important that it does so for the other two classes to thrive.

Well, speaking as somebody who moved out of a little milltown next to the prarie, you got that one right.

It wasn't exactly an "under"current, either.

[Denise]

The French Revolution for starters?

[susheel]

The French Revolution demarcation is binary. Bourgeoise (I can never spell ot right) and Proletariat. The three level demarcation came out with the Industrial Revolution. Marx's 'working class' refers to the blue collar workers in the factories spawned by the industrial revolution distinct from the tailors, cobblers, smiths etc who existed prior to the revolution or were not part of it.

[Denise]

Originally posted by susheel
The French Revolution demarcation is binary. Bourgeoise (I can never spell ot right) and Proletariat. The three level demarcation came out with the Industrial Revolution. Marx's 'working class' refers to the blue collar workers in the factories spawned by the industrial revolution distinct from the tailors, cobblers, smiths etc who existed prior to the revolution or were not part of it.

It was a description of the classes was it not? And the estates? Was that not a description of classes? Please.:rolleyes:

[susheel]

O think we may be talking about two different things here. You are speaking of the term 'working class' in the sense of what it generally implies...the class that works. Which would include everyone if you stretch it Bill Gates...he does work to earn his millions.

I am working from a Marxian perspective (no apoligies, in my context it offers me solutions) which is generally the perspective used in a lot of the literature I read. Granted, the French revolution may have been a forerunner to Marxian descriptions. I am sure he didn't work in a vacuum and he would be the last to admit to having pulled all this out of a hat by himself.

[Denise]

Now that we have done a little round and round is it not fair to say that the middle class is not also part of the working class?

[Denise]

Originally posted by susheel
O think we may be talking about two different things here. You are speaking of the term 'working class' in the sense of what it generally implies...the class that works. Which would include everyone if you stretch it Bill Gates...he does work to earn his millions.

I am working from a Marxian perspective (no apoligies, in my context it offers me solutions) which is generally the perspective used in a lot of the literature I read. Granted, the French revolution may have been a forerunner to Marxian descriptions. I am sure he didn't work in a vacuum and he would be the last to admit to having pulled all this out of a hat by himself.

You did everything but actually give me a description of the "working class". Could you do that? Thanks!

[susheel]

I thought I did in a manner of speaking. But if you are talking of one universal definition, I doubt if it is possible. Working Class may mean different things in different contexts. I think a mistake that those on both the Left and the Right make is in thinking that this and other such terms have the same meaning in all contexts. What they finally end up doing is fight over the nuances of two different things with the same name.

[Denise]

And your defintion is...

[iain]

Originally posted by Denise
Now that we have done a little round and round is it not fair to say that the middle class is not also part of the working class? Its just a definition. Why are you bothered about it?

The answer is, it depends on who has defined what the terms "working class" and "middle class" mean. There's no one correct definition; they can be useful terms in different situations.

If you want to call yourself working class, go ahead. If some survey puts you into a different category, don't take it personally - they have to categorise people somehow. It doesn't make any difference to who you are or what you do.

[susheel]

The Marxian one I referred to earlier I am afraid. I work for a living, but from my point of reference I do not consider myself 'working class'...the maid who comes to help out, the scavenger who sweeps the street, the rickshaw pullers...they are working class. I am not being derogatory in this classification. It helps me keep things in perspective and know I am one of the priveleged. I also know that I couldn't get by in the city for a week without their inputs into my life.

I second what iain has said.

[Denise]

Originally posted by iain
Its just a definition. Why are you bothered about it?

The answer is, it depends on who has defined what the terms "working class" and "middle class" mean. There's no one correct definition; they can be useful terms in different situations.

If you want to call yourself working class, go ahead. If some survey puts you into a different category, don't take it personally - they have to categorise people somehow. It doesn't make any difference to who you are or what you do.

I am bothered by it for obvious reasons ie my first post. Look at it. Thanks!

[iain]

Originally posted by Denise
I am bothered by it for obvious reasons ie my first post. Look at it. Thanks! Sorry Denise. Maybe I'm being thick, but I've re-read your first post and am none the wiser.

You wrote
Since when is the middle class not also part of the working class? Serious? I am "middle class" but I also have to work at least 40 hours a week. Would you consider a union steelworker who makes 25 bucks an hour "working class" or "middle class" and what do the unions have to say about this? In your second post you mention Bill O'Reilly, but I have no idea who he is or what his relevance is to the class issue.

Can you explain or link please.

[Denise]

I am asking for what a person views as working class. It may be different from person to person. Is a middle class person also the working class. I hope I made that clearer.

Hey Denise, look at question number 1 on this test. (http://cwabacon.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/henslin_ab/chapter10/multiple1/deluxe-content.html)

I sure wish I knew what it said on page 252....

[jj]

Originally posted by Denise
I am asking for what a person views as working class. It may be different from person to person. Is a middle class person also the working class. I hope I made that clearer.

If you go to work every day to make money, you work.

Work includes offices, steel mills, garbage trucks, brokerages, airforce bases, ...

If you work, you're part of a working class.

I have no interest in the Marxist definitions, to my mind they are arranged to set "us against them". The class definitions in Marxism work much the same as the "divine right of kings" did earlier to control the less rich, less educated parts of the working class. Marxism just tries to move the point of manipulitive control higher.

Looks like we aren't the only ones struggling with definitions of class.

Even cursory reading in the field of class and stratification will reveal much terminological and conceptual controversy.... It is a fact that among sociologists and other scientists different words are used for the same object; it is also a fact that they mean, or seem to mean, different things by the same word.
---- Carlsson, 1969


My definition of social class in Chapter 24 begs the question: how does it compare to the definitions of class found in the literature?
An immediate problem is determining a core meaning that is consistent with usage. Unfortunately, the literature shows little agreement on what constitutes class.1 Classes have been defined by property ownership (Marx), position or role (Mosca, 1939; Pareto, 1963), status rank (Warner, 1960; Lenski, 1966), prestige (Barber, 1957); or by intermarriage (Schumpeter, 1951). In spite of this denotative variance, however, underlying the discussion and use of the concept are common assumptions which are also shared by my definition.2 First, class membership is not biologically determined, but is a form of social stratification based on laws, esteem, wealth, or power. Estates or castes may comprise types of class stratification, or classes may be defined by different status-ranks. In all cases, however, class is a vertical division into superior-inferior or, in my terms, superordinate-subordinate. Second, in general a difference in class is a difference in wealth, power, or esteem. All definitions do not assume an identity between class and rank, but all assume a correlation. Class is a division in privileges.

From


here. (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP25.HTM)