A Social Definition of Class

By Susan Rosenthal

Class is commonly defined on the basis of income, wealth, education, and occupation. However, these individual characteristics tell us nothing about the relationship between the classes.

A social definition of class would measure two variables: the control that people have over their own work and the control that they have over other people’s work. Using these criteria, society can be divided into three classes: the class that rules (the capitalist class); the class that obeys (the working class); and the class in between (the middle class).

The class that rules

The capitalist or ruling class has the most power because it owns or controls the natural resources required to create wealth, the process of creating wealth and the wealth that is created. Because it controls all these things, the capitalist class decides the overall direction of society, determining what will be produced, how it will be produced and who will have access to the resulting goods and services....


The class that obeys

People in the working class own no factories, no land, no machines, no businesses, nor any other means of making a living. (They can, of course, own personal property such as homes and vehicles.) Workers survive by selling their ability to labor in exchange for a wage. They have no control over how they produce and what they produce. They have no control over the labor of others.

While the ruling class has shrunk over time, the working class has expanded. More than half the global population is now urban working class. (The next largest group is small farmers who own a little land). In the U.S., about 80 percent of the population is working class - the vast majority...

The class that obeys has the option of not obeying, of taking collective control of production and redirecting society to meet the needs of the majority.


The class in the middle

The middle class is the second largest social class. Forming about 20 percent of the North American population, the middle class sits between the two other classes, blending into the capitalist class at one end and the working class at the other end.

People in the middle class have an intermediate level of power, having some control over their own work and some control over the work of others. The middle class owns or controls some means of production: the small farmer owns some land; the self-employed artisan owns some tools: the corner-store retailer buys and sells some produce. Sections of the middle-class employ and exploit workers - on a small scale...

The 18th-century middle class was composed of small farmers and fishermen, artisans, entertainers, lower-level clergy, traders, and owners of small businesses. The process of capital accumulation absorbs the traditional middle class. Agricultural corporations swallow family farms and fast-food chains replace family restaurants.

While squeezing out the traditional middle class, capitalism creates a layer of middle-class managers to supervise the working class. The capitalist also needs middle-class financial, legal, scientific, design, and technical experts to find ways to increase profits. While ordinary workers are micro-managed, salaried professionals are encouraged to think creatively and act independently, within the limits set by the boss...

Squeezed by the two great classes on either side of it, the middle class can be critical of capitalism and even lead movements to reform it. However, the middle-class never challenges the system itself. On the contrary, it advocates compromise, anxious to ensure that all demands remain “acceptable” to the powers that be...


A social definition of class reveals the relationship between the classes. It explains why the capitalist class will never put people first, why the middle class will always try to contain the forces of rebellion, and why only the working class has the numbers, the power and the motivation to replace capitalism with an egalitarian socialist society.


http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/a-social-definition-of-class

One question, though ... obviously the homeless are part of the class that obeys, but are they distinct enough to be considered separate from the working class?

Put it this way: in whose interest is it to drive a wedge between members of "the class that obeys"? Not theirs, I think.

...particularly the resource pages. (Disclaimer: I'm on the board of directors.)

CAVIAR, COUPONS AND COLLEGE:

STORIES ACROSS THE CLASS SPECTRUM (working title)

· When was the first time you realized what class you grew up in?

· What were some of the strengths you got from your class experience? What were some of the limitations?

· What stereotypes about your class were or weren't true for you? What class stereotypes did you most worry about embodying?


· Is there class tension between you and family members, friends, co-workers, or community?

· Tell us about an "a-ha" moment in the development of your class consciousness.


SHARE YOUR CLASS STORY

Class Action, a national non-profit working for economic justice and to "inspire action to end classim," is putting together an anthology of personal stories from across the class spectrum, and is calling for submissions in the hope of furthering our collective dialogue about class. We especially encourage voices from groups that have been marginalized.

Submissions should be from 1,000 to 2,500 words, and include a brief one paragraph biography about you, the author.

Please email submissions to Pete Redington at predington @ classism.org or send them to Class Action, P.O. Box 350, Hadley, MA 01035

Include your submission in the body of the email, and write "anthology submission" in the subject line.

Submissions will be accepted through June 1, 2009.

Sociological definitions of classes always fail to understand the dynamics of societies, just because you add an "extra class" doesnt mean this marxist aproach makes any sense.

"petit-bourgeoisie"

"Starting from the mid-19th century, the term was used by Karl Marx and Marxist theorists to refer to a social class that included shop-keepers and professionals. Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty is different from the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petite bourgeois may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production. More importantly, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly."

You, sir, are the very definition of class. Here I was, almost ready to fall for this idea that there are social classes in America, until you laid down the law by calling this a "marxist" approach. Phew! That was close!

Karl Marx has still got that ability to hypnotize the unsuspecting, as he had beady eyes. And a beard. What type of man wears a beard? Al Gore? Marxist.

The truth is that there are no social classes in America. We are all one big, very happy family. That's why poor people tend to crowd into small housing units in certain neighborhoods. It's not that it's all they can afford -- despite what Marx and Gore might say -- but because they are happy. Listen to the loud music and partying that goes on in poor neighborhoods. They are beyond content. It's a good thing that they can't afford college, where bearded marxist professional professors would confuse them. Better that they remain uneducated and ignorant, like you.

It's good to see someone raising class awareness issues here.

I feel as if you forgot to list one class, the "invisible class." This group mostly is made up by the homeless. Members of this class are the most downtrodden and powerless individuals in society. I refer to them as the invisible class b/c most Americans try to pretend the homeless don't exist.

K&R

Damn right there's class war and my side is winning!

Many who were called the petit bourgeois of the 19th century are what we consider "ruling class" today (entertainers, financial managers) while others in the same loose category are clearly working class (graphic/web designers and others forced into bogus contract labor, teachers, fishermen, computer tech, film crews) and others are lumpenproletariat (unemployed contract labor, teachers, fishermen, computer techs, etc.) We also tend to look at class in terms of income and not access to production (not altogether so different in our advanced capitalist society). Hence auto workers in Detroit are "middle class" when well-paid and "poor" when the union is busted.

The GI bill and student loans allowed the working class to become "theoretically middle class/ruling class" without access to the means of production to actually be middle class (i.e. you can rack up debt in film school but no one ever tells you you'll never get a job because you can't afford the $15K film package you need to be competitive in the market after graduation; you can rack up debt at an elite university, but no one tells you that it's a waste of money if you have to work full-time and forgo unpaid internships while you're there.) Case in point: a friend from a rural trailer park with a full ride to an ivy league college on a math scholarship. Accrued tuition debt while changing majors to from math to hard science, and now owes too much money for her diploma to ever be released. She works as an itinerant laborer. She owns her own tools, but I'm not going to call her middle class.

Because many people from working class families are pushed into paying for college educations that don't lead to work, they go from "theoretically ruling class" to Home Depot/Starbucks worker with massive student loans to unemployable lumpenproletariat with alcohol dependency.

The true "middle class" in our society is what most of us would call rich. Not the assistant, assistant manager trainee at Starbucks, but the high-powered lawyers and elite plastic surgeons. They're 667: not the beast, but they live next door to the beast.

I think the real question for the future is: who is striking class? What occupations can best organize towards a mass strike? What occupations can best shut down the system? Teachers? Soldiers? Television actors and writers? Communications workers? Truck drivers? Mass transit? Some combination of the above?

Given the devastation wrought upon industrial workers some new configuration is necessary. The immigrant movement certainly has potential, as it is they are ahead of most of us.

It has occurred to me that off-shoring, besides providing cheap labor profits to the capitalist also emasculated their primary enemy. This seems too provident for the capitalists to be a happy accident.

forming under global capitalism. Global solidarity is almost mandatory now. That means a lot of organizing, a lot of language skills, a lot of commitment, a lot of work from the broke-ass and exhausted international working class. The globalization of English, though, does work in our favor.

That is the importance of the Soviet Union and Cuba. For all of the trial and tribulation these societies blaze the trail, the society of the future will stand on the shoulders of giants.

The problem of initiating a worldwide social movement in a world of nation states is a sticky one, I suspect it will be worked out in the real world and not on paper, events will dictate, mistakes will be made and be corrected. There really is no choice in this.

Excellent points to ponder.

:thumbsup: