I disagree somewhat. Yes it was appeasement to a significant extent, but I think the middle class was primarily created to grow the consumer base to fuel the growth of the economy by giving a subset of the working class enough wealth to make them better consumers. At the same time they get bombarded with marketing to keep them using their limited wealth for this purpose. The rich can't get richer if the economy (that they own) doesn't grow in size and it can't grow if workers can't afford to be consumers for the products and services they produce. Financialization is the key thing that is currently (since like, Reagan and Thatcher) shaking things up. The real economy isn't growing like it used to, with economic growth now coming primarily from asset inflation. Rent extraction and high interest debts gain even more prevalence and guess who's paying...

taps Das Kapital

The Bourgeois are the Middle Class and they've been around for over 400 years. Hardly a fluke.

The bourgeoisie were only a middle class in relation to the aristocracy above them. While there's still some aristocrats around, they're not relevant as a societal class. The modern middle class is a subset of the proletariat afforded enough wealth to be good little consumers fuelling the growth of the economy.

Fair enough but I kinda feel it makes it real for some folks.

this still all remains true. the bourgeoisie of france and described in classical 1800s socialist theory are administrators of an aristocratic oligarchy. today, this still remains true. they are provided the petty comforts of the plantation overseer in return for carrying out the boring administration work the oligarchs won't, or can't, perform. in return, they are given minor aesthetic access to aspect of the oligarchy, like lawns, picket fences, and prepared meals. the bourgeousie of france and classical socialist theory are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans. today they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans

The modern middle class is a subset of the proletariat afforded enough wealth to be good little consumers fuelling the growth of the economy.

Sure. But they're they consequences of industrialized, Fordism, and the population explosion. They aren't an engineered response to the 1917 Russian Revolution.

That would make them "petit bourgeoisie".

This is all true. It should be noted, that was also in response to the Great Depression effectively wiping out the working class, which led directly to the need to give them that economic boost. The economy had all but stalled during the 1930's for this reason. If they didn't find a way to inject spending money back into the lower economy, the entire thing might have collapsed.

However, once the economy had a chance to recover, the wealthy decided they shouldn't have to pay for these loafers to prosper anymore, and convinced politicians like Reagan and Thatcher to implement policies that would allow them to stop giving the working class any more handouts. We've been backsliding ever since.

If you sell your labor to make a living, you're not bourgeoisie. Big or little.

That's the neat part, its selective pressure. Capitalists don't need to engineer an outcome (though they still can and do, occasionally). Each one merely acts on their own immediate self interest and collectively this has a tendency to move and shape society towards outcomes that further benefit them as a class.

The middle class are those who own their own trades businesses, as an evolution from guilded trades. OP must be ‘murican.

Middle class was a... fluke.... that was created deliberately?

And now those people are being pushed into being peasants, which means small independent subsistence farm owners in the countryside??

What fucking nonsense is this 🥀

Not a fan of this one.

Classes aren't designed, there's no moustache twirling villain behind the curtain. They arise through historical process as people struggle over control of the means of production.

The middle class, which I hate as a concept because it's weird fuzzy idealistic liberal nonsense rather than something that can be theoretically grounded, is roughly analogous in most people's thinking to a mix of petite bourgeois and labour aristocracy. The bourgeois began to arise hundreds of years ago as a class, as technological changes allowed merchants to challenge the aristocracy. They were closely followed by the labour aristocracy.

I agree with the idea that the threat of communism during the cold war gave workers more power with which to negotiate for a larger share of their labour (at least, within certain countries) but again this is class struggle and complex. Political and economic realities colliding with increased class consciousness and high degrees of labour organisation. There was not some secret meeting of the capitalists where they all agreed to give people sick leave and a raise to avoid revolution.

I think as leftists we should not invent conspiracy and boogiemen. There are enough solid pieces of propaganda that do not obscure the sensible and systemic explanations for why we find ourselves in this historical moment, and I think that since reality has a left wing bias engaging with it only strengthens the cause.

with knights, lords, dukes, duchesses, concubines.

That's very true, and I think I may have originally misunderstood your comment.

Workers in general, don't really count as "the middle class". White collar or blue collar...they're all still "working class", no matter how much they earn.

Petit bourgeoisie applies to any entrepreneurs or small business owners. They aren't "wealthy", and they are still technically "working for a living". But, they also aren't "selling their labor"...they're buying someone else's.

They're the transitional class that sits between the working class and the bourgeoisie. That's always what I've understood the "middle class" to be.

A peasant by definition does not own the land he works. He pays taxes to the feudal landlord for the permission to work the land, so in effect rents the means of production.

Agreed. This is pretty much what I said in my other comment to this post.

While tenant farming still exists to this day which has peasants rent their land, there's plenty of free peasants who do own their land, utilize family labor and sell their surplus produce. That was the case under feudalism too, except that it was much rarer.

In US though, which is what this dogshit post is referring to, the relationship to land was much different than it was in Europe (no entrenched feudal system carrying over obligations, homesteading acts, etc), majority of peasants owned their own land and that is still the case today

Interestingly someone employed in a highly-sought-after profession may be more financially stable and well-off than a struggling small company owner, even if the latter employs others.

Or to take an example from my wider family: A lady in her 70s (with a more well-off relative securing the loan) managed to buy a small flat to rent out on AirBnB. If not for this, her state pension would not be enough to cover her food and bills, and no one hires older women where she lives. (And she has no savings to speak of.) Like, she's technically a landlord now, but even with the AirBnB income she's barely scraping by, so I can't really see her as bourgeois.

Freeholding peasants are a thing :) A quick double check search before making strong declarations is a good idea. Enough misinfo online without well-meaning people spreading it.

And they enjoy the demotion, because at the least, they are not the slave caste. They enjoy the privilege of oppressing a lesser “immigrant.”

Each one merely acts on their own immediate self interest and collectively this has a tendency to move and shape society towards outcomes that further benefit them as a class.

Sure. But then, also, you've got explicit organizations and agencies that do actively manage the economy.

Ford buying up and tearing out all the municipal street car systems, for instance, was engaged in a national urban redevelopment plan with the backing of a multitude of investors and city planners.

Robert Moses carving Central Park out of the heart of the city's black quarter. Levittowns springing up all over Queens. Columbia University bit off big chucks of Harlem for campus expansion. These didn't happen by accident or without discussion.

The Federal Reserve with it's Dual Mandate, to balance inflation against unemployment.

But there was no Central Committee to Create The Middle Income American. At least, not one that sprang up explicitly in response to the Soviet Union.

And there's no reason to believe this middle class benefits the bourgeois. Highly educated, well-socialized, underemployed young people are a breeding ground for organized opposition. If the seeds for the next iteration of social change exist, they'll be found in that economic space between social ignorance and social comfort.

This is also why billionaires are calling millionaires "elites".

Peasantry?

I'm afraid we won't be that lucky - what we are being pushed into is where we were before they decided to throw slightly larger crumbs off the table... ie, the Great Depression.

Classes aren’t designed, there’s no moustache twirling villain behind the curtain.

Laughs in South African.

If your neatly arranged theoretical abstractions clashes with easily-observable reality the incongruity usually won't be found in the latter.

it’s weird fuzzy idealistic liberal nonsense rather than something that can be theoretically grounded,

You mean... like liberalism itself?

Your failure to "theoretically ground" it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Apologies, I was thinking of the feudal peasant, as that seems the most relevant as we slide towards technofeudalism (this is not limited to the US).

vagueposting will not be tolerated after the revolution.

If you've an argument to make, make it. Information to add then plainly state it for everyone's benefit.

The middle class can definitely be theoretically grounded, though not by its relation to the means of production because it's just a subset of the working class in that regard. Notice how all the economists on the news always cry for increased consumption when the economy isn't growing like it should? You need consumers for there to be consumption. For that you need a subset of the working class to have enough money to buy shit. It's an incentive like any other the capitalist follow, and one that ceases to exist when the real economy stops growing and the growth transitions from the production of commodities and services into coming primarily from financialization and rent extraction (from you guess who). No need for caricature villains behind the curtains.

The economy couldn't have grown like it used to in the last century without the middle class fuelling that growth with consumerism. Guess who owns that economy? The middle class has definitely benefited the bourgeoisie in this regard a great deal. And while it's a breeding ground for organized opposition as you say, the majority of them are still quite comfortably sedated with bread and circuses. The material comforts are also used as justification for the righteousness of the system. It remains to be seen how long that lasts for, however.

Define the middle class such that you can point to any person and definitely classify them as middle class or not. Everyone is buying shit, what separates middle class from not?

Grounded theoretical meaning belonging to some theory. There is not rigourous and non arbitrary (e.g. middle class are consumers that purchase a ratio of luxury to essential goods of 0.21 or higher) definition which is in use (or can be constructed). Marxist class analysis is useful because the definition are physically/politically meaningful and thus universal. Liberal class analysis comes out of hand driers.

vagueposting will not be tolerated

Which part of "easily-observable reality" was unclear to you?

Further vagueposting does not become you. If you have something interesting to say share it so I, and everyone reading this, can learn and improve.

Ok, I stand corrected on that one. But I still think that it's a phenomenon worth investigating. I would like to hear your thoughts on the rest of that earlier comment of mine.

I would say that your thoughts on the evolution of the economy under capitalism aligns very closely with basic Marxist theory. So if you're curious about these apparent contradictions that lead to capitalism eating itself as capitalists buy up increasingly larger amounts of production until workers can no longer purchase enough to keep the system going you should read Marx/post Marx leftist economics (Marx, living 200 years ago and being one guy got a few things wrong but nothing fundamental).

"Financialization" is the key.

The upper class is the investor class. They live off of passive income generated by their owned capital- interest, dividends, rents. Their wealth grows faster than they can spend it.

The lower class is the working class is the debtor class. They live paycheck to paycheck, exchanging 80 hours of labor for another two weeks of housing and food. Any big thing they 'own' is bought with debt, and interest on those debts eats up most of what they would otherwise be saving.

So obviously it's a fuzzy continuum but the middle of the middle class is someone who has both investments and debts and is making nearly the same amount in passive income as they are for paid labor. They are living better than most anyone without investments, but still can't stop working tomorrow. They hope to be able to stop working someday.

Those people are motivated to defend the system as it is because the same financialized economy that keeps the rich getting richer is- or was- also their only ladder out of a lifetime of wage slavery. They may even know that a radical socialist restructuring of society would be better for them, but have no faith in the moderate liberal political parties to pull it off, and aware of how precarious their position is.

The ultra wealthy could lose half their wealth and half their income, and barely even notice. The almost-wealthy would fall off those ladders and never get back up. But when it finally comes time to eat the rich, they'll be the closest thing to an actual rich person the hungry masses have ever even seen.

I'm quite familiar, just overestimated how clearly defined the middle class as a societal phenomenon. Cannibal capitalism by Nancy Fraser is a great book, highly recommend.

The economy couldn’t have grown like it used to in the last century without the middle class fuelling that growth with consumerism.

Consumerism engages participation in the economy, as demand for consumables creates a demand for currency and thus a supply of labor.

But you still need raw materials, energy, empty real estate, and an employable set of people.

The industrial revolution glutted the economy with cheap resources.

Its just a silly meme I kinda liked and reposted. I wasn't the OP. They can't all be bangers I guess :p

This is arbitrary and not useful. An actually useful formalisation is when someones primary means of subsistence is no longer wage labour, aka bourgeois.

This comment is literally what I was criticising. Mashing labour aristocracy and bourgeois, unfocusing your eyes, and calling the blurry mess a useful concept.

k

The middle class was created by workers uniting and fighting their oppressors. It was not created by some overlords.

Unions were made by workers to help them organize strikes and formalize demands. When overlords tried to squash them the strikes turned to riots.

People died fighting for 8 hour days and weekends. Don't erase history by making up some bullshit revisionist history that paints the morbidly-rich as being in control the whole time.