3 ms·

Marx was right about the way that a population stratifies into classes being a useful lens to study history through. His conclusion that communism/socialism was

Marx was right about the way that a population stratifies into classes being a useful lens to study history through. His conclusion that communism/socialism was both inevitable and desirable has been thoroughly disproven of course, but that doesn't mean that you can't use class conflict to understand things that happen. Brexit for example didn't fit neatly into a left-vs-right model but it does fit into working-class-vs-bourgeoisie.

ralusek 6y ago
That just means that economics is a useful lens, which it is. The stratified model of classes, however, is absurd. I work as a developer, with some developers under me, with some stock in the company I work at. Am I labor, managerial, or capital class? I also bought a house and rent it out, but myself pay rent to live in my current apartment. Am I landlord class or tenant? Am I exploiting my tenants or being exploited? Why would I rent if I considered my relationship with my landlord to be exploitative? I don't think I know a single person who cleanly fits into the Marxist conception of class boundaries, because the world isn't made up of factory owning fat cats and lowly factory workers.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  The stratified model of classes, however, is absurd. I work as a developer, with some developers under me, with some stock in the company I work at. Am I labor, managerial, or capital class? If you have to ask then you are, like me, middle class. The working class and the upper class know quite clearly what class they are in and what class others are. In Marxist terminology you would be one of the petit-bourgeoisie, so you do actually fit into his model. I would recommend reading some Marx, don't worry, you won't turn Communist, just to understand a) where some of these ideas originally come from and b) how what passes for Marxism these days differs and how few self-proclaimed Marxists have ever read it themselves
- xtian 6y ago
  Marxism is not about fixed ontological categories like you're describing, it's about understanding the universe and society as a processes which develops according to interrelated dynamic forces. My understanding of class in Marxism is that there are only two polarities or tendencies in modern society: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The former lives off private profit and the latter lives off selling their basic labor. No one fits cleanly into either, but as history unfolds people's relationships to the economy will tend to develop toward one of those poles. With stocks, a rental property, and a salaried job in a specialized technical field, you are essentially the modern equivalent of a pre-industrial peasant because you have a certain amount of economic security and guaranteed livelihood. As the rate of profit continues to fall, however, this kind of security will necessarily become inaccessible to the majority of people under the established order, especially on a multi-generational time-scale. This process is called "proletarianization" and the best example of it in our time is the development of the gig economy.

ralusek 6y ago

That just means that economics is a useful lens, which it is. The stratified model of classes, however, is absurd. I work as a developer, with some developers under me, with some stock in the company I work at. Am I labor, managerial, or capital class? I also bought a house and rent it out, but myself pay rent to live in my current apartment. Am I landlord class or tenant? Am I exploiting my tenants or being exploited? Why would I rent if I considered my relationship with my landlord to be exploitative? I don't think I know a single person who cleanly fits into the Marxist conception of class boundaries, because the world isn't made up of factory owning fat cats and lowly factory workers.

goatinaboat 6y ago
The stratified model of classes, however, is absurd. I work as a developer, with some developers under me, with some stock in the company I work at. Am I labor, managerial, or capital class? If you have to ask then you are, like me, middle class. The working class and the upper class know quite clearly what class they are in and what class others are. In Marxist terminology you would be one of the petit-bourgeoisie, so you do actually fit into his model. I would recommend reading some Marx, don't worry, you won't turn Communist, just to understand a) where some of these ideas originally come from and b) how what passes for Marxism these days differs and how few self-proclaimed Marxists have ever read it themselves
xtian 6y ago
Marxism is not about fixed ontological categories like you're describing, it's about understanding the universe and society as a processes which develops according to interrelated dynamic forces. My understanding of class in Marxism is that there are only two polarities or tendencies in modern society: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The former lives off private profit and the latter lives off selling their basic labor. No one fits cleanly into either, but as history unfolds people's relationships to the economy will tend to develop toward one of those poles. With stocks, a rental property, and a salaried job in a specialized technical field, you are essentially the modern equivalent of a pre-industrial peasant because you have a certain amount of economic security and guaranteed livelihood. As the rate of profit continues to fall, however, this kind of security will necessarily become inaccessible to the majority of people under the established order, especially on a multi-generational time-scale. This process is called "proletarianization" and the best example of it in our time is the development of the gig economy.