3 ms·

The petit bourgeoisie were a tiny minority of the population. Most people were peasants. Is that what you’d prefer society to be like? If you want to redefine

by yibg 5y ago

The petit bourgeoisie were a tiny minority of the population. Most people were peasants. Is that what you’d prefer society to be like? If you want to redefine middle class to be small business owners and merchants that don’t depend on a salary that’s fine I guess, but that’ll be an even smaller percentage of the population than the modern middle class.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The petit bourgeoisie were a tiny minority of the population. And remain so, yes. > Most people were peasants. No, most people were working class. And remain so. > Is that what you’d prefer society to be like? No, that's what capitalism is like. Redefining the upper income class as “middle class” is an effort to preserve capitalism by dividing the working class against itself, which I oppose because I’d prefer society not be like that.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  As others have said, you're using definitions that are very much not the normal ones. If you're talking to other people, you don't get to make up your own definitions. But, more: I'm a "worker". I work for other people. I also make a borderline-top-10% income. I make more than many small business owners. So I'm not middle class, because I have a job? Class is about how I get the money, not how much money I get? And in your last paragraph, you talk about "the upper income class". Is there one class hierarchy that is based on income, and another that is based on source of income? If so, why should I have solidarity with my income-source group rather than with my income-level group? And if not, then what are you trying to say in your last paragraph?
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    > you don't get to make up your own definitions It's a historical use still common in some contexts. I agree that being clear on the definitions being used is important, including marking explicitly where definitions may be different from what the reader is familiar. But it's not a definition dragonwriter has simply invented. The Wikipedia page on middle class has more info.

by yibg 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The petit bourgeoisie were a tiny minority of the population. And remain so, yes. > Most people were peasants. No, most people were working class. And remain so. > Is that what you’d prefer society to be like? No, that's what capitalism is like. Redefining the upper income class as “middle class” is an effort to preserve capitalism by dividing the working class against itself, which I oppose because I’d prefer society not be like that.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
As others have said, you're using definitions that are very much not the normal ones. If you're talking to other people, you don't get to make up your own definitions. But, more: I'm a "worker". I work for other people. I also make a borderline-top-10% income. I make more than many small business owners. So I'm not middle class, because I have a job? Class is about how I get the money, not how much money I get? And in your last paragraph, you talk about "the upper income class". Is there one class hierarchy that is based on income, and another that is based on source of income? If so, why should I have solidarity with my income-source group rather than with my income-level group? And if not, then what are you trying to say in your last paragraph?
- dllthomas 5y ago
  > you don't get to make up your own definitions It's a historical use still common in some contexts. I agree that being clear on the definitions being used is important, including marking explicitly where definitions may be different from what the reader is familiar. But it's not a definition dragonwriter has simply invented. The Wikipedia page on middle class has more info.