this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
72 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
356 readers
815 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that they’re framing it as a “middle class” issue means they’re in denial. The middle class was always a mirage to fool the working class into thinking the class interest of the bourgeoisie is their interest.
any time i've tried to explain to someone that "middle class" isn't a thing, and that there's really just people who own and people who work, they will say it's semantics or splitting hairs. when they're the ones trying to divide this very plainly observable reality into all these made up little subcategories.
The entire concept of the middle class is splitting hairs. Like "I'm not working class, even though I entirely work for my money, make no passive income, and don't own any private property. I'm MIDDLE class, because reasons."
Middle Class doesn’t exist as a definitional category for them, it’s a comfort blanket. Just as a small child feels that their blankie will protect them from the monster under the bed, they think identifying as middle class protects them from the oppression that capitalism puts on the working class.
I'd argue that the middle class is a thing, but that it's specifically the petit bourgeois (aka small business tyrants). They own some capital but typically still have to work and are motivated much more by fear of losing what they have than the big bourgeois.
This definition makes it true when both sides claim to be "fighting for the middle class"
AFAIK the tern originated to differentiate between peasants/serfs/slaves (lower class), nobility (upper class), and artisans/merchants/free men who don't own land/capitalists (middle class/bourgeois). When the American and French Revolutions took place, the middle class bourgeois overthrew the upper class nobility.
So of course the term ends up being arbitrary, its definition includes both rulers and citizens living in liberal republics where nobility and feudalism have been abolished.
Citation Needed Episode 91: It's Time to Retire the Term "Middle Class"