I finally got around to reading a little bit of Murray Bookchin

[Mornche Geddick]

Traffic in what sense? There aren't many cars - congestion pricing works very well. But foot traffic is a nightmare. In Zone 1 you can experience the sidewalk equivalent of the Beltway at 5:30. And if I had to commute on the Underground I'd go insane within the month. It certainly knows how to achieve density; I have much more sympathy for American city planners now.

(That's not to say London achieves density well! There are very few tall residential buildings; most of the housing, at least close enough to the center to avoid contracting suicidality from a commute, is sardine cans in N<5-story walkups.)

Sorry, Nortaneous. You're quite right. London's car problem is masses better since they brought in congestion charging. But not long ago my brother was paying four times the price for a flat that I was.

The London Underground has a serious heat problem: https://www.tubenotifications.co.uk/ins ... n-the-tube

[Travis B.]

I disagree with the idea that the proletariat no longer exists; yes, there is less class consciousness than in times past, but that is different from saying that there is no proletariat today.

Well, it exists, in the sense that there is a capital vs. labor divide. Defining the proletariat as workers, people who mostly derive their income from labor, you'll see that in the present day this covers a wide range of vastly different situations: this could range from relatively comfortable highly-qualified white collar jobs, to construction work, to delivery drivers or warehouse workers or farm laborers.
The economy being global now, to be complete we should include Third World factory workers, or coltan miners, or "guest workers"/slave workers in the Emirates.

We could group all of these in a single class, but I don't think it's a very useful analysis.

I'd add that standards of living have greatly improved worldwide; in developed countries this means a reasonably comfortable lifestyle is availabe to many; jobs are also a lot more qualified. I don't think it makes sense to apply the same qualifier to a 1950s coal miner and a 2020s developer or graphic designer.

The thing is that, at the end of the day, if you have to sell your labor to survive and do not exploit others you have effectively the same position in the bigger scheme of things. Yes, a First-World software engineer such as myself may have a far more comfortable existence than a coltan miner, but our relationship with capital is the same. To split up workers based on how comfortable their lives are or how well they are paid only serves to turn workers against one another rather than the capitalists. This is why I so vehemently oppose positions such as jcb's which treat educated white-collar workers as class enemies of blue-collar workers -- in the end such positions only help the capitalists by promoting division and infighting rather than solidarity amongst the workers.

[Ares Land]

The thing is that, at the end of the day, if you have to sell your labor to survive and do not exploit others you have effectively the same position in the bigger scheme of things. Yes, a First-World software engineer such as myself may have a far more comfortable existence than a coltan miner, but our relationship with capital is the same. To split up workers based on how comfortable their lives are or how well they are paid only serves to turn workers against one another rather than the capitalists. This is why I so vehemently oppose positions such as jcb's which treat educated white-collar workers as class enemies of blue-collar workers -- in the end such positions only help the capitalists by promoting division and infighting rather than solidarity amongst the workers.

The material conditions are enormous though. Less so within the same country, but they're still fairly large.
And I'm not sure the relationship with capital is the only defining factor, the material conditions probably count for something.

All other things being equal, as a reasonably well-paid white collar worker, I'll probably be happier with moderate politics and less enthusiastic about radical politics than an entry-level blue collar worker, for instance. I think distinguishing the both has more predictive power about what people do and how they vote.
There are differences amongst capitalists too. I know small company owners; I probably don't vote quite the same way or have quite the same outlook as they do; but they have little in common with billionaires; or with high ranking company executives (whose relationship to capital isn't easily defined.)

All in all I think it's best to have a more detailed picture.

All of this is descriptive and not prescriptive. I mean, I do feel rather strongly white-collar and blue-collar workers are basically on the same side. But evidently people don't think that way (or they wouldn't vote the way they do.)

EDIT: as an afterthought - I also think the usual analysis ignores immaterial forms of capital, such as education. Low pay with high education levels isn't the same as low pay with no degree and isn't the same as high pay with no degree. Again, a phenomenon not known to early Marxists, at least not to that extent.

[Travis B.]

But shouldn't we be aiming to convince white-collar workers that blue-collar workers are really on the same side as them, and that the idea that their interests are aligned with the capitalists are a lie then? Remember that much of the time it is the right which tries to convince blue-collar workers that educated white-collar workers are their enemies ("liberal elites" etc.), which specifically serves to divide workers and turn them against one another rather than against the capitalists.

[Ares Land]

But shouldn't we be aiming to convince white-collar workers that blue-collar workers are really on the same side as them, and that the idea that their interests are aligned with the capitalists are a lie then? Remember that much of the time it is the right which tries to convince blue-collar workers that educated white-collar workers are their enemies ("liberal elites" etc.), which specifically serves to divide workers and turn them against one another rather than against the capitalists.

Of course!

[alice]

FWIW I remember reading many years ago, in one of the left-wing publications I used to amuse myself with, an article titled "Who are the middle classes"? which explained that "the middle class" in actuality consists of two entirely separate groups of people, one which routinely "suffers" and "struggles" and is thus really part of the proletariat, and one which doesn't and is thus really part of the bourgeoisie. I don't recall any quantification, however.

[Nortaneous]

The middle class? Easy. The poor are those who labor and don't own; the rich are those who own and don't labor; and there's a class in the middle, between the poor and the rich, that does both.

Most people are "middle-class" now because most of the rich work, in some sense. Barons also worked. There aren't that many idle heirs anymore.

The London Underground has a serious heat problem: https://www.tubenotifications.co.uk/ins ... n-the-tube

Indeed. It's dire. I'm not sure how much longer it'll be usable in the summer - I try to avoid it. Thankfully the bus system is much more functional than in certain US cities I could name.

I was really shocked to see how well congestion pricing worked. They ought to fly some New Yorkers over to see how it's done. Can't imagine how it's controversial over there.

OTOH, NYC has wide enough sidewalks that you don't have to cut into the road to pass anyone. There's a lot about urban planning that makes sense to me now.

Yes, a First-World software engineer such as myself may have a far more comfortable existence than a coltan miner, but our relationship with capital is the same.

What? Surely you don't think a coltan miner has an investment portfolio?

[Travis B.]

The middle class? Easy. The poor are those who labor and don't own; the rich are those who own and don't labor; and there's a class in the middle, between the poor and the rich, that does both.

Most people are "middle-class" now because most of the rich work, in some sense. Barons also worked. There aren't that many idle heirs anymore.

If you labor and exploit, then you are a member of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Yes, a First-World software engineer such as myself may have a far more comfortable existence than a coltan miner, but our relationship with capital is the same.

What? Surely you don't think a coltan miner has an investment portfolio?

As if having a 401k makes one a member of the bourgeoisie...

[Nortaneous]

The middle class? Easy. The poor are those who labor and don't own; the rich are those who own and don't labor; and there's a class in the middle, between the poor and the rich, that does both.

Most people are "middle-class" now because most of the rich work, in some sense. Barons also worked. There aren't that many idle heirs anymore.

If you labor and exploit, then you are a member of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Is your position that a software engineer, a schoolteacher whose pension will come from a managed fund, the owner of a local dry-cleaning business, and the owner of a taco truck have a similar enough relation to capital that they go in the same class?

Yes, a First-World software engineer such as myself may have a far more comfortable existence than a coltan miner, but our relationship with capital is the same.

What? Surely you don't think a coltan miner has an investment portfolio?

As if having a 401k makes one a member of the bourgeoisie...

It's a feature of the American commitment to a broad middle class that many voters have direct and conscious exposure to financial markets in ways our coltan miner doesn't.

[zompist]

Is your position that a software engineer, a schoolteacher whose pension will come from a managed fund, the owner of a local dry-cleaning business, and the owner of a taco truck have a similar enough relation to capital that they go in the same class?

Not to answer for Travis, but why not? Yes, they're miscellaneous, but so are a British marquis, a business owner who created a large firm from nothing, someone whose family has lived on investments for generations, and Paul McCartney.

The odd one out is the dry cleaner business. From some quick research, it looks like a terrible business to get into.

[rotting bones]

Capitalists have always "worked" by the common sense definition of work. Marxists (including Marx himself) have always known this. Truly idle heirs are NOT bourgeois. They are, and have always been, the upper class, not the middle class. A capitalist is anyone who dictates the direction a for-profit business should take. Doing this long-term involves a lot of work if you're going to avoid being outmaneuvered by external and internal forces.

Contrary to the 21st century, words are not important. What's important is the mathematical model the words are trying to convey. According to that model, the proletariat is exploited and capitalists are not. There is a power imbalance between the capitalists and the proletariat that has no rational justification because of the unequal exchange between these two groups blessed by the current system. For example, capitalists are in a position to pay themselves amounts that cannot be rationally justified. This distorts the economy.

This exploitation is the problem Marxism is trying to solve.

[Raphael]

Capitalists have always "worked" by the common sense definition of work. Marxists (including Marx himself) have always known this. Truly idle heirs are NOT bourgeois. They are, and have always been, the upper class, not the middle class. A capitalist is anyone who dictates the direction a for-profit business should take.

Wait, CEOs are middle class and only completely idle rich people are upper class? Under that standard, people who have enough money that they could retire if they wanted to, but choose to keep making business decisions, would count as middle class! That group apparently includes Elon Musk!

Contrary to the 21st century, words are not important. What's important is the mathematical model the words are trying to convey. According to that model, the proletariat is exploited and capitalists are not. There is a power imbalance between the capitalists and the proletariat that has no rational justification because of the unequal exchange between these two groups blessed by the current system. For example, capitalists are in a position to pay themselves amounts that cannot be rationally justified. This distorts the economy.

This exploitation is the problem Marxism is trying to solve.

"Cancer causes a lot of problems. These are the problems that my miracle cure for cancer is trying to solve. Therefore, people should not oppose my miracle cure for cancer!"

[rotting bones]

Wait, CEOs are middle class and only completely idle rich people are upper class? Under that standard, people who have enough money that they could retire if they wanted to, but choose to keep making business decisions, would count as middle class! That group apparently includes Elon Musk!

That's right. According to Marxism, capitalism is a revolution against the upper class. Socialism is a revolution against the middle class who displaced the upper class as the holders of real power when feudalism was replaced by capitalism.

"Cancer causes a lot of problems. These are the problems that my miracle cure for cancer is trying to solve. Therefore, people should not oppose my miracle cure for cancer!"

If your attitude is generalized, there will never be a cure for cancer or any medical advancements at all. I have deduced a cure from scholarship and first principles. Consider the possibility that you are wrong about whether it can work.

[Travis B.]

The middle class? Easy. The poor are those who labor and don't own; the rich are those who own and don't labor; and there's a class in the middle, between the poor and the rich, that does both.

Most people are "middle-class" now because most of the rich work, in some sense. Barons also worked. There aren't that many idle heirs anymore.

If you labor and exploit, then you are a member of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Is your position that a software engineer, a schoolteacher whose pension will come from a managed fund, the owner of a local dry-cleaning business, and the owner of a taco truck have a similar enough relation to capital that they go in the same class?

The typical software engineer is working class (unless they are truly self-employed, where then they are an artisan), a teacher is working class, the owner of a local dry-cleaning business is probably petit-bourgeois unless they aren't involved in the actual work, where then they are simply bourgeois, and the owner of a taco truck is probably petit-bourgeois unless they do the work by themselves, where then they are an artisan.

[Raphael]

That's right. According to Marxism, capitalism is a revolution against the upper class. Socialism is a revolution against the middle class who displaced the upper class as the holders of real power when feudalism was replaced by capitalism.

A term with such an "elastic" meaning is effectively meaningless. I don't see a good reason to trust the class analysis of someone who places billionaires in the middle class. Besides, didn't the replacement of feudalism by capitalism mean that the old aristocracy got replaced in their capacity as the people who are the upper class by the capitalists?

If your attitude is generalized, there will never be a cure for cancer or any medical advancements at all.

Not true, because both real cures and treatments for illnesses and false ones clearly exist in the world, so criticizing the former doesn't deny the existence of the latter.

I have deduced a cure from scholarship and first principles. Consider the possibility that you are wrong about whether it can work.

I might be. Based on the things I have considered, I don't think I'm likely to be, though.

[Raphael]

The typical software engineer is working class (unless they are truly self-employed, where then they are an artisan),

Hate to side with Nort, but you're not answering his point about the software engineer's investment portfolio.

[Travis B.]

The typical software engineer is working class (unless they are truly self-employed, where then they are an artisan),

Hate to side with Nort, but you're not answering his point about the software engineer's investment portfolio.

My point before was that having a 401k does not put you in the same category as Elon Musk (the bourgeoisie) or a small business owner who works alongside their employees (the petit-bourgeoisie).

[Ares Land]

If your attitude is generalized, there will never be a cure for cancer or any medical advancements at all. I have deduced a cure from scholarship and first principles. Consider the possibility that you are wrong about whether it can work.

Except they don't deduce cures from scholarship and first principles alone. They test and experiment and refine the theory.

To push the metaphor a bit further, Marxism is a theory and treatment based on a 19th century doctor's ideas on cancer; also the treatment has been tried and killed every patient so far.

Marx is important and more than fair for his day. I still feel trying to shoehorn everyone into 'bourgeois', 'capitalist' and 'proletarian' labels is trying to make sense of the 21st century using Victorian society as a model. It's not going to work because more than 150 years have elapsed and almost everything changed since then.

[rotting bones]

A term with such an "elastic" meaning is effectively meaningless. I don't see a good reason to trust the class analysis of someone who places billionaires in the middle class. Besides, didn't the replacement of feudalism by capitalism mean that the old aristocracy got replaced in their capacity as the people who are the upper class by the capitalists?

All words have elastic meanings. Natural language is effectively meaningless in a scientific context. Meanings are only fixed with reference to a scientific model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

It's not easy to explain this in a few words. You have to study the role models play in the academic philosophy of science. Ignoring modeling is what lands philosophers in trouble when they try to extend definitions from one context to another.

Not true, because both real cures and treatments for illnesses and false ones clearly exist in the world, so criticizing the former doesn't deny the existence of the latter.

Yes, because my cure is correct. You are inferring from previous failed cures that no cure is possible.

I might be. Based on the things I have considered, I don't think I'm likely to be, though.

If you are not wrong, you should be able to explain what's wrong with my cure. In the past, I have answered every objection at a technical level.

A problem I've noticed is that 21st century humans are commonly unable to distinguish between assumptions and arguments. Very often, the things they say are assumptions are actually arguments and vice-versa.

[Travis B.]

Mind you, what has actually been tried is Marxism-Leninism in its various forms, and not other forms of Marxism such as council communism, which can't be considered as having failed.