
From what I have read so far, most of the "third world" Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist movements have been those of the middle class.
What is a good definition of a middle class? How is it different from the working class?
Also where do the peasantry figure in this as majorities of many "third world" countries consist of peasants?
Hi
From a marxist perspective, I don't think there is a single 'middle class' as such. Traditionally the term 'petty bourgeoisie' refers to the various strata who own their own means of production or means of livelihood, such as small peasants, artisans, truckers who own their own vehicle, etc. These strata still exist of course but capital has pulverised them, either into the proletariat or, in the case of many of the former peasantry especially, into a kind of 'sub-proletariat' marooned in the slums of the third world. You could also include many of the old 'professional' strata like lawyers and doctors in the petty bourgeoisie but actually many of them are also being increasingly proletarianised, i.e. they more and more depend on wage labour for their survival. These strata are 'middle' in the sense that they are neither proletarian or bourgeois, but caught in between.
The term 'middle class' has long been used to mystify class relations, especially in the US, where it is often asserted that 'blue collar' workers are the 'middle class' because they have (had) a certain standard of living. But this has nothing to do with marxism and is a way of obstructing the development of working class consciousness.
I would extend Alf's definition to the 'false self-employed' also, for example millions of brickies and what not are self-employed simply to pay fewer taxes: tinyurl.com/36so569
It is definitely a way of mystifying and obscuring class relations so that people are not sure where they stand, in a way it has been pretty successful especially under recent administrations. I think the divide is coming to the fore again though.
Personally I feel I have been able to distinguish between those who are actually petit-bourgeois or proletarian economically. It often surfaces in their interests regarding property and solidarity for workers etc, but you might struggle a little to notice unless you know more about them.
Yes, certainly the 'false self employed' are a part of the working class.
With groups like doctors in our country, Turkey, doctors have involved themselves in workers strikes, including the last general strike. Of course there are class differences within doctors. Many of them run their own clinics, and many who don't aspire to it. An expert doctor who works for the state makes about 4500TL a month (divide by 2 to get a € figure), and of course many earn less than that. This compares with a teacher, for example, who with similar time served would earn about 1400TL.
Doctors are certainly well paid, and are certainly feeling the crisis here. Two years ago the state tempoarily cut most of doctors bonuses for a period of about three months here in Ankara. Doctors are paid on a similar scale to other public workers and the majority of their pay is made up of bonuses, and what happened was they suddenly found their salaries cut in half.
Devrim
It can be hard to identify those who are unemployed, for example there are a lot of people who aspire to own their own business straight from having been on the dole, there are also those who aspire to be self-employed and what not in a pretty petit-bourgeois profession.
When unemployed workers are organising, do we consider it a crucial time in proletarianisation, the lines between attempting to open a business/finding employment in a reactionary role of the state (ie police etc)/becoming lumpenised seem very thin.. especially in a time of crisis like now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/12/end-of-th...
Good piece by Paul Mason in today's Guardian.
That way of using the term class is alien to its use in historical materialism/marxism. In the US its largely been a means to dilute an understanding of class politics and mystify workers with abstract definitions. The term middle class among Marxists has largely been used as a means to talk about the intelligensia, portions of the petit-bourgeoisie, the managerial and professional strata, etc (for example, Bela Kun's article "Marx And The Middle Classes" http://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm ). In the US, the term "middle class" means the working class- particularly better paid workers, or better educated workers- and things like home ownership, good benefits, etc that come along with it. It's a tool used to confuse and mystify American workers from identifying as workers first- thinking they have a dog in the race with the bourgeois parties and their elections.
Tony Cliff's article 'Deflected Permanent Revolution' discusses this- the absence of the proletariat in the so-called 'Communist Party's, and the professional strata, the intelligensia, etc taking the reigns of the national revolutions.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm