Marx developed an extensive, complex, and sometimes inconsistent theory of class. As with other topics, Marx wrote so much that it is possible to select different portions of his works and derive varied interpretations of class. However, if there is one least common denominator, it is that class is defined primarily by economic roles rather than arbitrary income ranges. What was salient for Marx was the fact that some members of society own the means of production while others are means of production; that some people own land while others must rent; that some have much to gain from investment while (or because) others have much to lose, and so on.
In contemporary usage, class is generally equated with the concept of income bracket and it comes in three distinct forms: lower, middle, and upper. The exact bounds of these groupings is debatable, not only because "class" is a social construct and, as such, inherently arbitrary. There is a political usefulness in this vagueness.
A lot of people self-identify as "middle class." Everyone likes to think they are somehow "average" or "normal." If you appeal to the middle class, you are targeting a good chunk of the population. But the political function of class rhetoric is more sinister than that. It goes back to the 'ol divide and conquer strategy. Split the masses into "middle class" and "poor" and you get people to fight for their own interests at the expense of others'. Except that "their own interests" are really bourgeois interests disguised as middle class values.
Want an idea of how important this strategy is? Try to find one political speech that doesn't mention the middle class.
hello
ReplyDelete