I would define the working class as all who are wage-laborers and do not own means of production, i.e. employ others as wage-labor. 90% of the population are objectively working class. The working class has an industrial core of predominantly physical workers. The working class has more and more new strata including among especially predominantly mental workers. The Manifesto noted the process of proletarianization of middle strata and the long time that that process has operated has brought many new sections into the working class. There are also new sections of the industrial core in hi tec industries.
The petit bourgeoisie who own relatively small amounts of means of production are objective allies of the working class against monopoly capital, but they don't much know it.
Charles Brown
>>> "Nicholas Garbis" <ngarbis at worldnet.att.net> 05/27 10:36 AM >>>
>many who hold white-collar
>jobs--snotty as many of them might now be about manual labor--are _still_
>workers, not fat cats.
>
>Yoshie Furuhashi
who is the working class in America? those who participate in the production processes first-hand? those who _need_ to work to make ends meet? (as opposed to those who could be just as well not working)
i think that the distinction between "blue-collar" and "white-collar" is a harmful one to the potential for change in this country. the so called white-collar middle-class is a part of our society that needs to realize that they are at the will of many of the same forces as their industrial working counterparts - loss of job benfits, decreasing pay, higher demands from employers, etc..
that some (or is it most?) of the "middle-class" is _aspiring_ to something higher (i.e., more wealth) can be a point of friction, but i think that these groups need to realize a common ground as the distinctions between "blue collar" and "white collar" get blurred and the need for a more meaningful class consciousness becomes clear.
nick minneapolis