Who is a PMC lib, who is working class? It's obviously not office/factory anymore, most people don't work in factories, right? Why was the focus in communist thought on factories and not, servants, drivers, nannies, maids, cooks and secretaries of the rich – they seem to be easy to radicalise because they see the shittiness and incompetence of the rich day to day, and more importantly are most needing of a union because of the likelihood of abuse by their bosses.
Was it because they don't exactly work together? Can't exactly chat and radicalise? Hard to strike? How do we bring gig economy workers together when the same barriers apply to radicalise them?
the marxist definition of people in the working class is those who have to sell their labor and do not own the means of producing profit. IE - you are a lyft driver, but you can't make money without signing onto Lyft. You are a retail clerk and cannot make money without a corporation employing you. You are a programmer who cannot make money without being contracted to a business.
There's an inbetween class who is called the Petite Bourgeoisie, who are not part of the capitalist ownership class. These are people who like, own their own business or practice. They still must work for their money, but they also own the means to do it. A Nanny who contracts but is basically self-employed and has their own tools is in this class as well, as well as artists (or youtubers). Same with small business owners who actually work. The issue with this class is since they can make money off the ruling class and proletarian class alike, they often do NOT align with proletarian interests.
There is also the added layer that white collar workers are now invested in Capital through the use of stonks as their retirement fund rather than pensions. So while they are technically proletarian workers, they act like they are petite bourgeoisie in nature. Their working class status hasn't changed, but their ideology prevents them from actually joining in any solidarity with proletarian interests. These are the PMC libs.
I struggle with the Marxist definition, for eg, if I was just making graphic designs on Fiverr, because I'm using my laptop I'm petite bourgeoisie, but if I a join a marketing company with an office and better tools – I'm a prole? The former situation is definitely likely to materially a lot worse.
What about sex workers? If I camm out of my bedroom it's bourgeoisie?
I just think this definition shuts out a lot of people in service oriented industries, and especially like with that Nanny example, like wtf? Many of them are immigrant women.
If you're a freelance graphic design consultant, a large portion of your business is finding clients. Fiverr owns that part of your business and takes a cut. So it's not fully petite bourgeoisie.
I wouldn't base class analysis on trying to fit people into these categories though. It's worth knowing that capital ownership, sole proprietorship, and wage labor have different relations to capital, and that this has a major influence on the way they see themselves and relate to class struggle. You could find someone who does all three at once though. Probably more helpful to label the class relations a person engages in, rather than the person.
For me it helps to think of these class labels as roles rather than identities, which runs somewhat counter to common political discourse on class in the US. This could mean some people occupy multiple roles, or it could mean that some occupy a specific class role, while personally identifying with another class.
Also being boourgeoise isn't inherently bad, we welcome class traitors. You're putting a lot of judgement on what is simply a marxist definition of which class your labor applies.
no - you would be a prole in the case if you're using your laptop too, because you cannot survive without selling your labor on fiverr. If you had your OWN business and were charging your own prices THEN you would be petite bourgeoisie.