The working class is those who own no significant means of production and thus must sell their labor at whatever price the market bears.
That the market for SE labor is good(for the workers), doesn't mean SE's don't need to work to earn money.
Petite bourgeoisie: small business owners, shopkeepers
Haute bourgeoisie: industrialists, financiers
Managerial class (in some frameworks): high-paid non owners who control labor
Within the proletariat, you can distinguish:
Lumpenproletariat[3]: unemployed, precarious
Skilled laborers vs unskilled laborers
Labor aristocracy: better-paid, sometimes ideologically closer to capital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat [1]
> Within the bourgeoisie, you can distinguish: [...] Managerial class [...] non owners who control labor
Contradiction?
Managerial Class != Bourgeoisie
This was a loose usage of the term “bourgeoisie”, meant in the sociological rather than economic sense. Sorry.
In late capitalism, the PMC (Professional Managerial Class) occupies a weird liminal space:
Economically they're proletariat
Socially/culturally they're aligned with bourgeois values
Politically they often acts in defense of capital (because of career dependency)
Hence: managerial class != bourgeoisie, even if they act like them or aspire to be them.
The distinction here is "do you get your money from owning assets or do you get your money from working" because where you get your money is where you get your incentives and the incentives of owning are opposite the incentives of working in many important regards.
The economy is inhabited by people who work for a living but it is controlled by people who own things for a living. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's the definition of capitalism. If you do not own things for a living and do not know people who do, spend some time pondering "the control plane." It should seem like an alien world at first, but it's an alien world with a wildly outsize impact on your life and it behooves you to understand it in broad strokes even if you aren't trying to climb into it.
I have a bridge to sell you if you're interested. Let me know.
Is the concept of "intellectual capital" a figment of my imagination, or a flaw of the traditional class identifiers? Or both?
What’s “the factory” for software? Our equivalent of the factory is the organization we work in, and our connection to the people who turn our software into money.
You can write software at home by yourself, just like you can do machining on your own. But there are a lot of steps between making software, or machining, and turning that output into money. By working for a company, you can have other people handle those steps. The tradeoff is that this structure is something owned by someone else.
Therein lies the propaganda.
The means of producing an AI is a huge data centre for training. Having a lot of money but no chips of any kind wouldn't get you an AI. We had money 10 years ago, but they did not make AIs out of them.
American popular usage defers from traditional economic role-based class analysis to be instead do income-based “class” terminology which instead of defining the middle class as the petit bourgeois who apply their own labor to their own capital in production (or otherwise have a relation to the economy which depends on both applying labor and ownership of the non-financial means of production) defines middle class as the segment around the median income, almost entirely within the traditional working class.
This is a product of a deliberate effort to redefine terminology to impair working class solidarity, not some kind of accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93manageria...
I agree. Let's hope it will have much less impact on the 21th century.
Core economic concepts are things like elasticity of demand, market equilibrium, externality, market failure, network effect, opportunity cost and comparative advantage, and AFAIK Marx and his follower had essentially no role in explaining or introducing any of those.
Elasticity of Demand – Marx does not explicitly discuss elasticity, but he analyzes demand fluctuations in terms of "the social need" (gesellschaftliche Bedürfnis) and "effective demand" under capitalism (Capital, Vol. III). He notes how capitalist production responds to demand shifts, though not in the formalized neoclassical sense.
Market Equilibrium – Marx critiques the idea of equilibrium (a key concept in classical and neoclassical economics), instead emphasizing "anarchy of production" and "tendential laws" (e.g., the tendency of the rate of profit to fall). He sees markets as inherently unstable due to contradictions in capitalism (Capital, Vol. I & III).
Externality – While Marx doesn’t use this term, he discusses "social costs of production" (e.g., environmental degradation, worker exploitation) as inherent to capitalism’s drive for profit (Capital, Vol. I). His concept of "metabolic rift" (in Capital, Vol. III and his ecological writings) touches on unintended consequences akin to negative externalities.
Market Failure – Marx’s entire critique of capitalism can be seen as an analysis of systemic "failures," such as "crises of overproduction", "underconsumption", and "disproportionality" between sectors (Capital, Vol. II & III). He attributes these to contradictions in the capitalist mode of production rather than isolated market inefficiencies.
Network Effect – Marx does not discuss this directly, but his analysis of "general social labor" (the socially necessary labor time underpinning exchange) and the role of "commodity fetishism" (Capital, Vol. I) implies that value is socially determined in a way that could loosely parallel network effects (e.g., the more a commodity is exchanged, the more its value appears natural).
Opportunity Cost – Marx does not use this term (rooted in marginalist economics), but his labor theory of value centers on "socially necessary labor time", implying that the cost of producing one good is the labor diverted from other uses (Capital, Vol. I). His concept of "alternative employments of capital" in Capital, Vol. III also touches on trade-offs.
Comparative Advantage – Marx critiques David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage (e.g., in Theories of Surplus Value), arguing that international trade under capitalism exploits unequal exchange and reinforces imperialism. He focuses on "uneven development" and "super-exploitation" rather than mutual gains from trade.If this seems like an absurd comparison, I would suggest reading both Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and Das Kapital.