-
Re - $100k salary discourse: yeah that's a lot of money for one person. Yes, a minority of working class people make that much. At that point you're either a manager, a government official, or someone with skills that take a long time to learn (lawyer, doctor, engineer, art) 🧵
-
Class has to do with your relationship to the means of production, not income. If your work makes someone else money, you're working class. I tend to use the terms "lower income" or "upper income" to describe what liberals call "middle class" or "upper class"
-
It also avoids the weird thing where we pretend a worker making $50k and a small business owner/"mom-and-pop landlord" making $50k are in the same "class" and have the same interests. They do not
-
A worker that makes $100k+ is more likely to be a class traitor, because they are more likely to participate in capitalism (maybe they own stocks or have a small business on the side) or just not see the exploitation in their work
-
I think it's important to keep this distinction for two reasons. First, if class is income than socialism is primarily a project of making sure no one makes too much money and redistributing capitalist profit, and not challenging the inherent power in owning private property
-
Second, rich workers are still subject to the power of their bosses, actually. I know this sounds wild if you're hearing it for the first time but it's true.
-
Don't get it twisted. Working $30k a year at Walmart isn't the same as working $125k a year in silicon valley, or working $45m a year as an athlete. We should focus most of our attention at the bottom. I'm saying the analysis of what is and is not working class is beyond income



