My name’s Lilly Wachowski.
I’m out here on the picket line to support my fellow union, brothers, sisters, and siblings, for better wages, for a better future. And I’m also here because I think that this is a microcosm of a much larger issue.
There’s a correlation between what’s happening here and what’s happening in the world in terms of the flow of wealth in the world. It’s like the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is getting squeezed out, and a lot more of them are living on the margins of society than ever before.
If we can start pushing back on these oligarchs, we can start to rearrange how, not just in this industry, but all industries, are ordered.
By “better paid worker”, I really meant anyone still able to afford rent. I understand that most people who make more money than that are legitimately petite-bourgoisie/labor aristocrats.
There’s a case to be made that even those who can’t afford rent by their own wages aren’t fully proletariat. The fact that they can still survive is due to reliance on the super-exploitation of the global south, which pushes them towards being labour aristocrats. (Albeit, this part of the transfer is wealth from south to north is under threat.)
But for the people identifying as middle class who can’t pay rent, is it an ideological thing? i.e. they think they’re middle class because they’re parents were or because although they get low wages, they’re in a ‘middle class’ job? I’m not sure I’d call relatively poor people middle class. But there are people who call precarious knowledge workers ‘middle class’ just because they don’t get their hands dirty at work.
In this sense, ‘better-paid workers’ does not necessarily equate to ‘better-off proles’. I should’ve been clearer that I reframed your comment. Still, this is why you’re original point was fundamentally right—‘middle class’ is a slippery term and not nearly so useful as class concepts defined in relation to the means of production.