1. If you only look at the reading materials provided in 4.1 and 4.2, it is accurate to say that they are discussing society stratum instead of social class. These two words are easy to confuse. But it is easy to distinguish, the social stratum is a pyramid structure, and the social class is parallel. In layman’s terms, the two articles actually discuss social status, and they believe that the measurement of social status is mainly based on income level. There are some obvious loopholes in this discussion or way of thinking. If the social position is determined by the income level, which of the Afghan businessmen with a monthly salary of 100,000 US dollars and the low-level US military officers in Afghanistan with a monthly salary of 5,000 US dollars has higher social status? Even if a worker’s monthly income is only US$3,000, his social status may not necessarily be lower than that of a rich businessman. I don’t want to play word games, but social class refers to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in both literal and actual meaning. It is worth noting that the bourgeoisie is not necessarily a capitalist, but the capitalist must be a bourgeoisie.
  2. The vast majority of people in my community need to sell labor to obtain means of subsistence, so they belong to the proletariat.
  3. As long as a person does not own the means of production and needs to work for others through the sale of labor, even if the annual salary is millions of dollars, he is still the proletariat. Social class is not directly related to income.

Leave a Reply