[peatfreak]

> Incidentally, the underclass that many on the modern left focus on were pejoratively considered “lumpen-proletariat”.

This is absolutely correct in terms of orthodox Marxist theory. It's interesting how "lumpenproletariat" has been whitewashed out of modern Marxist analysis. You just don't hear this term anymore.

[robocat]

I just tried to get my head around bourgeoisie again - it is so confusing and I don’t understand why anyone would ever use the word. Whenever I see it, it is used as an insult, to mean someone that is more well off than the person saying it. The word “capitalist” seems mostly a better substitute.

For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise? My guess is that bitwize is not proletarian, yet doesn’t see themselves as bourgeoise. I guess I struggle to understand whether proletariat and bourgeoisie convey any meaning in my country.

Disclaimer: I am definitely petite bourgeoise - that allows me to own a house like two thirds of New Zealanders do.

[peatfreak]

> For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise?

No, they are not. Marxist analysis doesn't really map to information technology in service economies in the classical way. The principles of analysis still apply in today's society, but first you have to recast class definitions and class relationships in a meaningful way. There's a nice (but idiosyncratic) book called "The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto" that explains this, but it won't make sense unless you already have a basic grip on orthodox Marxism.