There is Harry Potter: Rise of the Technomancers, which kinda has some revolutionist Harry later on. However, it's full of cliches, 'technomagic', Ron/Ginny/Hermione/McGonagall bashing, veela bonds and other nonsense.

Definitely at the barely readable end of guilty pleasures. Plus it's abandoned.

 

Calling him 'upper lower class' gives a false impression of the class dynamics at work. He's a proletariat, a worker, in that he draws wage and doesn't subsist on profit/dividends. Of course, being a boss and holding the views that he does evidently shows that he works against his class interests in false conciousness. He is a reactionary worker.

 

The middle class (including doctors and lawyers who do not own equity in a private practice/firm) all draw wages and do not belong to the proletariat. We are not in the middle of the 19th century, we do not live in the same world Marx lived in.

 

Come the modern day I expect a lot of mutterings about how UKIP has the 'right idea' as well, though he'll probably keep voting Tory. Supporting a minority would push him away from normal.

 

Marx described the middle class as the grist caught between the great millstones of the class struggle between capital and labour. Doctors are a part of the proletariat because they perform a service, their labour, and draw wage from that. Even if we use the term 'middle class', in the way you seem to be using it, as a signifier of wealth, social status or identity and not of relationship with capital it still doesn't add up empirically:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/08/opinion/la-oe-norton-wealth-inequality-20101108

When 40% of the population own almost literally nothing of the total wealth while 20% of the population own 85% of the wealth, what exactly is the middle class? The ~40% of people who own less than ~15% of the wealth collectively?

As a marxist, I'm very much weary of simply framing it as a question of rich vs poor because that doesn't portray any real dissonance between two section of society. The only tangible difference is between those who own the means of production and those who have to survive by selling their labour for wage by working those means. The so-called 'middle' class is just as exploited and just as much a part of the proletariat as the working class.

 

In the UK, class is an idea still somewhat distinct from wealth. The primary part is still birth, and the consequences of your birth (and thus, how you are raised). The way you speak, dress, your level of education (and where you were educated), the way you behave/manners. These are all important parts of what is considered your social class in the UK. And of course, the social status of your profession. It's all very flexible. The one hard and fast rule is that "upper class" refers specifically to birth, and only birth. People with titles and their relations.

That's why we have all these double barreled phrases like "Upper Middle". The first word signifies wealth, the second the more traditional idea of class.

Some plumbers earn more money than doctors. But plumbing is considered a working class profession, whereas medicine is a middle class profession. So the self-employed millionaire plumber would still be considered working class. He would probably still consider himself working class too. My maternal grandfather considers himself working class, even though he's richer than my father's family, who consider themselves upper class.

 

Yeah... but just look at all that bread and all those circuses to choose from.

 

Who needs bread when you can have bread-lines, eh?