>>2640291>Can someone tell me about whether there are classes inside the proletariat other than the lumpenproletariat, the labor aristocracy, and the managerial class?In various particular conditions different sections of the working class differentiate and relate in different ways, or may not be proletarian at all. For instance the labor aristocracy presents very differently in a peripheral state like Sri Lanka compared to imperial core states like the US or France, where they are arguably closer to the petty bourgeoisie than any real working class and more numerous proportionally than in the periphery. For another example: in Haiti, the workers within Port au Prince are distinct from workers everywhere else in the country due to the economic structure of the country and politically dominate oftentimes to the detriment of other workers and the rural peasantry. Their vacillation due to extractive relations with the countryside makes them an unreliable social base even for reformism, as we saw with Aristide. Nobody will ever be able to genuinely hand you a universal diagram of what the working classes are in the way you're asking, because that's not how that works. The proletariat is defined by concrete economic relations that must be analyzed in each context, down to the local level you're at. This is why sharpening the blade of analysis is so important for each of us. I was tempted to write another "Boring." reply and move on, but genuinely discussions like this would be a lot more interesting if you actually attempted to present
your own class analysis for others to critique.
>Is there a pyramid for it?It's not a simple hierarchy, no. Class relations constantly shift based on economic conditions and social relations, and even acknowledging that, viewing one class as simply "above" another is an overly simplistic framework. The bourgeoisie dominates capitalist society, but why and how does it maintain this position? Not simply by propaganda and "ideological control", that's for sure. No regime exists that way. The proletariat globally is more numerous and exist at every point of production. Why are they not at the top of the hierarchy? Don't the majority rule?
>Is there a similar differentiation on the classes constituting the bourgeoisie?The bourgeoisie is internally differentiated, yes. As to how it's differentiated, see the first paragraph of this post.
>What'd the lower middle class be defined, as a term? Can someone tell me more about the view on the middle class in general?Here's where I think we're getting to the actual reason why you posted this absent of any class analysis of your own. You're looking for reassurance about your class position and relation to production, desperately hoping that someone will spoonfeed you a sound-enough excuse to uncritically ignore the "middle class'" relation to imperialism and production. "Middle class" is a bourgeois economist term lumping together various disparate sections of the upper working class and petty bourgeoisie along the lines of a tax bracket, rather than an actual class. Basically, it's not a term particularly useful to Marxism. Again, you're gonna have to do your own homework on this one. What is your concrete relationship to production? What do you own? What do you produce? If you or your parents own land, what is the relationship of land to production where you're at? Do you sell your labor-power, and if so are you the primary producer of value in the commodity you manufacture? If you sell your labor-power in a job outside commodity production (I'm a teacher, for example) what is the relation of that role to production and the state?