Replies

Nice piece. A more classically Marxian approach is to divide that great class into bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie, which is itself typically pliable - (full disclosure, the definition squirms around and is frustrating as hell) - but you get a sense that there is a separate class out there that is typified by its rise from the middle class accompanied by a concomitant contempt for it. In Russian, this is the nomenklatura. It has always been a source of amusement to hear its luminaries proclaim a righteous defense of the working classes while displaying a distinct distaste at actually meeting the latter. The universities are full of them, chock-full, no room for another.

In fact, this is a terribly crude model of society that does not capture the complexity of class mobility and the tendency of the working class toward something outside its own putative boundaries. Note, for example, what happens when you do visit a factory these days, an activity that few of the nomenklatura care to contemplate. What's the first thing you run into? A parking lot, full of automobiles owned by the workers, bought either by capital amassed in savings or by participation in that aching example of popular capitalism, an auto loan from a bank. Proletarians can't do that, petit bourgeoisie can. And worse, who among those line workers has a pension plan, either through the company or through a union? These are collectively among the largest owners of common stock in the country - not proletarians, not even bourgeoisie, but capitalists. Marx was right about one thing: they do have a stake in the game, and because of it they're not a revolutionary class.

That's a real problem for any dedicated Marxist who defines himself or herself as a hero of a class of which he or she isn't a member and doesn't understand, and whose interests he or she does not share. The whole thing is a sham, a pretense, a bit of moral shielding from the ugly reality that Marxists are essentially parasites on the classes they profess to defend.

Ultimately class analysis devolves unto the individual, which merely restates what Locke and Algernon and Montesquieu and Madison and Paine were trying to tell us all along. It is the individual that is the only proper repository of political rights. The 20th century wasted an awful lot of time and blood trying to prove otherwise and it looks like the 21st isn't done with it yet.

And worse, who among those line workers has a pension plan, either through the company or through a union? These are collectively among the largest owners of common stock in the country - not proletarians, not even bourgeoisie, but capitalists. Marx was right about one thing: they do have a stake in the game, and because of it they're not a revolutionary class.

One problem is, people who are on a defined benefits pension plan don't see themselves as having a stake in the economy, because "somebody" (ultimately the federal government) guarantees they get their money regardless of the economy.

One reform that's really needed is to get everyone onto 401K plans. THEN the Democrat's screwing around with the economy looks less attractive.