I’m not a fan of the “class” left wing scenery. Progressives often define class in terms of income and wealth, but that makes no sense to me. I spent time from the bottom to the top 20% in 5 income quintiles, but denied identifying my “class” with my income.
The following tweet caught my eye:
Therefore, the leftists currently running for Major New York consider the same class of risk (income or wealth) at least in regards to the top 1% of “US vs. turn” batters. Are homeless people living in the alley behind the Bronx united with the elegant women who live in a condo on New York’s Upper East Side in a battle with “economic justice”? Sorry, but I haven’t bought that argument.
In the past, Marxists considered class in terms of capitalists, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Even that was simple, but at least there was a certain logic. If you combine 1% and 98% into one group, there are none at all.
Is this just harmless rhetoric? i don’t think so. Leftists continue to assume that different groups are part of immigrants, blue-collar workers, and lower-than-people, and are shocked to see them voting for Republican candidates. Leftists don’t make the minimum wage ($33,000 a year) in California ($33,000 a year), and Zem doesn’t think he’s in the same class as non-drakers who live from effective social insurance programs.
Matt Yglesias has posted a report on the issue.
The name comes from Lube Gallego’s remarks to Lulu Garcia Navarro about the importance of clarifying the ambitious agenda of material prosperity as part of the pitch for working-class people.
It was a joke, but when I was talking to a Latino man, I said a lot: “I’m going to try and get you out of your mom’s house and get your trokita.” For English speakers, it means your track. All Latino guys want a massacre truck, but that’s nothing wrong. “And you’re going to start your own job, and you’re going to get rich, right?” You’re the conversation we should have. I’m afraid to say, “Hey, let’s help you get the job so that you can invite the rich.” Use terms such as “providing more economic stability.” These people don’t want that. They don’t want “economic stability.” They really want to live their American dreams.
This is literally richness. It’s about economic growth. In the progressive way, it is not indifferent to the issue of distribution – it is a pitch aimed at people in the bottom half of the revenue sharing. But it’s not inequality, it’s about raising absolute standard of living.
Every time I hear Progressive talk about 1% and 99%, I immediately suspect that I have little understanding of the role of class in America.
