The Socialist Party has often come under criticism to
holding to what is frequently called a simplistic two-class model for the
structure of capitalism. The working class are paid to produce goods and
services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the
capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced
than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are
exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they
obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their
profits for the further accumulation of wealth. This is what we mean when we
say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts
about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential
feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about
various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two
classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.
So it is always helpful to the case for socialism when others
express similar opinions to ourselves and confirm much of our position. Jack A.
Smith, editor of the Activist Newsletter and a former editor of the American
radical newsweekly, the Guardian has written an interesting article on theDissident Voice website which is worth quoting extracts from.
“A complex class system exists in the United States, but the
mass media and political rhetoric generally reduces it to three components —
one middle class, and two economic generalizations — rich and the poor…
… Virtually the only class ever mentioned these days is the
middle class, and now that seems on the way out, at least until the next
election if not longer. The New York Times reported May 12 that political
candidates for election in 2016 are no longer mentioning the middle class
because it may remind people that this once sacrosanct vehicle for attaining
the “American Dream” seems to be falling apart and taking the dream down with
it… “Hillary Rodham Clinton calls them ‘everyday Americans.’ Scott Walker
prefers ‘hard-working taxpayers.’ Rand Paul says he speaks for ‘people who work
for the people who own businesses.’ Bernie Sanders talks about ‘ordinary
Americans.’ The once ubiquitous term ‘middle class’ has gone conspicuously
missing from the 2016 campaign trail” - New York Times
… Whatever happened to the term upper class? It’s hardly
used at all these days Gone as well is general usage of lower class, lower
middle class, and upper middle class — all popular designations in the past but
rare now. They may not have been scientific, but people knew what they meant….
… Remember when there was a “working class” in our country?
The frequent reference to this class a few decades ago has nearly vanished
today, except in some academic and economic circles, a few militant unions and
in the political left. The working class was split up. Its members became sold
on the idea that benefits and security awaited their families in the middle
class. The poor and very low-wage workers were pushed into their own weaker
category, belonging neither to the working class nor middle class. One reason
for this entire transformation was to suppress the memory and continuing
existence of a more militant era in U.S. history when the working class and the
union movement was strong and tough. Nearly all unions now avoid mention of the
working class, substituting “working families” or “employees,” but mostly the
unions now identify their members as part of that all-embracing and utterly
misleading ticket to paradise known as membership in the middle class. The U.S.
government and the corporate elite worked together to transform a bothersome
working class into a relatively placid middle class desiring to retain its new
status.…
…Virtually obliterated is the term “ruling class” to
describe that relatively small group of billionaire and upper millionaire
capitalist plutocrats, corporate leaders, bank presidents, financiers and their
highly paid henchmen who possess the power to decisively influence if not
totally control the political system…
… The popularization of the idea that “We are the 99%” (in
opposition to the 1% who rule America) was the best thing Occupy Wall Street
did in its relatively brief existence. It was an eye-opener for so many people.
It gave a concrete form to an abstract idea. So that’s who’s doing this to us! It
would be shortsighted in the extreme for the progressive and left movements not
to follow up in a big way on the deepened consciousness of the American people
about unequal distribution of wealth, Washington’s failure to protect
democracy, the degeneration of the electoral process, the increasing
exploitation of workers, the decline of the vaunted middle class and the
extraordinary power of the 1% ruling class that controls the U.S. on behalf of
a neoliberal form of warrior capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment