I’ve been having trouble explaining to liberal co-workers that there isn’t really an “Upper” or “Lower” working class. They insist that class as a relation to means of production is outdated and it makes more sense to measure it by income. What’s the most effective way to explain to them why this doesn’t work?
Well, I’m gonna dump some personal conclusions I’ve drawn from debating against some really smart (but wrong) liberals, so reader beware…
I have to agree that the concept is indeed outdated. Nowadays it’s becoming progressively more common to obtain income from a mix of wage-labor and exploitation (e.g. from rent), at least in my country. So rather than thinking in terms of classes of people, I’ve come to think of labor and capitalization as two systems that de-localize and overlap to some degree. This makes sense since the vast majority of the surplus value still goes to the same capitalists, but promoting a limited form of popular participation is effective at keeping people all in for capitalism. Still, you should make clear that all people still lie somewhere in this spectrum.
As for ‘income classes’, well, the money-power relationship is a hallmark feature of capitalism, so whatever they believe, it doesn’t sound too incompatible with Marxism, they might be persuaded.
This isn’t some novel analysis. Capital volume I recognizes this mix and states that the classes are more poles than distinct groups. But they’re still classes.
I’m sorry, I read it so long ago. Time for a refresh! :)