>>473760>And the first sign of true Marxist failure is a total inability to read the genuine social classes of the late 20th century. There isn't a "bourgeois" or "proletariat" any more.
This is bullshit, actually.
Even in Marx's time, he observed strata within the bourgeoisie and proletariat - this isn't a new phenomenon. What has changed, the most significant change, is the overall decline of the previous monarchical class. The Kings have mostly gone, or have ceded much of their power to capital - the bourgeoisie and proletariat actually are more relevant
to a basic understanding of class than they were in Marx's time.
Marx's understanding of class is many times more coherent and broadly true than any attempt to divide it along income lines - I say this as someone who isn't even a Marxist. If anything, Marx was too prone to obsessing over minor distinctions - it's not that he generalized too broadly
, but he occasionally failed to generalize broadly enough
. His hatred of lumpenproles is one of his numerous lapses in judgment - the best analysis from Marx and Engels is great materialism, it demystifies economics and history, but Marx sets that aside when he decides to lament the stupidity of whores without adequate consideration for what causes whores to be whores. The little differences between groups of people who sell their labor for money are less significant than the commonality of relying upon the selling labor for money.
Growing up, I was told that class was income levels - but no one could pin it down. Almost everyone just thought they were middle class, even a lot of people who were poor just thought of themselves as "lower middle class" unless they were actually homeless. Everyone thought they were middle class and that everyone poorer than them was some other class, but only the absolute richest Bill Gates-type people were another, higher class. It was stupid. Workers have a common interest, and should organize around it to the fullest extent.