if by "class struggle" the lefties in 2000 mean the "wealthy and (various) priviledged" (i.e., the "haves") vs. the "non-wealthy and (various) non-priviledged" (i.e., the "have-nots"), then i can understand them and vote for one of their preferred candidates like Ralph who wants to restrict the wealth and priviledges of various "haves".
also, it seems useful to segment the US population for purposes of determining priviledged vs. non-privledged "classes", like female rights vs male rights, employed vs. unemployed, 1st income quintile vs. 5th income quintile, black rights vs. white rights, educated vs. uneducated, alien rights vs. citizen rights, etc. for political and economic analysis, organizing and action.
it's the various marxist supra "classes" of "proleteriat" vs. "capitalist", "slave" vs. "master", "worker" vs. "owner", "wage value" vs. surplus value", etc. that confound me. e.g., 50% of US citizens are reputed to own company stock. what "class" are these mini-owners by marxist definitions?
norm
----------------------------------------------------
Who did that? After that guy!
My main interest in the idea stems from its role as an organizing principle in political argument. It's not a matter of referring to some non-existent sphere of comraderie or making academic arguments.
Unrestrained private ownership of capital gives rise to exploitation (non-technical definition) of individuals in a variety of ways. An appeal to class means making a political issue of these modes of exploitation and their remedies. People are screwed as workers, ripped-off as consumers, frustrated as entrepreneurs, and disempowered as citizens, all because of the power of Capital. To me class is about economic justice -- those that don't enjoy it, because of those who limit it. Us and them; the many and the few. It's not about groups; it's a story with an unfinished ending.
mbs