It's Heating Up ( is "class" in the US today a meaningful con cept for analysis and organizing?)

[Gordon Fitch]

Mikalac Norman S NSSC:
> ok, now you are using language that i understand.  in fact, your words below
> might have come straight out of a Ralph speech.  however, he refers to MANY
> non-priviledged groups or "classes" rather than "A" class, although,
> understandably, he doesn't use the forbidden "C" word.
> 
> 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?

Why is this a problem?  The question is what kind of
relationships people are in -- for example, whether they
give orders, convey them, take them, or just suffer from
them.  The ownership of small amounts of stock or modest
savings accounts will not affect these relationships much.
Or are you complaining about the symbolic systems used to
talk about class?