The primary rule of thumb for the bourgeois apologist is always as follows: When bourgeois economic analysis is refuted with objective fact, agree with the fact in principle but refute the refutation with subjective theories on how that fact will "play" among "the people" who the apologist apparently speaks for (of course without presenting any objective evidence of public consciousness.),
...etc.
^^^ CB: I don't know. This doesn't sound like a very cogent criticism of what Bill Bartlett wrote.
There is quite a bit of objective evidence that the U.S. public consciousness has more "middle class" than "working class" as terms in that consciousness. Anecdotal evidence of language usage is objective. May be a biased sample , but it's objective. I almost never hear anybody use the term "working class" ( except leftists). I do hear "middle class". You weaken your argument by denying that there is evidence that people in the U.S. think in terms of "middle class" more than "working class".
If you don't think there is a problem of getting the notion of "working class" into the consciousness of the working class in the U.S., and that one obstacle to that is the notion of "middle class", then are you really in touch with the working class in the U.S. ?
Bartlett seems to make an argument and give propaganda strategy _for_ raising the working class' class consciousness, contra the seeming thrust of your post. He takes account of and offers a method to sort of take the consciousnesses with the term "middle class" in them and sort of transform them over to a consciousnesses with "working class" as a term.
Why would you characterize that as apologizing for the bourgeoisie ? Sounds like Bartlett has some good ideas for working class political education, starting with people where they are at.
Where have you practiced your "non-apologist" approach, avoiding the term "middle class",using "working class" and making radical change ?