There are those who would argue that class structure does not exist in the United States. Such beliefs are hard to justify when considering the incredible differentiation between the upper classes and all other such distinctions (On Social Class Structure). The tools available to the rich that enable them to continue to enjoy an elevated status also serve to keep them separated from the Proletariat in Marx’s terminology (Zweigenhaft). The rhetoric of Marx is dated in theory as well as in practice. In attempting to simplify the class struggle under capitalism into bipolar opposites, Marx disregards the individual and the complexity of evolving corporate structure.
One may agree on the existence of both the haves and have-nots without going to the extremes of Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
The existence of two classes is itself an oversimplification. To even differentiate between three classes can be seen as stretching the point. Various levels within the major three categories have been easily identified.
James Coleman in his work A Paradigm for the Study of Social Strata outlines the existence of two upper classes, three middle classes, and two lower classes (A Paradigm for the Study of Social Strata). In the light of such distinctions, the claims of others seem to be exaggerated in nature.
The author of the article on The Associated Content News site also lists three classes, but the middle class is for all intents and purposes the same as the upper class. This similarity allows not only for a better fit for Marxist posturing, but it also provides for extreme inequalities that inflame emotion rather than address the reader’s intellect with facts (On Social Class Structure). Calls for social reform must be based on clear and logical thought, not emotional chaos inspired by such tactics.
Another fallacy of Marxist thought, when applied to the social structure of the American class system, is to ignore the effects of the individual. The existence of bias based on gender and race is well documented. Social minorities often find themselves populating the lowest echelons of class structure. To say that women and African-Americans are always members of the lower classes because they are discriminated against culturally is flawed (Rothenberg,). In the United States, it is possible for one to be mobile, both upwardly and downwardly, in the economic class system.
While the upward movement is difficult, it cannot be deemed impossible.
Just as flawed is the notion that, as an institution, Corporate America is structured to intentionally keep down those deemed “undesirable”. Such rigid dogma ignores the existence of evolving capitalism such as dual-class shares. In the traditional arrangement that so suits the Marxist model, those with the most money own the most shares and therefore the most power in the company.
Yet since the late 1800s, the existence of this new system of dual-class shares allows for the possibility of the power resting in the hands of those who have not invested the most capital (Howell). While the majority of companies are still based on the traditional model, the very existence of the second proves that any suppression of the lower classes by Corporate America is unintentional.
The applicability of Marx’s theories historically is not in question at this point. Its applicability to the modern class structure is. The economic existence of the American class structure lies somewhere on the continuum between those who do not recognize its existence and those who would bifurcate it into oversimplicity. The complexity of reality simply will not allow for either extreme.
References
Class Structure in the United States. 2010. Web.
Howell, Jason W. “Essays on the U.S. Dual-Class Share Structure”. 2010. Web.
Zweigenhaft, R. L. “Teaching an Interdisciplinary Course on the American Upper.Class” Radical Teacher. Prokect Muse. 2010. Web.