What's in a Name?

The precision of language in Marxist theory is a complicated problem, as activists dedicated to orthodoxy tend to consider analysis sloppy if it includes non-Marxist terminology as "middle class" or "upper class." Rather, we're supposed to refer to the classes as bourgeois, proletariat, and if necessary, petty bourgeois and lumpenproletariat. Activists dedicated to praxis consider such terminology as outdated and alienating to modern proletariat. The principles of rhetoric insist that the author or speaker tailor the language and message to her audience. Who exactly is our audience? The language we select will determine the kind of audience that ultimately consumes our messages.

The desire to be a good rhetorician would seem to necessitate siding with the praxis side of the argument of making the message accessible to the people who have any reason to hear the call to revolution and follow it. The complexity of capitalism in the United States makes the strict Marxist class categories slightly outdated, yet the relationship to the means of production remains a key aspect of class determination but not the sole criteria. Corporate executives sell their labor time as the grunts underneath them and often share ownership of the means of production. At times the shared ownership comes about through pension plans that invest in shares of the corporation or private investing of the general laborer. The labor aristrocracy of the U$ would seem to fall into the category of petty bourgeois at the lowest.

As far as I can discern, the theory of a labor aristocracy seeks to explain why despite a large disparity of wealth, mounting debt, and declining wages there remains a lack of class consciousness within the imperialist nations. A good number of people in the U$ realize that they import a large portion of their goods from third world sweatshops, so they have no interest in seeing a worldwide communist revolution as they could no longer enjoy their relatively affluant lifestyles. I believe the personal investment the wage laborers have in the imperialist system that exploits cheaper and oppressed labor prevent the formation of class conscioussness in the imperialist countries and necessitate the spark come from the third world. With the inevitable demographic changes and the browning of the U$ the white supremacists loathe so much, the potential for revolution in the U$ lies in the future as long as they remain marginalized. I won't be holding my breath.

In the end, I think I must cite Shakespeare's rhetorical question: "What's in a name?" Call the classes whatever you want to, but keep in mind the needs of your audience. If your intended audience can't understand your message, chances are, it won't pay attention. The question of audience is a perplexing one for communists in the imperialist countries as we wonder about the line of Maoist movements around the world and unsure of how primitive our own analysis and explanations are in comparison.