Response #1

In Communist Menifesto, Marx argues that any individual who is not part of the bourgeoisie will become a member of the proletariat. Marx claims that the bourgeoisie has even “converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, [and] the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers”. This claim, however, is absolutely untrue in the modern society, meaning that Marx's claim may be just an outdated argument without much valid rationality, at least in the 21st century.

According to contemporary sociologists, there are seven classes in American society today(James Henslin). The top class, the capitalist class which composes one percent of the population, certainly sounds like Marx’s bourgeoisie. These are the people that own the capital. Indeed, the top one percent of Americans control 33% of the nation’s wealth. This works well for Marx’s view; it would seem that we have a solid bourgeoisie. Similarly, sociologists have identified two classes which correspond relatively well to the proletariat: the working class and the working poor which are composed of factory workers, laborers, and so forth. These groups compose about 46% of the population. So, we have proletariats and bourgeoisie in America that make up 47%, just under half, of the total population. Contrary, to Marx’s view, the remaining 53% of society do not fit well into either category.

The three classes that compose the rest of society are the upper middle class and the lower middle class, and the underclass. Marx remarks briefly on the underclass (the homeless, etc.) but dismisses it as small and powerless. On the other hand, Marx explicitly predicted the disappearance of the lower middle class, particularly the craftsmen. Yet, there are still a large number of artisans and craftsmen today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are for example, 1.5 million carpenters in America today. These carpenters rely on “all around skills” and their “specialized training” Marx clearly stated “that specialized skill is rendered useless by new means of production,” yet today, many carpenters still rely on those specialized skills. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts a 10% increase in the number of carpenters over the next decade. Far from being in decline, these specialized craftsmen are experiencing a period of expansion.

Marx might perhaps argue that the specialized craftsmen are merely a holdover, an anachronism whose abolition will still come. This objection may have some merit, but if 150 years has not served to remove the craftsmen, how long will it take? Marx might also argue that the craftsmen of today are in fact nothing more than proletariats in disguise, exploited by the bourgeoisie. I find this assertion implausible as the carpenter has little in common with the laborers that form the essence of the industrial proletariat. Carpenters are not easily replaceable, and many take pride in their work, so they do not appear to meet key qualifications.

Of course, carpenters, after all, are still relatively poor, earning only $17.57 per hour on average. Yet this example is strong enough to show the illogicality of Marx's argument. As I was answered by Jackie, it might be very important to learn Marx's argument for he is one of the pioneers of the political and social science field, but it is questionable if his logic is appliable in modern period.