The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group advocating for policies aimed at the working class, is facing renewed criticism regarding its membership's socioeconomic profile and its expansive definition of the term "working class." As the DSA achieves electoral successes in Democratic primaries, attention has turned to the apparent tension between the group's stated mission and the demographics of its members.
Internal DSA surveys from 2021 indicated that 80 percent of members over 25 were college-educated, and 28 percent earned more than $100,000 annually, placing them in the top 15 percent of U.S. income distribution. Prominent DSA politicians have included individuals with Ivy League educations, legal backgrounds, and privileged upbringings.
Critics, including Thomas Edsall in The New York Times, Robby Soave, Batya Ungar-Sargon, and Noah Smith, have argued that the DSA's membership is largely not composed of individuals typically considered "working class." They point to the significant educational attainment and income levels within the organization.
Some socialists counter these criticisms by arguing that an organization does not need a uniformly working-class membership to advocate for working-class interests. Others note that not all college graduates fit the profile of affluent professionals. However, a segment of socialists adheres to a simpler definition: the "working class" comprises everyone who must sell their labor to survive.
This broader definition has historical roots in socialist thought. Orthodox socialists, as explained by Ben Burgis of Jacobin, often subscribe to a "two-class map of capitalist society," dividing people into those who own the means of production and those who work for them. While many contemporary socialists acknowledge the limitations of this dichotomy and propose more nuanced class structures, the two-class model remains influential in left-wing rhetoric.
Under this expansive definition, individuals like lawyers and day laborers are both considered part of the "working class." Proponents argue that professionals and manual laborers share common interests as laborers, such as benefiting from social safety nets. However, critics contend that this broad categorization obscures significant economic divisions and conflicts within modern industrial economies.
A Reexamination of Class Definitions
The origins of the two-class model can be traced to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's 1848 "The Communist Manifesto." Their analysis was based on predictions that industrialization would diminish distinctions among workers and erode the middle class, leaving only two primary classes: capitalists and the proletariat.
However, critics argue that contemporary capitalism has not followed this trajectory. Instead of a uniform proletariat, modern economies feature a diverse labor force with vast differences in pay and prestige. Furthermore, industrial development has led to widespread prosperity, albeit aided by social reforms. This divergence from Marx's predictions, they argue, renders the two-class model an outdated framework for understanding contemporary economic divisions.
The distinction between labor and capital has also become less clear. Many workers now own assets like homes and 401(k)s, while some billionaires continue to work. Socialists often define class by dependence on labor for survival, but this criterion can become subjective. For instance, the threshold at which an individual no longer "needs" to work to maintain their desired lifestyle is open to interpretation, making it difficult to draw a definitive line between the working class and others.
In a modern capitalist society, class is better understood as a multidimensional continuum. Factors such as household income, net worth, market value of skills, familial wealth, and access to social welfare benefits all contribute to an individual's economic standing and freedom. This perspective suggests that a more granular classification, beyond a simple binary, is necessary to accurately describe societal stratification.
Implications for Political Advocacy
While the orthodox socialist two-class map may be analytically flawed, some argue it can still serve a political purpose by encouraging affluent professionals to identify with and advocate for the interests of the working poor. The DSA's advocacy for policies benefiting disadvantaged groups and the broader embrace of anti-poverty initiatives by Democrats following Occupy Wall Street are cited as potential examples.
However, this expansive definition of the "working class" can also be used to advance the interests of more privileged groups. For instance, the push for blanket student loan forgiveness, which would benefit high-income earners like doctors and MBA graduates, has been criticized as a policy that could disproportionately aid the professional class while potentially exacerbating inflation. By framing such policies under the umbrella of "working-class" interests, class distinctions may be obscured.
Similarly, in tax policy, a binary view of class can enable educated professionals to avoid contributing proportionally to social programs. Critics argue that the aversion of many on the left to broad-based tax increases on the middle and upper-middle classes, preferring to focus solely on taxing the superrich, hinders the development of a comprehensive welfare state. The tax burden on the middle class in the U.S. is notably lower than in many Western European countries, making broad-based tax increases a potential necessity for funding social democracy.
Ultimately, the DSA's effectiveness in serving working-class interests depends on its policies and political strategies. When an organization's most privileged members' preferences are mistaken for those of all working people, its advocacy and policymaking may suffer. In the current economic landscape, acknowledging the distinct circumstances and interests of different socioeconomic groups is crucial for effectively safeguarding the well-being of the disadvantaged.