Rise of the proletariat

Although I remain unconvinced of Bradley Gitz’s argument that Marxists have secretly rebranded traditional class struggle into identity politics, I am intrigued by his analogy, as he claims identity politics move American equality to Marxist equity.

Gitz positions Marxism against capitalist democracy, which allows him to claim an attack on capitalism is an attack on our democracy, on our American values of freedom. Yet traditional Marxism was against capitalism, regardless of the underlying political system.

Gitz bemoans Marxist identity politics as the cause of the loss of democratic freedoms. This is only possible because Gitz does not separate capitalism from democracy. If he did, he might agree with Marxism, which acknowledges the inequality of outcome in capitalism, where those who have access to wealth, power, and property incidentally extinguish the freedoms of those who do not.

Gitz fails to mention most American wealth is still owned by white men who require others to maintain their property and status. (Why is it that maids in hotels are often female, and usually women of color?)

Thus our democratic freedoms are not necessarily at stake, as Gitz claims, but rather our resources are, resources generated by us, the proletariat, those most often identified by our (non-male, non-white) laboring bodies. Equity, by definition, is a Marxist term. It is the reallocation of resources from those who have more to those who have less, which enables the lesser to have freedoms, the ones we value in our democracy. Thus unfettered capitalism limits freedoms. Not Marxism. And surely not identity politics.

Gitz does not mention Marx’s end game since it does not fit his analogy: The rise of the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie, regardless of political system. Perhaps the equity of resources (by the people for the people) will help us get there sooner. KIMBER BARBER-FENDLEY

North Little Rock