Vivek Chibber
I think it’s having a moment for two reasons. One is that it does reflect something quite extraordinary and new over the past twenty years, which is a level of economic inequality that we had not seen in about two to three generations. And that inequality is one where the real gains have occurred in such a tiny section — not just of what we call the “elites” but a tiny section of the capitalist class itself.
If you look at the rise in inequality, it’s not like “the 1 percent” has gotten richer than the 99 percent. It’s really that the 0.1 percent has gotten richer than everyone else. So it is really, really concentrated at the top.
Conversely, the bottom 60 to 70 percent has witnessed almost no gains in almost two generations. Now, when you have that as an actual fact about the world, where one-half of 1 percent is taking all the money and the bottom 60 percent is basically standing still or getting worse, the organic political vocabulary for an expression of that will be a populist one, where everyone’s suffering and the tiny, tiny elite is gaining.
But there’s another reason, which is that if you look at it from a socialist standpoint, it’s straightforward class warfare. When you say that the 0.1 percent or the 0.5 percent is where all the money’s gone, you’re really just talking about the capitalist class. And when you say the bottom 50 to 60 percent has been standing still, you’re really just talking about the working class. So this is about as naked an expression of class warfare as you could ever get.
So the question is, why isn’t this being described in class terms, and why is it instead giving rise to a populist vocabulary? Before I answer that, let me say, you cannot indict Sanders for falling into the populist category, even though he’s credited with launching our culture into this populist…
Auteur: Vivek Chibber
