This might be one of my most out-there posts. Seriously. But fuck it. I’m going to say it anyway.
Karl Marx. The communists. The socialists. All of these left-wing thinkers from the past who spent so much time talking about different economic classes. The proletariat. The bourgeoisie. The working class. The owning class.
Lemme tell ya something.
I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with this approach. And I think it’s something that continues to divide people to this day.
Now, before anyone gets upset, hear me out.
I understand the historical context. I understand why Marx talked about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. I understand that capitalism creates different economic positions, that some people have significantly more power and leverage than others, and that workers can be exploited by those who own capital.
I’m not denying any of that.
But here’s where I disagree.
I don’t think we should be defining people primarily by their economic class.
And I certainly don’t think we should be treating those classes as permanent identities that automatically determine who someone is, what they believe, and where their loyalties belong.
Think about it.
When you start dividing people into these categories, you’re already creating distinctions between them. You’re creating an environment where people are encouraged to see others as belonging to an entirely different group.
And frankly, that’s not all that different from what capitalists do.
Capitalism itself operates through economic classifications and hierarchies. It distinguishes between owners, employees, investors, landlords, tenants, and so on.
So why should our response be to double down on defining people through those same categories?
Why should we accept that these divisions are the primary way we understand one another?
And here’s another problem: economic classes aren’t necessarily permanent.
People’s economic circumstances can change. Someone who is working class today might become wealthy tomorrow. Someone who owns a business might lose everything next year. Someone who inherits money might eventually find themselves struggling financially.
People move around. Circumstances change. Opportunities change. People’s relationships with money, employment, and ownership change.
So why are we treating these categories as though they’re rigid, permanent identities?
Why do we act as though someone belonging to a particular economic class automatically makes them a particular type of person?
That’s what I have a problem with.
I want us to start looking at these categories more fluidly. Less rigidly. Less like permanent labels and more like descriptions of someone’s current circumstances.
And I want us to start looking beyond those labels entirely.
In fact, I’ll go a step further.
I believe we should start seeing people outside our immediate economic class as potential allies.
Yes. I genuinely believe that people in the bourgeoisie can be potential allies to the proletariat.
I know. Sounds insane, right?
But I’m serious.
Why should we automatically assume that someone who owns a business, has accumulated wealth, or comes from a wealthy background is automatically our enemy?
Why should we assume that someone cannot support workers’ rights, economic equality, better working conditions, or reforms that benefit people who are less fortunate than themselves?
Are there wealthy people who exploit workers? Absolutely.
Are there business owners who mistreat employees? Of course.
Are there people with significant economic power who actively work against the interests of ordinary people? Without question.
But does that mean every single person who occupies that economic position is automatically an enemy?
I don’t think so.
And I’m going to go even further.
I believe cops, the military, and yes, even ICE agents can be potential allies.
Yes, I said it.
I know that’s probably going to upset some people. Especially considering the things I’ve said about ICE and the problems I’ve criticized within law enforcement and government institutions.
But let me explain.
I believe that all of us are workers.
Yes. Everyone.
Under capitalism, all of us are workers in some sense of the word.
And I mean everyone.
The ordinary employee. The business owner. The wealthy investor. The landlord. The police officer. The military service member. The ICE agent.
Now, obviously, I’m not saying everyone’s position is identical.
It isn’t.
Someone working minimum wage and someone owning a multibillion-dollar corporation do not have the same economic power, resources, leverage, or responsibilities.
We need to acknowledge that.
But I also think there’s something worth recognizing here.
Even people at the top are putting effort into maintaining their economic positions, protecting their wealth, managing their assets, and making more money.
That doesn’t mean every way they generate income is ethical or that we should excuse exploitation. Not even remotely.
But it does mean that the relationship between work, labor, and economic position can be more complicated than simply dividing everybody into two opposing camps.
And what about landlords?
Yes, even landlords.
Now, I know that’s another controversial one. And I’m certainly not suggesting that every landlord is wonderful or that tenants don’t face legitimate problems with housing costs, exploitation, and unfair treatment.
But why should we automatically assume that every landlord is an irredeemable enemy?
Why can’t we distinguish between someone who owns a small property and someone who operates a massive real estate empire?
Why can’t we acknowledge differences in circumstances, behavior, and intentions?
Why does everything have to be reduced to one label?
And this brings me to my larger point.
I think the left needs to reconsider how it approaches potential allies.
Because here’s the thing.
If we’re constantly defining people as enemies based on their economic position, occupation, background, or circumstances, we’re potentially shutting the door on people who might otherwise be willing to work alongside us.
We’re creating unnecessary barriers.
We’re making it harder to build coalitions.
We’re essentially telling people that unless they belong to a particular group, they’re automatically on the other side.
And I don’t think that’s productive.
Think about the possibilities if we approached things differently.
What if instead of automatically dismissing business owners, we encouraged them to support better working conditions?
What if instead of automatically dismissing wealthy people, we encouraged them to use their resources and influence to help address economic inequality?
What if instead of automatically dismissing police officers and military personnel, we recognized that individual people within those institutions can question existing practices, advocate for accountability, and support meaningful reforms?
What if we actually tried to build bridges?
Now, I want to make something VERY clear.
Seeing someone as a potential ally does not mean excusing their actions.
It doesn’t mean overlooking exploitation, corruption, discrimination, abuse of power, or institutional wrongdoing.
It doesn’t mean abandoning accountability.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that people who are being harmed should have to tolerate mistreatment just to maintain some imaginary coalition.
Potential ally does not mean automatic ally.
People have to demonstrate through their actions that they’re willing to work toward something better.
And sometimes, people will refuse. Sometimes, they’ll actively work against those goals. Sometimes, you’ll have to oppose them.
That’s reality.
But why should we decide that outcome before giving someone the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise?
Why should we treat entire categories of people as permanently beyond cooperation?
I think that’s a mistake.
And honestly, I think this is where we need to start reconsidering some of the traditional political frameworks we’ve inherited.
We don’t have to throw away every observation Marx made about capitalism. We don’t have to pretend economic inequality doesn’t exist. We don’t have to abandon discussions about class, labor, ownership, or exploitation.
But we can question the way those discussions are framed.
We can recognize that economic categories don’t tell us everything about a person.
We can recognize that people are complicated.
We can recognize that someone’s current circumstances don’t necessarily determine their future beliefs, actions, or relationships with others.
And most importantly, we can recognize that people who appear to occupy different sides of an economic divide might actually have more common ground than we initially assume.
At the end of the day, I don’t want a politics built around permanently dividing humanity into opposing camps.
I want a politics that recognizes differences, acknowledges power imbalances, demands accountability, and still leaves room for cooperation.
I want us to stop treating potential allies as permanent enemies.
Because if we’re serious about building a better society, we’re going to need more than people who already agree with us.
We’re going to need people who disagree with us.
People who come from different backgrounds.
People who occupy different economic positions.
People who work in different professions.
People who might not initially see things the way we do.
And yes, sometimes even people we strongly disagree with.
We don’t have to like everybody. We don’t have to agree with everybody. We don’t have to excuse anybody.
But we should at least leave room for the possibility that people can change, circumstances can change, and alliances can be built across boundaries.
Stop looking at people as nothing more than their class. Start looking at them as people.
And maybe, just maybe, we’ll find that we have more potential allies than we ever thought.
Because fuck these permanent divisions.
People are more complicated than that.