In the U.S. 49.7 Million Are Now Poor, and 80% of the Total Population Is Near Poverty

[KingCharlemagne]

65. Don't get me wrong. As a historical artifact, the bourgeoisie was a highly liberating element

in the development of human society. Far from viewing the bourgeoisie negatively, Marx viewed the bourgeoisie as both largely inevitable and also as a largely positive development in human history. One can argue, for example, that the last time the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie aligned was the American Civil War, dedicated to smashing into oblivion the historical anachronism of chattel slavery. (Indeed, the Workingman's Association which Marx led sent Lincoln a congratulatory telegram upon his re-election in 1864.)

I notice you are not engaging the term 'proletarian' (or 'proletariat'). In traditional Marxism, these are urban industrial workers with nothing to provide to the economy but their labor. IOW, the proletariat do not own businesses or farms; they do not have trust funds. Instead, they have only their labor to 'sell' in the marketplace. By your constant invocation of a 'middle class,' you seem to try to elide the class antagonism that must exist between bourgeoisie and proletariat. But I don't think such elision can last forever. Since the election of Reagan in this country, we've seen a prolonged sharpening of that antagonism and concentration of wealth. (95% of the gains during the so-called 'recovery' of 2009-14 have accrued to the top 1%, for example.)

It is interesting to contemplate your suggestion that the fascists (Republicans mostly) would seek to revert back to a quasi-feudal state, with strong 'corporate' powers the analogue to the Medicis and Guelphs of yore, whereas today's Democrats advance strongly the classical interests of the bourgeoisie (strong central government at the expense of other potential power centers). But neither party represents the interests of the proletariat as far as I can tell. Marx would not be surprised at such a state of affairs but would instead see it as but one more confirmation of his theory of dialectical and historical materialism.