It hasn't always been that way. The US political left did used to focus more on working-class issues. They only really lost the plot in the early 2000s when they started navel gazing on performative ideology and luxury beliefs, leading to an inversion in some of the voting blocks for the two major political parties.
It’s universities. I’ve seen this myself - universities are the heart and souls of the American left. It used to be the labor hall.
The universities could have continued in their socially productive capacity if their leadership realized their obligations should take precedence over career advancement. Instead, they chose to embrace cost disease. The reactionary right remains committed to finishing off whatever remains.
More importantly what that did was split the working class. Even in this very thread there's people referring to the "working class" as if they also aren't in it.
If you aren't a billionaire capital owner, you are working class. If your primary income comes from a job, you are working class.
If we want solidarity again we need to dispel the notion of working class meaning poor, blue collar workers. We've been pitted against ourselves, our divide shouldn't be left v. right it should be ALL working class against the ultra-rich.
> "If your primary income comes from a job, you are working class."
TIL that CEOs and other C-level executives (ones hired from the outside by the board, not founders) are working class. It's a definition that is clearly too broad to be useful.
>If you aren't a billionaire capital owner, you are working class. If your primary income comes from a job, you are working class.
The petty bourgeoisie is a thing, and if you receive stock-grants as part of your pay-package, you're in it. You own real-estate in an expensive city where your property is an appreciating asset? You're in it.