In our epoch, according to Marx, capitalists are the oppressors and are pitted against proletarians who are the oppressed. But to compare capitalists to slave-owners, or feudal lords and serfs, as Marx and his disciples down to Alinsky do, is ludicrous. There are tens of millions of capitalists in America and they rise and fall with every economic wave. Where are the Enrons of yesteryear, and where are their bosses? If proletarians can become capitalists and capitalists can be ruined, there is no class struggle in the sense that Marx and his disciples claim, no system of oppression and no need for revolution.It is the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wherever crowd. You'll note the difference between the group that is accused of religious fundamentalism and the crowd that actually is.
The myth of the Haves and the Have-Nots is just that -- a myth; and a religious one at that, the same, as I have said, as the myth advanced by Manicheans who claim that the world is ruled by Darkness, and that history is a struggle between the forces of evil and the forces of light. The category "Haves" for secular radicals is like the category "Witches" for religious fanatics and serves the same function. It is to identify one's enemies as servants of the devil and to justify the war against them.
It is true that there are some haves and some have-nots. But it is false to describe our social and economic divisions this way and it malicious and socially destructive to attempt to reverse an imaginary hierarchy between them. In reality, our social and economic divisions are between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots. But to describe them this way -- that is, accurately -- is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to radical lives.
Read all five parts of David's To Have and Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me. The links to all of them are in the last one. It explains a lot.
Hat tip: What Bubba Knows