Marxist views on social mobility, rags to riches

[heiss93]

What are some Marxist views on social mobility rags to riches stories? Of course even most capitalists will admit that the Horatio Alger myth is a myth. And we all know how exaggerated the bootstraps American dream is. And if anything there is more social mobility in 2009 for the European or Chinese dream.

Nevertheless, there are certainly documented incidences of working and middle class people rising into the bourgeoisie elite. What is the correct analysis? Should these flukes simply be ignored? Of course Marxists are the first to admit that while the capitalist class system is rigid it is not the "great chain of being" of the feudal age or the Indian caste system.

Even if actual social mobility did exist, it would not change the nature of the capitalist system, although as monopolies grow more entrenched it becomes impossible. Even Schumpeteter the biggest romanticizer of the heroic entrepreneur acknowledged that the age of the Napoleonic businessman had passed with the rise of the modern bureaucratic corporation.

In some ways it serves as a system of control. In that even with relative mobility the absolute numbers and % in each class remain the same, in fact the working class has been growing.

To the small extent that it is true, it inspires thousands of "Joe the plumbers".

[Invincible Summer]

Keep in mind I'm not a Marxist, but these are just my views on the topic:


The number of people who go from "rags to riches" are very few compared to the number of typical wage-earning people out there.

The lottery is a good example of how modern capitalist society deludes people into thinking that a wealthy lifestyle is "easily" within one's grasp; on the other side of the coin though, it also demonstrates how it's more of a luck of the draw than skill or hard work.

Becoming wealthy has to do with making connections and being able to "take risks." These "risks" most likely include betraying/manipulating people you know in order to "get ahead." But that's all part of "the game," right? Basically, you have to sell yourself to make it to the ranks of Warren Buffet. Many capitalist sympathizers say that what I've stated is not true, but why would they? Why admit that the lifestyle they desire involves being amoral, selfish, and heartless?

As for "Joe the Plumbers," especially in N. America, I think the stigma of Communism from the McCarthy era, as well as capitalist propaganda (as outlined by the lottery and movies like Pursuit of Happyness), forces most workers to side with what is safer and more familiar - that is, the capitalist system.

[JimmyJazz]

It's a non-argument for capitalism. Some slaves are able to buy their freedom; some women are able to get out of abusive relationships. It doesn't have any effect on how wrong those oppressive systems are or were. In fact, it's a self-defeating argument: if someone praises the capitalist economy on the grounds that it gives individuals the means to escape the working class, they are acknowledging two things: that (1) capitalism is a class system and (2) to be among the working class is a bad thing (a thing to be escaped).

Not to mention downward mobility, which historically speaking dwarfs upward mobility (that's what has made such extreme capital concentration possible over the last 150 years).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Many commoners became knights and (sometimes) lords under feudalism if they could prove their worth. Does social mobility ever justify a class system?