Dividing the world into the 1% who "own" and the 99% who must sell their labor is useful on one level, but obscurantist on another. The question is not one of

Dividing the world into the 1% who "own" and the 99% who must sell their labor is useful on one level, but obscurantist on another. The question is not one of abstractions, but of political realities. What exactly has this so-called "solidarity of the precariat" wrought? The author's point is precisely that the upper-middle class actively work against the interests of the 80%. Do you disagree that 30k/yr private schools, Ivy League legacies, and these suburban enclaves are also "an attack on the solidarity of the precariat"? Only that the 80% only have their words and their votes, whereas the 20% have real political power?