>When Fisher etc. say we must return a focus on class on the left, he means not the Marxist abstract idea of class as groups with aligned economic interests, bu

>When Fisher etc. say we must return a focus on class on the left, he means not the Marxist abstract idea of class as groups with aligned economic interests, but the specific classes Marx outlined as relevant under capitalist productive forces. Right. And to be concrete, it means people who control the distribution of wages, vs. people who are dependent on wages. A focus on class is a focus on the relationship between wage-workers and shareholders. > it absolutely makes sense to say "Labor's subservience to capital is a driver of material inequality" Well, I don't get it. Labor/capital is one form that subservience takes. It is a form of material inequality. I don't see how you can say that the subservience can "drive" the inequality. "Subservience" is not a very specific term here btw, it's basically metaphorical... an individual laborer is literally subservient to their specific employer, but "labor" is not literally subservient to "capital." More specific concrete language would be much appreciated.