Never would I presume to deny an immiserated person in South Sudan or the slums of Karachi the opportunity to attain the lifestyle that I enjoy (even though I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it). Rather, I am addressing this largely to the non-propertied of the developed world, who have the liberty of a position in Maslow’s hierarchy where their physiologic and security needs are fulfilled. To these individuals I say, you are confused.
I would go so far as to include the petit bourgeoisie or, in the United States, the independent contractors and small business owners who, while not technically wage earners, must rely entirely on the propertied class to provide the direct materials that allow for their existence. Indeed, this group, along with the professional and managerial class (PMC), is the most problematic for the pursuit of progress. For while they have little to gain, they have, arguably, the most to lose.
A rough GPT-5.1 estimate places the number of petit bourgeoisie and PMC at 650 million-1.1 billion, or 8-14% of the world population. Compare this with the 4.5-5.5 billion members of the working class (55-70%) and the 50-100 million propertied citizens (0.6-1.2%) around the globe.
While the propertied class clearly has the most to lose, their minute numbers mean their privileged position is wholly enabled by the other classes. Even if, in a moment of altruistic mania, they sought to redress the inequity in the world, they do not exist in great enough numbers to mobilize change (The ‘3.5% Rule’: How a Small Minority Can Change the World, n.d.). And it would be the petit bourgeoisie and PMC who would oppose them.
Together, the petit bourgeoisie and PMC hold roughly as much wealth as the global capitalist class, only spread across 8–14% of the world population, rather than 1–2%. It is this global upper-middle class that finds itself in the ethically challenging position of holding the world population’s economic fate in its hands. It is ethically challenging because, in order to create equity in the world, this relatively large swath of the world population would have to give up approximately 75% of its current wealth.
To put it another way, the petit bourgeoisie and PMC is holding the working class hostage for the propertied class.
This is not an ideological indictment; it is an empirical fact. While they have the requisite numbers to force change, the working class does not have the economic headroom to do so. The vast majority is locked into a daily struggle for survival. As stated previously, they are trapped in the lowest strata of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, spending the bulk of any given day securing the basic necessities to survive to the next. Likewise, the capitalist class, while endowed with massive financial resources and, therefore, political and economic sway, maintains no advantage in wealth or numbers over the petit bourgeoisie and PMC. Any attempt by the propertied class to affect systemic change would be met by substantial resistance from an equally well funded and numerically superior global upper-middle class.
Humorously, for a progressive embedded in a largely neoliberal circle, it is precisely this repressive professional and managerial class who are most loudly outraged by the current populist upheaval of the working class. That a preponderance of its class ally, the petit bourgeoisie, has aligned itself with these nationalist and theocratic movements that so antagonize the PMC only adds to the satirical quality of the moment. Wholly ignorant to their common alignment and shared complicity, these two groups assume antipodal interclass alliances that, in the view of any objective observer, demonstrate their absurdity. The professional and managerial class claim moral high ground over the propertied class, presenting themselves as champions of the downtrodden masses they implicitly oppress. Concurrently, the petit bourgeoisie worship the elites they aspire to be, while actively debasing the working poor who enable their privilege.
How this contradiction is to be resolved embodies the crux of Hegelian dialectical theory. It is verbatim et litteratim the contradiction Marx denotes as inherent to, and resulting from, capitalism. And it can only be resolved through the active rejection by the non-propertied of its own class interest.