Originally posted by sh76
My point is that most people belong to both classes and so making this out as some sort of class struggle is meaningless.
Not really meaningless. It is argued on one hand that Marx failed to anticipate the extent to which the working classes would find political ways to secure a better share of the wealth created through their own labour. On the other hand it is argued that wealthy countries buy off their own population but export poverty to other parts of the world - so that it is the Third World that bears the harshest burden and serves as the "reserve army of labour," fear of which helps to discipline the productive workers.
In any case Marx was concerned with the way Capital has a logic of its own by which wealth, generated through the productive labour of the many, becomes concentrated in the hands of the few. It is a slow and inaccurate process with leakage that benefits productive workers, but look at the extent to which the top 1% to 5% of the World's population has ownership of a phenomenal proportion of the total wealth in the world to appreciate how the remainder are left struggling for the scraps in an unequal fight. Look at the way a few companies manage to dominate each market despite some effort to control monopolies and permit some competition to survive. Those huge companies tolerate competition only to the extent that they are obliged to. Among ordinary people, life is harsh and highly competitive - just to survive in most cases.
The struggle is not primarily about people individually, who are often very nice and very worthy in their own way, but about the power of Capital itself, the way it poisons everything around it.