> the left have lost touch with the lower classes

How do you define "lower classes"? If you mean household income then quite the opposite is true: https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identific...

I'll try to describe it. The stats are correct in that the working classes have shrunk. In the UK, Labour was the champion of the working class, now they look upon the same people as "vulnerable people". Losing touch in that way and instead adopting a more paternalist role towards them due to a much larger middle class. The left used to work with the poor, now they work for the poor, if that makes sense? Socialism now is no longer about the working class but about the middle class looking after the working class.

If any of you think you're not working class, I would suggest a thought experiment:

Could you stop working permanently today, continue to thrive & not experience a change in lifestyle?

if the answer is 'no', you're still working class.

'class consciousness' includes these three categories:

- Working - Managing - Ruling

The managing class is there between the ruling & working classes, doing it's job to tell you what to think & tell the ruling class how you're responding to leadership.

There is absolutely a difference between middle and working class people. To suggest there isn't is a complete lack of understanding with regards to what it means to be working class.

By definition middle class people work, it's in the middle between people who have to work to survive and the independently wealthy. However, the middle class has the capability to build wealth, own a home, retire someday, leave a little over for their kids to get their lives started. Working class people are often life long renters, would go bankrupt if they got cancer or any other serious medical illness, would be in significant financial strain if their car broke down, they very likely do not have the means to save up 6 months worth of expenses as a safety net.

Yes, these terms are rather antiquated, but with each and every passing year, there is an increasing distinction between the professional & managerial class (often referred to as the middle and upper middle class), and the precariat class (the working class). Also note that the former makes up ~34% of the population, and the later makes up 45% of the population, with the 1% on the upper end and the truly poor on the other end.

Whose definition of class are you using? There’s a bunch of epistemologies you could be referring to. Many conceptions of class don’t have a middle at all.

Your so-called "middle class" is merely a subgroup of the working class. Trying to differentiate between an upper working class and lower working class is simply snobbery.

or it may be economics or sociology or any type of trying to build a rational model of how things work.

No. If you have to work for a living, you ARE working class whether you have pretensions of being upper or not.

"Class consciousness" is a framework for thinking about society. It is used by those who think they know how the world should be structured to make others see things their way - by "others", I mean those who don't think that way, based on their own lived experience. "Identify with these people that you don't feel any identity with, and join them in attacking these other people that you wouldn't otherwise want to attack."

Which, when you look at it, is just another set of people trying to manipulate you into behaving the way they think you should. They say it's for your own good? So does everyone else trying to manipulate you.

Now, back in the day, the difference between working and managing was twofold: managers got paid more, and they were allowed (and expected) to think as part of their job. The workers were just robots made of flesh, but the managers were supposed to be able to think. Well, for all we (most of us) still have to work, we're more in the managing class, in that we get paid well and have to think. So trying to tell us that we should have "working class consciousness"... yeah, there's a reason why it doesn't feel to us like it fits.

I disagree on your characterisation of 'class consciousness', which from the point of view of a proponent of the theory reflects the general lack of knowledge of a class about its objective position in society. As Lukacs wrote, "It is the objective result of the economic set-up, and is neither arbitrary, subjective nor psychological". It is, from this standpoint, no different from ignorance of technology or other objective factors that shape society and control distribution and production.

>we're more in the managing class, in that we get paid well and have to think

The distinction which proponents of "class consciousness" talk about was never between thinking and doing, but between those who (loosely speaking) have nothing to sell but their labour power, and those who posses capital. The reluctance to view highly paid wage labour as a form of wage labour rests on misconstrued notions of what "working class" means in political theory (i.e blue collar workers, people who work with machines, etc.), notions drawn from romantic Soviet depictions of the worker (the strong, brave man with a hammer and sickle) and the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire".

There's been a lot of work since the 60s into trying to figure out why this notion is so prevalent. Perhaps it can be best summed up by Marcuse:

"If the worker and his boss enjoy the same television program and visit the same resort places, if the typist is as attractively made up as the daughter of her employer, if the Negro owns a Cadillac, if they all read the same newspaper, then this assimilation indicates not the disappearance of classes, but the extent to which the needs and satisfactions that serve the preservation of the Establishment are shared by the underlying population."

I agree with you reasoning. I think in the UK the term "working class" tends to mean something different from what you're describing generally speaking. By your reasoning I'd say well over 95% of the population would be working class. However if ask people on the street many would say they're middle-class. Some might even admit to being upper middle class but the vast majority of them still have get out of bed Monday to Friday and do something that earns money.

Exactly. "Working class" means, typically, that they are from a family of blue-collar workers.

"middle class" is essentially white collar

"upper class" really means the aristocracy/ long-term establishment. Even a CEO making millions a year would be called "upper middle class" unless they came from an old established family.

This sounds like something from the 1800s. At least in the US, "working class" is more or less synonymous with "blue collar". It's hard to define exactly and a lot of people in this category would call themselves middle class instead. But, I've never heard anyone say that a doctor is "working class" because they're not independently wealthy.

Funny you should mention it -- my doctor [who earns something like $600k annually] and I discussed this very topic recently; I was talking about "working class" people in a context that obviously excluded individuals like him, and he was like "whoa there buddy, I work my butt off for a living! Just because my productivity is higher than most folks' doesn't mean my perspective as a working-class man should be disregarded."

At first I was incredulous, but then when I reflected on the fact my own [modest, developer] earnings likely seem to [for example] folks working in retail as disproportionately large as my doc's seem to me, and then considered the huge difference in lifeways between my doc and some of my other friends who live entirely on the interest / dividends from financial instruments [i.e., they don't have to go in to work in the morning] , I understood his perspective and now mainly agree with it.

Working class usually implies little to no savings beyond, perhaps, equity in your house. Losing your job means you're several weeks away from couch surfing or living on the street.

In terms of emotional stress this is worlds away from the toil of the middle class, especially someone making $100,000/year or more.

I grew up poor--like, food stamps and having your furniture thrown out on the street during an eviction poor. Being upper middle class as an adult, one thing I do to relieve the stress is keep my "plan B" in mind. I have more than enough savings that if I had to I could buy a double-wide trailer in the sticks, send the kids to public school, buy a bait shop, and get by just fine. That makes a world of difference, but it's not an option available to the working class. If you're working class your only choices are poverty and the status quo.

A software engineer like myself, or a doctor making $600k/year thinking of themselves as working class, kinda blows my mind. It's not like the working class believe that they're the only ones who work hard.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this doctor fits working class. In fact I know of poor people who fit that definition of working class even less than some doctors I know.

It is about spending, and a lot of doctors - despite their high incomes - are in debt with no savings - and equity in the house is 5% as anytime it gets more than that they take out a home equity loan for the difference.

Which is why doctors can feel like they are barely making it: with their spending habits it is a good thing their job is in demand.

But a doctor always has options--many, many options. Even a doctor who loses his license has options. Part of being working class is being stuck in wage labor--not absolutely, but nonetheless quite predictably. There's even a special term for doctors, professional class, which describes their prospects independent of their present economic situation.

No matter how much money or wealth one has, one almost always feels like they're stuck in their situation. That's part of the human condition. And expenses rising to meet income is also typical, at least in the U.S. But different classes of people have objectively different sets of options available to them, regardless of whether they appreciate those options or not.

Also, $600k/year is a ton of money. I make half that and carry a mortgage, apartment lease (temporarily, hopefully), partial second apartment lease (mother), and office lease all in San Francisco, in addition to paying down $130k in law school debt, as well as typical family expenses (two young children). To blow through $600k/year this doctor must have some serious issues. I can only assume the doctor's home is several million dollars, so even at 5% equity a double-wide trailer and bait shop should be well within his reach. But, again, regardless, this doctor has unfathomably more options than a typical working class family. (As do I, for that matter.) To compare the situations is borderline obscene.

The point is a definition of working class was offered that doesn't exclude this doctor even though most people would agree he isn't working class.

^ this is what my original comment aimed to communicate.

Also, to clarify in case he's reading this: I didn't intend to [and don't believe I did] imply that this particular doctor engages in reckless spending, lives beyond his means, is in financial trouble, or etc -- simply that he considers himself working class for the reasons originally noted

We live in a culture that idolizes the working class, and indulges fantasies of the contented blue collar worker--who for at least a brief period in the 20th century could be securely middle class, not merely fleetingly so as in recent history. And as the middle class hollows out, and victim culture internalized across the political spectrum, we're seemingly forced to choose between identifying as those who work (the good guys) or the wealthy (the bad guys).

It's not surprising that relatively wealthy people self-identify as the good guys. But that doesn't mean we should indulge or lend credence to destructive equivocations that put working and wealth in opposition. We already have a catch-all, no-hurt-feelings, ambiguously safe category--middle class.

Anyhow, FWIW, I've been upvoting both of you because I [feel like I] appreciate what you're saying. I'm mostly objecting to the doctor's sentiments, and the notion that we should sympathize with them. The sentiments are self-serving and socially destructive. That doesn't make him a bad person, but I feel like the sentiments should be called out for what they are.

This is the problem with the check-your-privilege movement. If disempowered groups think they can shame the empowered into giving up power, they're seriously deluded. What will happen--what is happening--is that the wealthy and powerful will self-identify as the disempowered. So I'm not saying that this doctor should "check his privilege", so to speak, but neither should he be doing the exact opposite by willfully denying his privileges. And that's why I say such sentiments are destructive. With privilege comes responsibility; if you can deny the privilege you can shirk the responsibility, such as a civic mindedness that emphasizes constructive cooperation across all groups, and particularly the financial and political participation of those with financial means. If everybody thinks they're not wealthy enough, that it's only the other guy that should pay more taxes, etc, well then we know exactly where that road leads. We shouldn't vilify or shame the privileged (the notion that we can shame people into civility is preposterous), but neither should we condone the privileged pretending that they're not. Those are two sides of the same coin.

I understand your point -- I think in this particular case, the fella was more trying to call my attention to doctoring as an honest day's work, particularly in contrast to passive income / independent wealth, rather than endeavoring to somehow usurp or parasitize the [questionable] cachet of jobs that are not-nearly-as-well-compensated

Few doctors make 600k, remove malpractice insurance and ~150-300k is fairly common depending on area etc. Remove student loans and a surprising number of doctors are making less than 100k.

https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/how-much-do-docto...

Sure that doesn't account for malpractice insurance, etc -- area of specialty also has a large influence on doc earnings potential -- edit : my example is one particular real-world doctor, not necessarily representative of any particular statistical cohort

Some people on HN probably do think their family physician is independently wealthy. They never had to take out loans for medical school, so those facts of life are not salient to them.

I don't think working/managing/ruling is a good class breakdown.

There's labor.

There's capital.

There's a class that has substantial dependence on both labor and capital, with neither clearly dominating their interests.

The first two, sure, match working and ruling roughly (many managers, though, in labor, and some, particularly at the executive level, in nearly pure capital.)

But the group in between pure labor and pure capital—the traditional “middle class” in capitalism—isn't really “managing” as a class, though it includes lots of managers. Also lots of white-collar professionals that aren't managers as such. And even a fair number of independent small business owners that aren't white collar professionals.

The middle class is a distinct class from the working class, but management isn't what distinguishes it. And it's not really a natural class ally of capital any more than of labor, and those on the labor side who attack it (either in its proper identity or as “management”) that way are acting in a self-defeating manner.

So your argument is that the management class could stop working and not experience a change in lifestyle?

What makes someone managing class? Most "managers" (by title / role) cannot stop working permanently today, per your definition of working class.

I believe the "Managing" class here would refer to higher level people who dictate down and make enough to be comfortable, but nevertheless is closer to the ruling class than the average person, without having much influence inside the ruling class.

Your average manager covering a small team of people (e.g. say a fast food manager or a retail manager) is still working class, they just happen to be one step higher in the hierarchy , with slightly more pay but relatively little power.

At least that's how I have always viewed it. My definition could be completely wrong though.

I think the ruling class has done a skillful job of convincing the managing class and the top of the working class that they are almost at ruling class levels themselves.

Yep, they have done an exceptional job at that ever since the more subtle forms of union busting occurred during the 70's and 80's. I am getting a sense that idea is starting to change though, thankfully.

People whose income is generated from the management of their estate or finances. A gentleman.

The way I learned, gentlemen could support themselves from the fruits of their investments alone and did not need to labor to afford their expenses.

You didn't need to have great wealth to be a gentleman, but you couldn't afford to rise in your station without it.

>In the UK, Labour was the champion of the working class, now they look upon the same people as "vulnerable people"

This is false. Labour is undergoing a reversal in the policy of the blairite years where they tied their mast to corporate/NGO elites and decoupled themselves from unions. Unions now have a lot more power (including official voting power / influence over the NEC) in the Labour party than they ever have and corporate influence has waned almost completely.

Let's face it the union fat cats want power and they want it so they can get their industries nationalised because it gives them more power rather than for the good of the general UK population.

We've got better things, more urgent things to spend money on that nationalising utilities etc. (we can control them through regulation anyway)

> we can control them through regulation anyway

If that would be true, the level of service wouldn't have degraded to the point nationalization is a reasonable (and popular) proposal.

This is false. Taking this sentence and considering the context of widescale argumentative and vituperative language do you think another way of saying this, like'thats not right' or 'thats not correct' or 'i think you are mistaken' might actually be important?

This was definitely true during the Blairite New Labor days, but it's extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that Corbyn doesn't understand the needs of working Britons.

"working britons" is not the same thing as "the working class"

In fact, the Conservatives adopted a similar term in their campaigns of a few years ago "Working People". Apparently it didn't do them any good but it's worth pointing out.

I think Labour does understand working people and they understand working class people too - they just have lost touch their their working class roots and are middle class now.

The Tories brought their narrative of "hard working families" to implicitly stigmatise those not working. Such as those too sick to work, and receiving the benefits the Tories were busy cutting. Even though most benefit recipients are in work.

The working class should be the middle class. If they've diverged, then the answer why points to what kinds of problems need to be solved.

That's an American definition of "middle class", though, and the problem with it is that's rather fuzzy, since it merely delineates some arbitrary income range. In the UK and other places, the term was linked more to being your boss (e.g. being an independent professional and/or owning a small business). Of course, now that (as a song in my country put it), "one has to study to be a slave", this may be harder to cleanly distinguish.

>How do you define "lower classes"? If you mean household income

It's interesting that in the USA "class" refers almost exclusively to wealth. In the UK "class" has a slightly different meaning and relates to everything from genealogy to which school you went to social grace. As an example, a "Lord" who went to Eton and comes from an old family will always be upperclass, even if they are bankrupt and worth less than nothing, with no income at all.

It's not quite a caste system as class mobility IS a thing but it's not simply wealth either.

I don't think it does correspond directly to wealth in the US; it's sociological. There are rich working class people; my former landlord was a high school graduate who put in sheet rock for a living and ran a jiu jitsu studio. He made his dough the old fashioned Horatio Alger way: thrift and hard work. Same age as me, and a lot better off.

I, his tenant had less money than him and am solidly upper middle class in lifestyle, from my foamy coffee drinks, to my Subaru, salary, education and occupation. We're the same age, and he has more dough, but he can't move in the circles I can, and his upside is probably capped at owning a couple of residential apartment buildings. He's also crippled from arthritis, and I'm not.

Most of the time, though, upper middle class people have more money than working class people.

It's more subtle than the UK system, but roughly speaking this is the model for the world. Professionals constitute a social class. The fact that professionals have mostly taken over the left wing parties and turned them into Blairite/Clintonite "who cares about the poors" neoliberal parties, the middle and working classes are basically in revolt against them. All over the world. Trump, Brexit, Giletes Jaunes and so on. It's not going to change until there are economic reforms which accrue some wealth to lower classes. This will almost certainly involve immigration reform (as in stop importing so many new residents and making labor so cheap), taxation (professionals can pay more tax) and economic protectionism for important unskilled labor groups. Which of course, the upper middle professional classes absolutely freak out about because it's against their class interests.

> the left have lost touch with the lower classes

Nonprofit museum/library techie here. Anecdotally, if by "the left" mean supporters of Democratic establishment politicians, this is very true. They're doing well enough for themselves that they're insulated from economic bumps and they just don't seem to care about the things that real working people do. Real leftists and progressives get it though, which is why politicians like Bernie are so popular with working class people.

In the west, the self anointed custodians of public discourse have become so successful in whipping into line any public figure who dares stray outside their own boundaries of acceptable thought, vastly adrift though it is from most ordinary decent folk's, that the only people who can rise to power outside it are those so far beyond its reach as to be invulnerable to their hysterical protestations, and unpalatable as he might be the people will be willing to overlook his faults.

Isn't this basically the Overton window?

> The Overton window is the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

> the left have lost touch with the lower classes, choosing instead to identify with the middle classes and their identities.

I'm not sure this is true; it's a standard media line, certainly, and there's definitely a problem in that a lot of the most visible figures on the left tend to be of privileged backgrounds (because that privilege gives visibility!). But because of the changes in working practice and social structure over the 21st century, what constitutes "working class" now looks very different.

The UK is not quite so factionalised as the US yet, although it's clear that EU membership has been used as the "wedge issue" in the way that abortion has in the US. It's gone from being something of very low salience to the only issue it's possible to talk about.

In the states, a lot of leftists (specifically the coastal elite types) have disdain for working class people who are not like them or who live in the south/midwest/rustbelt/redstates/somewhereelse. They favor some policies (e.g. lax immigration laws, sometimes to the point of open borders) that do not help those working class people they claim to care about, and accuse these people of being racists for disagreeing with their opinions.

At least, that's how some people see it.

I find it really weird that people use "working class" to mean "white, rural, and blue-collar." While those people assuredly are working-class, so are waitresses in The Bronx and janitors in San Francisco, who are mostly Democrats.

And by the way, immigrants, at least the ones you hear about in the media, are largely working-class. When people just ignore certain groups of people when talking about "the working class," it's pretty clear that they're not really just talking about economic status.

> I find it really weird that people use "working class" to mean "white, rural, and blue-collar."

I don't think my comment did this.

> And by the way, immigrants, at least the ones you hear about in the media, are largely working-class.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed otherwise. Or if they have, it's more along the lines of referring to immigrants as welfare recipients. Either way I'm not going to defend a strawman.

This map of 2016 election results by county sums this up pretty well: https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

You're describing liberals who may often feel that way, liberals are absolutely not leftists (where by the standard international definition of left/right politics, both the democratic party and the republican party are liberal parties with differing views on social issues).

Is Trump, a billionaire from New York, a coastal elite?

I have no idea what actually goes on in his brain so I couldn't say. But I don't think people who use the term in earnest would call him one. It's more of an insult from people on the 'right' to people on the 'left'.

This goes back a long way to the internationalist/"socialism in one country" debate. What is the boundary of a "class"? Are the interests of working class people born on one side of an invisible line fundamentally at odds with the interests of people born on the other?

The boundary of a class probably lies within the heads of every single person, right?

Are their interests at odds? If there is some objective idea of interests, e.g. some ideal like "the American dream", some sense of a decent life and prosperity for normal people, then no. Our interests are shared (save for a few contrarians).

However, most of us have our own moral principles that we believe should be used and not violated to achieve that interest. This is a real boundary that limits progress in one direction or another.

I think this means the middle class has grown and because of this what used to be about the large working class is now about the middle class and a smaller class without agency of "vulnerable people". This group of people which used to have a champion who understood them now have a champion which doesn't need to.

Anyhow the point is that those in the lower classes do not have someone they can "respect or identify with" anymore

People say this a lot. But I've not heard all that many people saying this in the media in their own words. It's possible to go quote-fishing until you can find someone who says "nobody represents me", but that's not quite the same thing. Can we find an example of a working class commentator with a reasonable audience saying this themselves?

The point was that in the UK at the very least, Labour used to be voice of the working class. That we can't point to Labour as being the "working class commentator" which we used to is a great indication that they are no longer in touch with their working class origins.

Edits (sorry I've been editing a lot) - I think the main point is that Labour used to be the voice of the working class. Now it's the voice on behalf of the working class. Working on behalf of and in defence of but not actually from. So they are still very much involved in the lives of the working class and seek to serve them but the relationship to them has changed to one of a benevolent caretaker. Additionally they no longer use the term "working class" and prefer "vulnerable people" which to me indicates the change in relationship better.

The political parties system seems to only encourage this. Internal party topics and subjects just encourage this sort of down the rabbit hole effort to appeal to a smaller and smaller number of people to win a nomination....

But then in the outside world that isn't what the voters want / respect.

I see it time and again even with political parties I'm inclined to agree with. They show up even in general elections with slogans and somewhat corner case policies, attacks on their opponents, and ideas that really don't appeal to the masses. They seem to bamboozle even themselves unable to even recognize it at times.

Yep. And perhaps the mainstream media (who is no fan of that leader) might also have some impact in the acceptance of ideas that would have been rejected as unreasonable ten or twenty years ago.

Mainstream media, such as Fox News and the tabloid-sphere, very much push those leaders’ views without challenge and with much fanfare. I would very much call the most mainstream tv news station in the US a massive fan of the most mainstream politician, Trump.

I agree, although Fox News is only the top US cable TV news channel, as far as I know.

Now consider all late night shows, nearly all newspapers, most big news blogs, and the other cable (and broadcast) TV news channels. But regardless, there's not a lot of point in debating what "mainstream" means.

My point is that seeing things like Jimmy Kimmel cry over health care policy [1] is exactly the kind of thing OP is describing. You don't need to be a cartoon politician to fit the bill OP describes. People like and respect celebrities and media personalities, and they see a lot more of them than they do of Trump.

[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/media/jimmy-kimmel-son-late...

I keep a keen eye on 538's polling data [0]. They suggest that there is only the slimmest of wafer thin margins between Trump and Obama approval ratings at this point in the presidency.

I'm sure it would be lovely if Trump spoke in complete sentences and behaviour is important; but decisions, tribe and policy are ultimately more important.

[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...

It's interesting because Trump has had to play a 24/7 PR and election campaign game to maintain his approval rating. He still holds the same rallies while in office that he did while campaigning.

While Obama was in office, he just didn't have to create a controversy despite the media attacking him on everything from his choice of mustard to the color of his suit.

I love when HN is talking about politics, they are so completely, thoroughly, wrong about every single aspect of it, at all times, its mind bending.

"reasonable" -> "unreasonable"

"reasonable" <-> "unreasonable"

It's a two way street. Gay marriage (for example) used to be unreasonable.

He probably meant to write unreasonable. Was what I was trying to point out. But your comment is good too. :-)

It's a slightly ambiguous parse.

> we slowly start to see ideas we once would have rejected out of hand as "reasonable" only after...

I think you parsed it as

> we slowly start to see (ideas we once would have rejected out of hand as "reasonable") only after

and concluded that "unreasonable" was intended.

But I think the proper parse is

> we slowly start to see (ideas we once would have rejected out of hand) as "reasonable" only after

A literal reasonable argument.

Bizarre how it can work either way - thanks for pointing this out.

I think Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, and Sam Harris talking about AI risk and simulation theory is a case that brings that point home for me. I was reading Nick Bostrom's book at the time when those guys started making public comments about it. I thought the book was really interesting and thought provoking, but I wasn't fully behind it. Once prominent figures state a belief in something, it becomes a lot easier to take it seriously.

>This is something that is important with today's political climate in the west (UK and USA) as the right have as their leader someone who almost everyone on all sides agree doesn't command respect or behave as a statesman should. (and the left have lost touch with the lower classes, choosing instead to identify with the middle classes and their identities.)

I don't know where to go with this. Both Trump and Boris have the uncomfortable task of burning off the dead wood in society. The UK and the US find this the most difficult, the UK wanting to keep every scrap of wood they have, playing social musical chairs instead of getting on with business. The US gets all steamy and hot about China/Russia and tax returns but at the end of the day it's about money. This is our ww1 moment except without the destructive european alliance setup and proclivity for war.

Frankly they are both behaving as statesmen do. The younger Bush was a war president and lost the ability to speak in full sentences - whilst at war. He regained his ability to speak after he left the presidency. Nixon nearly refused to give up the chair. Clinton went out on "what the definition of is - is".

Trump's legacy is going to be that he made China pay him some cash and he didn't get into a nuclear war. Other than his explosive entrance and flushing out many things (right or wrongly) he has been much like other US presidents.

I get a display of quality in leadership is valuable. That'll come back in 2028.

> and the left have lost touch with the lower classes

This isn't remotely true. The left is overwhelmingly concerned with working-class people in the US (and in the UK). Do you mean the left as in anyone not Republican/Tory?

The Left that cares about the working class is not the same as the Left that runs a dominant political party in USA. In order to convince us otherwise you'll have to use an account that isn't green.

I think by 'left' you mean liberal; The Democratic party is not 'left' in the global sense.