The jet-setting cosmopolitans of popular imagination exist, but they are far outnumbered by a less exalted and less discussed elite group, one that sits at the pinnacle of America’s local hierarchies.
These elites’ wealth derives not from their salary—this is what separates them from even extremely prosperous members of the professional-managerial class, such as doctors and lawyers—but from their ownership of assets.
Patrick Wyman in general has pretty good analysis I find. He’s a historian, and he has a great podcast series on the fall of Rome which I can highly recommend.
It’s a joke. Ask a dozen liberals what a tankie is and you’ll get a dozen conflicting answers. It’s just the new pejorative thought-terminating cliché, like “commie” or “pinko”.
I mean they’ve identified the core difference between the proletariat/working class and the bourgeoisie/capitalist class. Namely that the bourgeoisie accumulate their wealth through their ownership of the means of production.
They have a soft paywall now: https://archive.ph/zDCqm
The Atlantic has gone tankie.
Patrick Wyman in general has pretty good analysis I find. He’s a historian, and he has a great podcast series on the fall of Rome which I can highly recommend.
I wouldn’t call that take tankie.
It’s a joke. Ask a dozen liberals what a tankie is and you’ll get a dozen conflicting answers. It’s just the new pejorative thought-terminating cliché, like “commie” or “pinko”.
What does this mean?
I mean they’ve identified the core difference between the proletariat/working class and the bourgeoisie/capitalist class. Namely that the bourgeoisie accumulate their wealth through their ownership of the means of production.
It’s similar to Marxist analysis, and Marxists are always slandered as “tankies.”