I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. The US ruling class is not a separate species from the rest of the US people or something, but it IS a distinct form, that's part of what class analysis is for, is to recognize those distinctions and where they arise from. The development of bourgeoisie and proletariat is not by pure force of will on the part of the bourgeoisie, but it is also not arising from mechanical materialism inevitability either. There is a definite conscious choice on the part of the exploiting classes to develop and reproduce the exploitative form; members of that class consciously wage class war, even if not all among them are conspiring participants.
All I can guess is that you are trying to say that the US ruling class and US "people" are not distinct because they both partake in exploitation, but this only muddies the waters. There is already a term for explaining why the US proletariat is not more radical: labor aristocracy, the working class being bought off with the spoils of empire, essentially. But labor aristocracy is a different form than capitalist class and develops out of different conditions. If we muddy them together, we could think that every country with capitalists should also have a labor aristocracy, but that would not make sense because every country does not have imperial spoils, nor the same kind of unspoken racialized and gendered caste that the US tends to have.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. The US ruling class is not a separate species from the rest of the US people or something, but it IS a distinct form, that's part of what class analysis is for, is to recognize those distinctions and where they arise from. The development of bourgeoisie and proletariat is not by pure force of will on the part of the bourgeoisie, but it is also not arising from mechanical materialism inevitability either. There is a definite conscious choice on the part of the exploiting classes to develop and reproduce the exploitative form; members of that class consciously wage class war, even if not all among them are conspiring participants.
All I can guess is that you are trying to say that the US ruling class and US "people" are not distinct because they both partake in exploitation, but this only muddies the waters. There is already a term for explaining why the US proletariat is not more radical: labor aristocracy, the working class being bought off with the spoils of empire, essentially. But labor aristocracy is a different form than capitalist class and develops out of different conditions. If we muddy them together, we could think that every country with capitalists should also have a labor aristocracy, but that would not make sense because every country does not have imperial spoils, nor the same kind of unspoken racialized and gendered caste that the US tends to have.