Reid's argument for the inevitability of classes appears to be
circular.
Reid argues classes are defined by differential access to luxury
goods. Elimination of classes would require elimination of luxury goods,
which is impossible, so classes cannot be eliminated.
Reid defines luxury goods as: The operational
definition of a luxury good is a good 95% of which is accessible
[italics mine] to only 5% of the population.
The defining characteristic of a luxury good, then, is that a majority of
the population is prevented from consuming that good by some force
(not necessarily overt). Consumption of luxury goods is then an act
of power in that luxury-good consumers can prevent others from
consuming luxury goods. We can say that the class of luxury good
consumers wields power over others not in their class that is
sufficient to prevent those others from consuming luxury goods. This means
as long as the luxury consuming class retains this power there will be luxury
goods. Luxury goods cannot be eliminated as long as the luxury-consuming
class (or at least its power) exists.
Reid asserts that because we cannot eliminate luxury goods, we cannot
eliminate the classes defined by them.
In effect we cannot get rid of classes because we cannot get rid of luxury
goods because we cannot get rid of classes ... and so on.
Having said all this, I must agree with Mr. Reid that elimination of social
classes is very likely not feasible, and probably not even desirable. But
the reasons for this are not related to luxury good consumption.