: You're comparing a LANDOWNER (peasant) with someone who owns NOTHING BUT THEIR OWN LABOR-POWER (the proletariat).
Not quite so seperate, look to see what the proletariat owns; his labor, that which was bought with his labor, those inheritences (however few) and considewr whether these people want to hang onto those things owned as much as the (nominally land owning) peasant did.
: On the other hand, the ('end of history') contentment of the proletariat is, AS ALWAYS, contingent upon the next (predictable) capital crisis and / or stock market meltdown.
: The proletariat is a fickle fellow.
And when market falls dont spell doomsday, but temporary setback, they will stay 'fickle' or discriminatory valuers (ie, not egalitarian) of their options (however ltd you believe them to be).
Remember you saw me as one supporting the 'system' in the belief that I would be better off for doing so (where you oppposed it because you believed you would better off under yours). have you consider that this is the reason the billions arent rising up?
Simple dialetical materialism.