Turbulo at aol.com wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >An analysis of this situation that endlessly invokes a mythical "middle
> >class" is simply not serious.
>
> You've got a serious point with this, but most Americans believe
> they're middle class. What do you do, tell them they're deluded? Tell
> them to substitute something less appealing for their aspirational
> self-ID?
>
> Doug
>
> ******************
>
> Yes, this is what you have to tell them in one way or another. Unless people discard their illusions and face their reality, nothing much will ever change. Why should anyone want to transform his/her reality if s/he doesn't perceive it as unappealing?
Doug ought to be able to stretch his understanding to an appreciation of disparate audiences. What's at issue _now_ is not the consciousness of "the American People" (forsooth) but of those who claim to be _analysts_ of reality. "We" can't explain a fucking thing to the "American People" unless we first have some minimally decent understanding of the reality we are supposed to be explaining. And immediately, in this case, the audience consists solely of lbo-subscribers, too many of whom preen their egos by sneering at that terrible middle class and its terrible values which (thank god) they are too sophisticated to fall for. But almost without exception, the attacks on "middle-class" culture we see on this list are _really_ attacks on the working class.
Doug's post is particularly silly coming from someone who whines about the lack of theory among u.s. activists. Yet when a fairly basic theoretical point is expressed, he starts whining about how we could possibly exemplify it in practice. Doug's post is a perfect example of what FHP call "activistism."
Carrol