It's a little more than coincidental that this is precisely how the capitalist media functions in the US, e.g. "How will Bush's speech today play with the 'middle class?'", rather than, "Does anything Bush said hold up to any kind of scrutiny?"
Note the authoritarian nature of the apologist, who by summarizing with common sense arguments the views of the working class, implies s/he is speaking in their behalf.
Since most of us do live in this (apparently highly-regarded) "real world," we are going to respond, as people have for centuries, to the conditions that stare us in the face. I would be surprised if any of us on this list are not involved in reform-oriented movements of some sort. But not all of us seem to understand that these, in and of themselves, are going to truly address the structural dillemas of capitalism.
I doubt, similarly, that anyone is arguing that there is no such thing as human agency. But to say that this agency precedes social being-- when the evicting landlord is knocking at our doors, when cops round up dissidents indiscrimately at protests, and wages continue their 30-year stagnation-- is profoundly anti-worker, and by extension profoundly anti-humanity.
--adx --- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Bill Bartlett
>
>
> Yea, what Bill says below. Could be a FAQ on class
> 2005.
>
> Charles
>
> ^^^^^^
>
>
> At 2:40 PM -0400 6/10/05, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >I know that human agency isn't your strong point,
> but how do you
> >expect to develop a class-based politics if people
> are filled with
> >mystifications about the class nature of the
> society they belong to?
>
> You might be overstating it somewhat there. If
> people are claiming to
> be "middle-class", then that is surely a tacit
> acknowledgement that
> the society they live in is a class society. Look on
> the bright side
> (as the fictional Brian put it) how much worse would
> it be if people
> had the notion that they lived in a classless
> society?
>
> Of course, objectively, there is no such thing as
> "middle-class" in
> the US or other modern capitalist societies today.
> There are only two
> classes, the working class and the capitalist class.
> The capitalist
> class live from exploiting the labour of others and
> the working class
> live by being exploited.
>
> > This isn't a matter of "agitational slogans," and
> since it's an
> >attempt to take seriously the role of social
> psychology in politics
> >it's hardly anti-theoretical. If a lot of people
> shy away from the
> >term "working class," don't you think you've got a
> problem on your
> >hands?
>
> If people avoid the term "working class", it may be
> that they believe
> they have some relative economic security within the
> system. So that
> identifying oneself as "middle-class" indicates
> merely that one
> distinguishes oneself from those members of the
> working class who
> live in abject poverty and insecurity.
>
> Anyhow, it need not be that serious a problem for
> the socialist.
> Simply drop the propaganda about the working class
> seizing power and
> emphasise instead that the socialist ideal is to
> abolish class
> distinction completely. (This is more accurate
> anyhow.) Those people
> who claim to be middle-class must by implication be
> aware that there
> is a more privileged class, we can also assume that
> they personally
> aspire to enjoying equal privileges.
>
> There's two possible strategies to achieving that
> aspiration. Join
> the capitalist class, or abolish the capitalist
> class. It doesn't
> really matter, from that approach, precisely how
> people analyse
> class, what really matters in the final analysis is
> which strategy
> they think is most likely to be effective. Right
> now, I seem to have
> more chance of attaining equal privileges with the
> capitalist class
> by joining them than by abolishing them. All I need
> is for one of
> those lottery tickets that people occasionally buy
> me as a present to
> come good. ;-)
>
> The socialist revolution appears more of a
> long-shot. Just by way of
> illustration, what do you think is a more
> socially-acceptable sort of
> present, a lottery ticket or a subscription to the
> Industrial Workers
> of the World? We all know the answer to that. We'll
> know when the
> odds have shifted, when the gift of a membership of
> a socialist
> organisation becomes more fashionable than the gift
> of a lottery
> ticket maybe.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind, a positive spin you
> might say, is that
> the middle-class has historically been the most
> revolutionary class.
> They wanted what their masters had. The capitalist
> class, when it was
> the middle class under feudalism proves that point.
> Calling yourself
> "middle-class" doesn't indicate you are content.
>
> The problem is that a middle-class revolution is
> always a revolution
> that seeks to take over the reigns of power and
> become a new ruling
> class. As distinct from a socialist revolution which
> has no choice
> but to abolish class distinctions entirely, there
> being no lower
> class over which they could rule. Belief in the
> existence of a
> middle-class clouds that crucial distinction between
> earlier
> revolutions and the aspirations of socialist
> revolutionaries. So we
> need to continue to make the point. But we need not
> mistake the
> misunderstanding for a passion among the
> self-identifying
> "middle-class" to retain their status quo. Or a
> satisfaction with
> being a (or THE) subject class.
>
> > Or are you just waiting for that sudden,
> inexplicable,
> >never-to-be-rushed lightning moment of
> enlightenment?
>
> Clearly we're not. We're actively taking steps to
> hasten that
> enlightenment, by using this excuse to clarify the
> nature of class.
> Even at the risk, so you say, of getting a punch in
> the nose for our
> troubles. What more can we do?
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com