> Well, since most of us are working class (except me, I'm petit
> bourgeois), any broad progressive movement would have to be domianted
> by the working class. But I suspect a lot of us have a more race- and
> gender-integrated cast that still bears a lot of resemblance to the
> horny-handed sons of toil in the backs of our minds.
Well, the sons (and daughters) of toil these days are a lot less horny-handed than they used to be. So obviously the new cast of characters would look somewhat different. I guess what you're getting at is whether older forms of organization, like unions and sit-down strikes, are as useful or natural in the new kinds of workplaces and new types of urban layouts.
When you look at the physical layout of a modern suburb, for example, it's just hard to picture collective action going on there. Is it because the new layouts have rendered old methods literally impossible? Or is it just because we lack the historical precedents and therefore the ability to imagine it? The Christian right has done impressive organizing, using a lot of "old" methods, and they've done it in the suburbs. Precinct elections, town hall meetings, door-to-door organizing, demos. It comes right out of the People's Party playbook circa 1892.
And what makes a Wal-Mart a less promising site for union organizing, in principle, than a factory?
Seth