> Ken: " Seems that the working class have managed to accept an ideology that
> goes
> against its own interests especially blue collar workers."
>
> [WS:} You see it as voting against their own interests, which I find
> odd in itself. Would voting in any other way change their material
> conditions? I doubt.
>
> More importantly, this is not the way many of them frame it. They do
> not vote to line their pockets, they vote to vicariously kick ass of
> those who they despise or envy - which includes state workers,
> teachers, East Coast liberal elites, tree-huggers, fagots, and aliens.
Voting? No, at least not for a good bit - and even then a great deal less than is usually (but not here) imagined.
Perhaps its more important that the politics of kicking cosmopolitan metrosexual liberal ass means that such folks are more likely to join movements which work against their ecological, health and community's interests - alongside obviously working against their economic, political and cultural ones.
Last, given your previous point about the Stanford Prison Experiment and the dynamics of role socialization, is your point that the working class, and working class individuals, in fact have little or no real individual and collective agency because of their socialization... where that socialization is intended to generate individuals, collectives and institutions that function to reproduce rather than challenge the structural agencies of socialization? (my apologies to all for the academic sociologese... it just seems to me that W's argument against what misunderstands as left functionalism embodies passively apolitical liberal functionalism.)