[Peace-discuss] The 99% and capitalism
C. G. ESTABROOK
cge at shout.net
Sun Dec 4 18:41:41 CST 2011
David, Stuart, et al.--
I'm afraid I've failed to make clear why I think Identity Politics
(IP) is a threat to the OWS/99% movement.
Roughly: OWS represents the re-introduction of class into US politics
for the first time in 40 years. Forty years ago, US liberals stepped
back from the concern for class that emerged from the '60s (= the
demand for equality) and substituted concerns for race and gender (=
the demand for diversity). I don't want that Great Refusal to be
repeated.
Racism of course exists in US society, and it should be opposed. But
it's wrong to see the "postmodern trinity" of oppressions (race,
gender, and class) as similar to one another. The first two can in
principle (but not easily) be solved by reconciliation; the third (the
conflict exploiter/exploited) cannot: one or the other must be
liquidated (not the persons, one hopes, but the social role) - i.e.,
the way the society functions (its political economy) must change.
===========================
CLASS PROFILE OF THE US (roughly the same over the past 30 years, even
as Neoliberalism has finacialized the society and concentrated wealth
at an accelerating rate in the elite):
~1% = economic elite (aka ruling class, big bourgeoisie), owners of
property, esp. productive property
~20% = political class (aka liberal class, petty bourgeoisie,
graduates of a good college, hence "tertiary bourgeoise"), those who
want to be like the elite (see now Chris Hedges, The Death of the
Liberal Class); it's to them that the highly-developed US propaganda
system is directed.
~80% = working class, and aware of it.
============================
Of course all but the elite are working class in the sense that they
must rent themselves to the owners of capital in order to live. But
the possession of some capital (especially "human capital") allows the
political class to do so on better terms than the working class. They
are relatively privileged.
The OWS/99% movement appears when
~(a) members of the political class switch their allegiance from the
elite to the working class, and
~(b) members of the working class give up their usual - and usually
accurate - assessment that "nothing can be done" (i.e., only
individual solutions are possible).
IP dissolves this conjunction by substituting individual demands - the
demand for diversity - for the demand for equality. IP can be,
consciously or not, an attack on the OWS/99% movement.
Noam Chomsky wrote fifteen years ago, "American society is now
remarkably atomized. Political organizations have collapsed. In fact,
it seems like even bowling leagues are collapsing. The left has a lot
to answer for here. There's been a drift toward very fragmenting
tendencies among left groups, toward this sort of identity politics."
--CGE
On Dec 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, David Johnson wrote:
> Excellent statement and analysis Stuart !
>
> Some clarification please with the following ;
>
> "- if we become satisfied with being a movement of the tertiary
> bourgeoisie, which isn't true everywhere but cuts uncomfortably
> close to home when looking at the local group "
>
> Few of us are " middle class " anymore, or never were, or in my case
> only for brief periods during certain good employment years.
> Besides, I hate the term " middle class " , most of us ( rather we
> want to acknowledge it or not ) are WORKING CLASS.
> But I understand how and why the term is used by most people to
> designate a certain income level.
>
> I have major problems with Tim Wise, in particular his rant piece in
> early 2009 " The Rage of the Barbituate Left " in which he attacked
> anybody that questioned and criticized Obama's cabinet appointments
> from the middle of Nov. 2008 - early 2009, which compelled me to
> write a counter article " The Denial of the Prozac Liberals ".
> Anyway, your following statement is true, I have seen it manifested
> all too many times in other ways as well.
>
> " And so we see people coming before the Champaign Council, speaking
> from the assumption that police would only batter and the State's
> Attorney would only prosecute those who've done something wrong -
> that's their experience, further supported by daily broadcast
> stereotypes of black and brown thugs. When some groups are excluded
> from housing, or employment, that leaves better choices for whoever
> isn't excluded."
> Dido
>
> " Lots of people, not just the top 1%, have a stake in the system as
> it is,
> and not just via the distant prospect of becoming filthy rich."
>
>
> " If we're satisfied with being a middle-class educated white
> movement...."
>
> I don't think anyone is satisfied with that, and frankly I don't
> think it is or has been this way entirely, although I ( and many
> others ) would like to see more working class people of color become
> active in the movement in some way or another, hopefully as part of
> the larger movement or as a focus group within the movement or
> influenced by the movement ie. the group " Occupy the Hood " with
> chapters in NYC. Phily, and D.C..
> After all, working class people of color have the most to gain since
> they suffer the full brunt of the system ; higher unemployment,
> higher discrimination in bank loans, larger incarceration rates and
> length of sentencing and finally higher rates of police brutality.
>
> Finally.....
>
> " but there are plenty of issues of exploitation - issues which the
> 1% depend on to maintain the status quo - that we won't even realize
> we're missing. And if we don't realize we're missing them, then
> they can be used as levers to divide us again."
> and also...
> "I think the Occupy movement needs to recognize that as part of
> redeveloping class consciousness."
> Very well said !
>
> My basic message / topic on Tuesday is going to be in essence ; " At
> least 80 % of us are being screwed by the 1% and some in the 80% are
> being screwed more than others, in particular WORKING CLASS people
> of color" , and that we need to realize that ; " An injury to one
> should be perceived as an injury to all ", and therefore the
> elimination of those institutional and literal brutalities need to
> be part of the Occupy Movements demands for change.
> HOWEVER, the issue of class needs to be front and center and must
> NOT be allowed to be triviatized(sp. ).
> Lastly, I am going to ask the question of the hosts and whoever else
> may be on the panel " what have you been doing in the community ? "
> and that to quote Eldridge Cleaver ; " You are either part of the
> problem or part of the sollution ".
> I am going to urge that they get out of their Ivory Tower and get
> involved in some way with the best oppurtunity we the people have
> had in 40 years to make change for the better, against corporate ;
> domination and destruction of our economy, it's use of racism to
> divide us and brutalize us, and it's control and castration of our
> democracy and civil liberties ( what little we had to begin with ).
>
> Comments and suggestions please !
>
> David Johnson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stuart Levy
> To: Carl G. Estabrook
> Cc: David Johnson ; Ron Szoke ; David Green ; Karen Medina
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 11:27 AM
> Subject: Re: The 99% and capitalism
>
> This is beautifully stated. But isn't it exactly making my point?
> If we (Occupy) don't acknowledge the existing system of hierarchical
> exploitation -- if we become satisfied with being a movement of the
> tertiary bourgeoisie, which isn't true everywhere but cuts
> uncomfortably close to home when looking at the local group -- then
> how will it call for dismantling that system, compelling the petty
> bourgeoisie to choose regimes -- as part of toppling the 1%?
>
> Tim Wise points out in his discussion of privilege, that every
> excess prosecution (of a person of color, or whatever group lacks
> privilege) implies fewer prosecutions of privileged people. And so
> we see people coming before the Champaign Council, speaking from the
> assumption that police would only batter and the State's Attorney
> would only prosecute those who've done something wrong - that's
> their experience, further supported by daily broadcast stereotypes
> of black and brown thugs. When some groups are excluded from
> housing, or employment, that leaves better choices for whoever isn't
> excluded.
>
> This is just another expression of Trotsky's hierarchical
> exploitation. Lots of people, not just the top 1%, have a stake in
> the system as it is,
> and not just via the distant prospect of becoming filthy rich. I
> think the Occupy movement needs to recognize that as part of
> redeveloping class consciousness.
>
> If we're satisfied with being a middle-class educated white
> movement, then not only do we lose the greatest part of our
> potential strength, but there are plenty of issues of exploitation -
> issues which the 1% depend on to maintain the status quo - that we
> won't even realize we're missing. And if we don't realize we're
> missing them, then they can be used as levers to divide us again. I
> hope that's the kind of thing that might come up on Tuesday.
>
> On 12/3/11 10:20 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>> Stuart--
>>
>> Someone posted the following remark from Trotsky to Louis Proyect's
>> list today. It gets at your interesting discussion of OWS, race, &
>> class.
>>
>> I haven't the energy at the moment to draw the connections, beyond
>> saying that I might substitute "political class" for "petty
>> bourgeoisie" and mean by that what is now called in European
>> sociology the "tertiary bourgeoisie," = the 20% or so of the
>> population who've gone to a good college (including privileged
>> people like you and me). The rest - 80% - we can call "working
>> class" without too much difficulty.
>>
>> I do think that this suggests why "identity politics" is a threat
>> to the class politics that have re-emerged in the Occupy movement.
>>
>> [I should note that I've probably made it clear that I'm a yellow-
>> dog Chomskyan, thus not a Trotskyist or even a Leninist - an
>> anarchist rather than a vanguardist - but I think that old Whig
>> Thomas Aquinas had it right when he said, "The truth, whoever
>> speaks it, is from the Holy Spirit." Trotsky seems to me to speak
>> the truth here, as he often does.]
>>
>> I'm going to cc David Johnson, who's on the panel Tuesday night,
>> and the other regular members of News from Neptune. Regards, CGE
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> While in exile in 1931 Trotsky wrote to a comrade about “the
>>> people’s
>>> revolution”<http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/310414.htm
>>> >.
>>>
>>> The fascist Strasser says 95 percent of the people are interested
>>> in the
>>>> revolution, consequently it is not a class revolution but a
>>>> people’s
>>>> revolution. Thaelmann sings in chorus. In reality, the worker-
>>>> Communist
>>>> should say to the fascist worker: of course, 95 percent of the
>>>> population,
>>>> if not 98 percent, is exploited by finance capital. But this
>>>> exploitation
>>>> is organized hierarchically: there are exploiters, there are
>>>> subexploiters,
>>>> sub-subexploiters, etc. Only thanks to this hierarchy do the
>>>> superexploiters keep in subjection the majority of the nation. In
>>>> order
>>>> that the nation should indeed be able to reconstruct itself
>>>> around a new
>>>> class core, it must be reconstructed ideologically and this can
>>>> be achieved
>>>> only if the proletariat does not dissolve itself into the
>>>> “people,” into
>>>> the “nation,” but on the contrary develops a program of its
>>>> proletarian
>>>> revolution and compels the petty bourgeoisie to choose between
>>>> two regimes.
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20111204/8f99b8b4/attachment.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list