FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Immateriality of the Working Class

Anyone who today attends the showing of an anti-war or anti-corporate movie like those produced by Michael Moore will—if he or she is brave enough to notice-find that its audience is composed mainly of college-educated people, many of whom have master’s degrees.

It was not so 70 or even 50 years ago. In those days, the scruffy classes were the chief consumers of anti-establishment cultural fare.

The same thing can be said of today’s anti-imperialist actions. Working stiffs may have volunteered to defend Republican Spain, but today’s human shields in places like Colombia and Palestine come mainly from the ranks of college grads. Demonstrations against the war in Iraq mostly draw college students and middle-agers from the MA crowd.

This has been the case at least since anti-apartheid, anti-sweatshop and anti-globalization demonstrations swept Ivy League campuses in the 80’s and 90’s. Even pre-1970 protest against the Vietnam war-in the era of conscription and student deferments-was a largely collegiate affair.

Republicans, for the usual demagogic reasons, openly assail the demographics of the Left. They allege that activism is an affair of the “elite.”

The Left has responded by saying as little as possible about its class derivation. Shame keeps it silent.

What activists have generally said, during campaigns to organize campus workers, or to divest from apartheid, or to boycott Wal-Mart, is that they are acting for reasons of conscience. It’s as if they felt that it were a religious duty to ally themselves with the less fortunate–as if Dickens, not Marx, provided the text for their movements.

American Leftists do not see their lobbying, their demonstrations or cultural productions as acts of class solidarity. They do not see themselves, nor does hardly anyone see them, as members of the working class. Instead, they regard themselves and are regarded as sons and daughters of a fortunate “middle class.”

Marxists, or at least the members of the nation’s dozen Leninist sects-whose intellectual preparation, enthusiasm and persistence make them an important force on the Left even now–have generally agreed. They view college-educated folk as petty-bourgeoisie, as members of a fickle and frivolous class which, because it is destined to divide its allegiance between Right and Left, is an unreliable ally.

Yet most college graduates, and even most people with graduate degrees, do not take their livings from dividends, nor from what were classically called “the rents,” nor do they buy franchises from Starbucks or McDonald’s. They work for corporations and bureaucracies that serve the bourgeoisie, they pawn their liberty for consumer debt, and they face, more so every day, the specters of outsourcing, layoffs and pension-funding collapse. They say that they “own” their homes, but banks and mortgage lenders hold the notes; most people in the “middle class” are indentured to their houses. They are working folks, however literate or momentarily comfortable they may be.

The sects, heaving romanticized an archaic image of the working class, have encouraged highly-educated Leftists, who might have continued to organize their collegiate classmates, to cast their lots and spend their lives among the poorly-educated; the Greensboro textile union martyrs, two of whom were physicians, were shining examples of that.

The tactic of “industrial concentration,” as the transplant scheme is called, has over the course of 40 years neither slowed the decline of union membership, nor revived its once-militant spirit. Either the number of colonists-perhaps as many as 500 a year–has been insufficient, or the traditional working class has turned a deaf ear.

Most Leninist missionaries stay in their manual-work settings for less than five years. Disillusioned or exhausted, they then enter the college-educated workforce or enroll in graduate school, taking with them a good deal of class insight. But nobody calls upon them to spread class doctrines inside suburbia or in gentrified inner cities, where most of them ultimately settle.

These relatively seasoned agitators become, in one sense, tragic figures-but because of a hypocrisy of sorts. When intellectuals organize the folk, they inevitably encourage it to stay in its place, the better to make the Revolution. Instead of doing that, the fabled industrial proletariat, whatever its parent generation does to preserve, build or defend its union and community organizations, also does whatever it can to send its offspring to college. The effort succeeds often enough that the descendants of shop stewards don’t often preserve family traditions like packing lunch pails and punching time clocks. Almost everyone-Leninists excepted-tries his or her best to rise from the circumstances of manual to those of mental labor. The sons of daughters of the salts of the earth wind up living across the street from the collegians who, in the certainty of youth, tried to discredit the appeal of class mobility.

The Left’s doctrine of downward mobility has been assailed-if only in the politest way–by a handful of scholars, notable among them somewhat utopian Michael Hart of Duke and his co-thinker, Italian anarchist Anotnio Negri. Their 2004 “Multitude,” in a single chapter, 2.1, lays out the theory that highly-educated people in the overdeveloped world-advertising copywriters, journalists, teachers, chefs, programmers and IT operatives-are sensibly classified as “immaterial workers,” people who don’t produce tangible products, but are workers nonetheless. Hardt and Negri even argue that immaterials have the vaunted power to halt production, because in contemporary economies, factories don’t start their motors until marketing studies are done.

Until ten years ago, the attitude of the labor movement, seconded by most Marxists, was that Hardt and Negri’s favorites, as service workers, were mere auxiliaries of the industrial proletariat, and were probably unorganizable, besides. Such skepticism has wanted lately, largely because in order to survive, American unions have had to organize government, retail, janitorial and hospital employees. Greensboro’s textile mills, after all, have gone to China. The nation’s industrial working class has been so thoroughly decimated by automation and globalization that it today makes more sense to say that American industrial workers are immaterial, than to say that immaterials aren’t workers.

While it may be true, in the Marxist paradigm, that only industrial workers can bring about the Revolution, what is undeniable is that, in the United States, it is the immaterials who have distinguished themselves as the organizers of class solidarity actions, as opponents of empire, and as defenders of the rights of the people.

Hardt’s and Negri’s immaterials, even if they haven’t learned to speak in the name of their own economic self-interest-and even if they haven’t discerned their interests–are blindly leading the contemporary class struggle in the United States.

Their consciousness would be more advanced if American Leninists quit looking for signs of the Second Coming of the Great Flint Strike–and paid them mind. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, “We have to make the Revolution not with the proletariat we want, but with the proletariat we’ve got.”

DICK J. REAVIS is an assistant professor of English at North Carolina State University. He can be reached at dickjreavis@yahoo.com

 

 

 

More articles by:

Dick J. Reavis is a Texas journalist and the author of The Ashes of Waco.

November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
Ron Jacobs
Impeach!
Lawrence Davidson
A Tale of Two Massacres
José Tirado
A World Off Balance
Jonah Raskin
Something Has Gone Very Wrong: An Interview With Ecuadoran Author Gabriela Alemán
J.P. Linstroth
Myths on Race and Invasion of the ‘Caravan Horde’
Dean Baker
Good News, the Stock Market is Plunging: Thoughts on Wealth
David Rosen
It’s Time to Decriminalize Sex Work
Dan Glazebrook
US Calls for a Yemen Ceasefire is a Cynical Piece of Political Theatre
Jérôme Duval
Forced Marriage Between Argentina and the IMF Turns into a Fiasco
Jill Richardson
Getting Past Gingrich
Dave Lindorff
Not a Blue Wave, But Perhaps a Foreshock
Martha Rosenberg
Dangerous, Expensive Drugs Aggressively Pushed? You Have These Medical Conflicts of Interest to Thank
Will Solomon
Not Much of a Wave
Nicolas J S Davies
Why Yemeni War Deaths are Five Times Higher Than You’ve Been Led to Believe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail