FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Reform Should Serve Not the Dying Middle-Class, But the Surviving Poor

It took most of two centuries to build the Liberal-Democratic state, to the specs we typically use to explain it.  And less than 40 years for its tacit demolition.  Some of us, who recall fewer bruises from lawless capital than from Capitalism’s well-organized, state institutions, even welcomed getting kicked-out of what we considered a bad home (literally as of 2008).  As the state discards its civic obligations we obediently pick up the tab, from paying for basic health and education, to beating the drum for war.  Instead of despair, a revived sense of ‘publicness’ esteemed us, reductively, as the 99%.  Now, as our patience for Neoliberalism wears thin, a ‘neo-nationalism’ has peaked some imaginations.  In response to Trump’s graceless efforts to revive white-male exclusivity, Liberals have proffered a strawman of their own, embracing a new, broader ‘inclusiveness’.

To (past) solidarity we owe the civil and labor rights and public welfares that made nationhood, if not great, at least bearable.  But it required expanding the state, not gutting it.  Instead, whether making America great again or great for the first time, both parties govern by wrecking ball, with the scrap going to Wall Street.  Unable or unwilling to stem or budding kleptocracy, Liberals have made a separate peace, (ostensibly) creating room for us within Capitalism, instead of attacking its contradictions.

Yet, nationalism’s success was never based on egalite or social justice, but on surplus production.  Contrarily, it served elites by diverting what may have otherwise become class-based solidarity.   Capitalism required a simultaneously strong and weak caretaker; able to both mobilize and restrain mass-labor; strong enough to secure the Capitalist’ advantage, but pliant enough to maintain it.  Despite the obvious contradiction, it claimed both rich and poor should pursue the same goal, even when it yielded vastly different outcomes.  It was a racket, but defensible, due to its immense productivity, presuming the yield would not be just in private dollars, but in broadly-useful development.  Ergo, it promised the working-class a softer form of abuse than they could expect from unofficiated Capitalism.  And to be fair, it did allow for some gradual amelioration for the working-class.  But with surplus, rather than more-equal, shares.  Through affluence, not democracy.

Adhering the masses depended, in equal part, on a collective task, and on some evidence of return.  In which case America, the nation, had ran its course by the 1970s, when imports surpassed exports, and the principal ‘civic’ duty shifted from production to consumption.  (Allegedly this was still the case in 2001, when George Bush proclaimed shopping as a means to fight terrorism, while him and his set to toppling America, the empire.)  Still, since what exactly the public did or received was always somewhat hypothetical, the nation lumbered on.  But now a pressing environmental crisis means the liberal-class, whose sole civic duty was to unsparingly consume, has an added and contrary responsibility not to.  Moreover, if consumption and preservation are conflicting national duties, save our being vessels for debt, neo-nationalism carries no responsibilities.  Hence, without mounting waste to paper over its contradictions, America has to rely solely on ‘we the people’ for its legitimacy.  Itself a contradiction.

By tying popular-class’ hopes for prosperity to the success of the state, nationalism had welcomed, sotto voce, class within popular rule.  ‘Meritocracy’ imbued America with a notion of Liberal-class stewardship.  But it also emphasized nationalism’s lack of space for minorities.  While we are right to fear the erosion of the middle-class, it is because they act as litmus for the larger political-economy (and because we are still slow to take cues from the poor).  But the oft-cited reason -their political clout- is farce.  The atomic family was and remains a steward (and invention) of Capitalism, not Democracy.  Middle-class sentiment ignores that the surrounding poverty is not simply a failure or byproduct of Capitalism, but also a strategy.  Hence, the key to a healthier democracy is not a healthier middle-class, but a less-unhealthy poor.  And selling Liberal-class values to the poor has been anything but democratizing.

Identity politics, born of this, attacked Capitalism -and by extension nationalism’s- inequities in stirring ways.  We owe to it the Left’s few and often pyric victories of recent years.  But decoupled from economics, identity politics, progressivism in general, looks less like democracy, and more like social capital (social in lieu of material, no less).  Where the nation-state promised affluence instead of equality, ‘neo-nationalism’ promotes, rather than engages, sub-groups, and the lower-class, more broadly.  In either case ‘conscientious capitalism’ erodes democracy.

If a larger sliver of the Capitalist pie, and not dismantling, or at least reigning in, Capitalism, is at all the goal, identity politics, progressivism, itself, risks being co-opted.  Consider for example, the internet, where many of our ‘democratic’ hopes now lie.  Like writing and print before, it democratizes participation on an unprecedented scale, but it centralizes control.  It is an invaluable tool, but if we mistake it for democracy, the right to self-determination is effectively reduced to the right to access.  This guts the very definition of democracy as it pertains to the rights of citizens.  It is to beg consideration rather than demand justice- ‘inclusiveness’, rather than solidarity.  But justice, recall, including public health and welfare, is not a courtesy.  It is the minimal payment for our obeying laws that obviously favor the Capitalists.

Until now Capitalism has survived by making sure we haggled over the wrong questions; ‘nation’ instead of ‘class’, us or them, recognition when what we need is solidarity, for examples.  We should dwell less on negotiating these boundaries, and think instead why the rest is so unlivable.  Otherwise, should we ever get around to attacking Capitalism; we’ll have only capitalists at the helm.

More articles by:
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail