[quetzalcoatl]

Without dismissing the reality of discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, there still remains a fundamental problem.

Any movement based on an alliance of factions is inherently weak; it's fault lines are built in as a matter of design. A minimal amount of correctly applied force is sufficient to sunder the alliance.

A truly universal popular movement, however, is almost impossible to destroy. To do so requires a staggering amount of force applied over a long period; the political and economic costs of such a repression make it problematic.

This is why solidarity is absolutely the most important value to any political movement. Unfortunately, the concept of class alone is insufficient (in a practical sense) as an armature around which to weave a supra-identity. The proletariat in post-industrial capitalism is just too diffuse and atomized. The proletariat no longer exists in the way Marx envisioned — at least not as a recognizable and delimitable group that can be organized. In a trivial sense, the 99% are the new proletariat, but they have few common features around which solidarity might emerge.

At a minimum, any movement whose factions are unwilling to subordinate themselves to a larger solidarity is doomed. For the atomized liberal, such a subordination is a bridge too far.

[Rich]

So these 99%ers. To be in the top 1% in the US you need to earn $400,000 or there about. Does that mean that all those that whine on about the 99% and the 1% want to protect the income and privileges of all those earning under $400,000.

This is what I hate about the left, they're always pretending to be part of some great majority. I'm a British Republican, on that issue I'm hard left. There's only about 10% of us that are hard line, uncompromising Republicans. but the left never want to make an issue of it. they prefer to pretend they are part of some mythical working class culture.

[Decky]

What in gods name are you on about? Of course the left make an issue of our republicanism, we are the only people who do.

[Tainari88]

Without dismissing the reality of discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, there still remains a fundamental problem.

Any movement based on an alliance of factions is inherently weak; it's fault lines are built in as a matter of design. A minimal amount of correctly applied force is sufficient to sunder the alliance.

A truly universal popular movement, however, is almost impossible to destroy. To do so requires a staggering amount of force applied over a long period; the political and economic costs of such a repression make it problematic.

This is why solidarity is absolutely the most important value to any political movement. Unfortunately, the concept of class alone is insufficient (in a practical sense) as an armature around which to weave a supra-identity. The proletariat in post-industrial capitalism is just too diffuse and atomized. The proletariat no longer exists in the way Marx envisioned — at least not as a recognizable and delimitable group that can be organized. In a trivial sense, the 99% are the new proletariat, but they have few common features around which solidarity might emerge.

At a minimum, any movement whose factions are unwilling to subordinate themselves to a larger solidarity is doomed. For the atomized liberal, such a subordination is a bridge too far.

Q, you make a very valid observation and points here. What I can point out is that there are changing demographics. For example, the USA has a diminishing middle class, there is polarization, which means that there are a lot more people falling into the working class and working poor without benefits than are rising into the new middle classes. There is a good opportunity for a cross section of solidarity building. But it requires people to be a lot more social with people and cultures that they don't usually socialize with.

For example you might have Q, university workers who are classified workers who are not unionized. They are mostly Latino, Asian immigrant workers who get paid a regular salary, but they are threatened with cuts or benefit loss. The Asian immigrants and the Latino immigrants have economic interests in common but maybe not language and identity in common. How to build that? You get people who speak for example both an Asian language, Spanish, English and coordinate meetings in various languages dealing the 'solidarity' issue. It can be done. I have seen it and worked in that. And it is POWERFUL as all hell. But you got to get the multilanguage, multicultural liasions, translators, coordinators, community organizers to do a thorough job of organizing with a specific ask.

You got to have a specific ask. That means what is the issue or issues you want to pressure out of the management, or the state, or whoever. The ask has to be specific, with a timeline, a campaign and a whole tactic spelled out. For example, letter writing campaign to a senator, congressperson, or city council rep, that is done? Move on to picketing and radio, TV and social media pressures. Third? Camp out in front of the senators office and get aggressive with sit in and protests. After that? It could be a general strike and national bad press. If it merits that kind of effort.

But you got to find common ground. Many campaigns fracture because you got some white Yuppie liberals who are into a specific thing that doesn't really have a true resonance across the board with Asian immigrants, Latin American workers, African American unions, etc. Got to build huge coalitions. More than that it needs to be hard work. Food for meetings, child care, vans to transport people, time set aside for identifying change items, petitions, and letters.